Complaint·April 23, 2025

On December 16, 2024 the Department interviewed R1. R1 stated that S1 helped R1 with their finances. R1 did not know how they or S1 got their money. R1 later revealed that they gave money to S1 because they needed it, at which point R1 offered to give checks to S1. S1 was interviewed at the facility on December 16, 2024. S1’s English was limited so Licensee helped with translation. The Department explained to Licensee that they needed to translate exactly what S1 stated. S1 stated that S1 provided care services to R1, and that R1 was like a parental figure to them. S1 was willing to help R1 since R1 was kind to S1. R1 told S1 that they were an angel and that R1 wanted to marry them, however, S1 refused as they saw R1 like a parent. S1 further stated that they did not ask R1 for money, however it was provided because S1 took care of R1. According to S1, R1 specifically gave them a $500 check and asked them to purchase food for R1. S1 reported that they spent $31 on food for the resident and returned the remaining cash to R1. According to S1, $100 of the remaining funds was then given to an Outside Source (OS1). On another occasion, S1 admitted to receiving a $1,000 check made out to them, which they claimed was then cashed and returned to R1. S1 said that they did not know what R1 did with that cash. S1 further admitted that R1 gave S1 additional checks totaling $3,500. S1 clarified that they received assistance from the Licensee and friends to repay $5,000 to R1’s Power of Attorney (POA), which was confirmed in subsequent interviews conducted by the Department. The Department interviewed R1’s POA/OS1 on December 6, 2024. OS1 corroborated that S1 repaid the cash to OS1 who opened a new account in R1’s name deposited the funds into it. OS1 stated that OS1 also took R1’s checkbook and debit card after learning about the financial abuse. On December 16, 2024 OS1 provided the department with additional information. OS1 stated that S1 had recently proposed to marry R1 and R1 was going to give S1 $500. OS1 spoke with Licensee regarding the matter and Licensee stated that R1 could gift the money if R1 wanted to. The Licensee of the facility was interviewed at the facility on December 16, 2024. Licensee stated they received a call from OS1 who reported that money was missing from R1’s account. After receiving the report, Licensee said they questioned S1 regarding the matter and S1 confirmed that they received the money since R1 wanted to help them. Continued on LIC 9099C. Licensee stated that S1 had a large family with financial struggles. After learning what occurred, Licensee called OS1 to resolve the matter. Licensee stated that $5,000 cash was paid to OS1 to repay R1. Licensee helped S1 repay R1. Licensee stated that OS1 advised them that $5,000 was taken from R1’s account, but S1 stated they were only given $3,500. S1 stated they received three checks of $500. The first check S1 cashed, bought some fruit for R1, then returned the leftover change which was $469 to R1. Of the $469, R1 gave OS1 $100 so $379 was left on R1’s person. On another instance, R1 gave a $1,000 check to S1 and S1 cashed it and returned the cash to R1. S1 advised Licensee that they did not ask for any of the money. Licensee further stated that OS1 was not R1’s power of attorney at the time of these transactions. Licensee stated that they spoke with other Community Care Licensing staff and an outside agency who both stated R1 was alert. Outside agency told Licensee that R1 was in their right state of mind, and they believed R1 had the right to give money to whoever they wanted. R1 told Licensee that they wanted to rescind the POA. Licensee stated that they were not aware of any relationship between S1 and R1. R1 had told Licensee in the past that R1 liked S1 and wanted to marry S1. Licensee stated that S1 gave R1 the “attention for the care that R1 needed.” Licensee instructed staff not to talk about family issues with residents and emphasized the importance of not accepting gifts from residents. Licensee further stated that they suspended S1 from employment after the incident but planned to resume S1’s employment since S1 needed to work to repay the $5,000 to Licensee. A subpoena was served to TD Bank, N.A. on December 10, 2024 to obtain R1’s bank records for R1’s account at TD Bank. The Department received bank records for R1’s bank account. The expenditures were reviewed after R1’s admission to the facility on September 17, 2024. The following relevant information was found: Five personal checks were written to S1 between October 10, 2024 and November 23, 2024 totaling $5,000. Per the interviews conducted during the audit, the Department learned that R1 voluntarily gave the checks to S1, and S1 accepted the money. S1 stated that S1 did not keep all $5,000 that was withdrawn and returned some of the cash to R1. During this time, R1 did not have a conservator or Power of Attorney, but the Physician’s report indicated that R1 had a Major Neurocognitive Disorder and was not capable of managing their own cash resources. The Licensee was advised to ensure all new hire's have appropriate on-boarding training to include Personal Rights training with a focus on financial exploitation/abuse. Based on interviews which were conducted and record review to include the results from the financial audit, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation was found to be substantiated. California code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6 & Chapter 8 is being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report along with Licensee Rights (LIC 9058 03/22) were provided to Administrator, Irma Laconsay whose signature below confirms receipt of these rights.