complaint·February 20, 2025

Reporting Party (RP) reported that they became notified that they were not allowed to visit the facility when the resident (R1) called them to inform them that facility management told them that RP was not allowed to visit the facility. RP said that the following day they were contacted by facility management to discuss concerns. RP said the facility accused them of visiting outside of visiting hours, going in staff only areas and not signing in and out of the visitors log. It was agreed that RP was allowed to visit the facility as long as visitor policy was followed. RP denied ever being denied access at the facility and denied ever being turned away at the facility. Interview with outside source/R1’s responsible party (OS2), revealed that they were aware of the situation and stated that the issue had been resolved. OS2 stated that it was unclear if the RP had been denied access to the facility or facility was just suspicious of RP’s motive. Interview with R1 revealed that facility management said that RP was not allowed to visit the facility, although it was unclear if RP would be denied access to the facility or it was asked that RP only visit when abiding by visitor rules. R1 reported that RP has been to visit since this and stated that there have been no other issues with visitors. 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.