complaint·February 20, 2025

Regarding the allegation, it was reported that reporting party received a bill from facility after resident (R1) moved out. Report says that fees should have been waived. Interviews with facility staff revealed that R1 resided at the facility and no payment was ever made to facility. A review of records revealed that that charges were made for the time that resident resided at the facility and no payments were made. Records review revealed that facility notified reporting party of balance due and there was no indication that balance due would be waived. Facility staff reported that since balance was past due, account was sent to collections. Interview with reporting party (RP) revealed that RP was told by an unknown staff via telephone, that the balance due would be waived due to RP being unsatisfied with facility. RP was unable to provide a name of staff whom they spoke to and was unable to provide any documentation that facility would waive the balance owed. Based upon the foregoing, the above listed allegations are unsubstantiated. This finding means that the preponderance of the evidence standard has not been met and the allegations are not valid. No deficiencies were cited today. An exit interview was conducted with Botello. A copy of this report along with licensee rights (LIC 9058, 3/22) was provided to Botello whose signature below verifies receipt of these rights.