complaint·June 13, 2025

[CONTINUED FROM LIC 9099] Interviews and records showed: R1 was independent in care and medications, paying Licensee only for room and board. On 03/29/2025, R1 was transported to the emergency room, where they were admitted and hospitalized. On 04/09/2025, R1’s responsible person (RP) vacated R1's apartment of belongings, relinquishing control of the room to Licensee. Licensee continued to bill R1 for room and board through 05/09/2025, which was initially consistent with the 30-day move-out notice provision in R1’s residency agreement, so long as R1 was alive. However, R1 died at the hospital on 04/25/2025, as confirmed by their official death certificate from the county. On 04/30/2025, R1’s RP notified Licensee that R1 had since died, and Licensee replied to confirmed receipt. R1’s admissions agreement states, “Death of Resident: This Agreement shall terminate automatically upon your death.” Furthermore, California Health and Safety Code Section 1569.652 specifies in part, “(a) A residential care facility for the elderly shall not require advance notice for terminating an admission agreement upon the death of a resident. No fees shall accrue once all personal property belonging to the deceased resident is removed from the living unit.” R1’s admissions agreement also states that in cases where a resident has died, “Within fifteen (15) days after your personal property is removed from your apartment, your estate, or other person or entity responsible for payment of fees under this Agreement, will receive a refund of any fees paid in advance covering the period after your personal property has been removed.” This 15-day refund deadline is also consistent with California Health and Safety Code. As of the commencement of CCLD’s investigation on 06/02/2025, Licensee still had not credited/refunded C1’s account/estate for room and board fees from 04/26/2025 through 05/09/2025, as were owed. Additionally, records and interviews showed: Earlier on 11/10/2024, R1 spent $114.88 on pest control products for their facility apartment, in response to seeing mice in their room. Upon discovering this expenditure, R1’s RP spoke with a facility manager, who agreed to speak with the facility administrator regarding a credit/refund of this money. This manager claimed they did speak to the administrator about this. However, the RP told CCLD they did not receive a follow-up response from Licensee, one way or the other. [CCLD’s subsequent investigation substantiated the earlier presence of mice in R1’s facility apartment, based on witness testimony and photographic evidence.] During today’s visit, Licensee agreed to additionally credit/refund this incidental amount to R1’s account/estate. [CONTINUED FROM LIC 9099-C, 2 of 2] [CONTINUED FROM LIC 9099-C, 1 of 2] Based on records and interviews, a preponderance of evidence exists to show Licensee earlier did not issue refund as required to R1. The allegation was therefore Substantiated, and one (1) deficiency was cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22 (refer to the attached LIC 9099-D page). A Plan of Correction were jointly developed with the Licensee. An exit interview was conducted with Zuluaga, to whom a copy of this report, the LIC 9099-D page, the LIC811 Confidential Names List, and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided.