complaint·March 4, 2026

[Continuation of LIC 9099] On November 5, 2025, the Department visited the facility and interviewed R1, who stated that the incident occurred approximately two months earlier. According to R1, the bracelet had been placed on a nightstand next to their recliner at approximately 9:00 p.m., but the following morning it was missing. R1 believed the bracelet had been taken and later returned four days afterward by S1. The Department subsequently interviewed S1, who acknowledged awareness of both the missing bracelet and the missing facility phone but denied involvement in the disappearance of either item. S1 also claimed not to know how the items were eventually located. The Department interviewed three additional staff members (S2, S3, and S4) who were working during the period of the alleged thefts. S2 and S3 reported that items began disappearing after S1 was hired. S2 believed the facility’s iPhone had been taken by S1, as S1 was the only staff member on shift when the phone went missing. Staff also reported other missing items, including jewelry and debit cards, following shifts worked by S1. S4 disclosed that they personally observed the facility’s red iPhone at S1’s residence and believed it had been given to S1’s landlord (OS1) as payment for past-due rent. OS1 was interviewed and confirmed that S1 had provided them with a red phone as collateral. The phone was later given to S4, who returned it to the facility. OS1 also reported that S1 was subsequently evicted for being two months behind on rent. On November 5, 2025, the Department interviewed ADM, who admitted being aware of the thefts. ADM stated that after learning of the missing items, they informed all staff that if the facility phone and jewelry were not returned by October 21, 2025, law enforcement would be contacted. ADM reported that on October 20, 2025, S1 called and confessed to taking R1’s bracelet. ADM met S1 in a public location to retrieve the bracelet and returned it to R1. S4 also located and retrieved the missing phone from S1’s landlord. It should be noted that the phone had been reported missing two months before S4’s employment began. [Continued on LIC 9099C] [Continuation of LIC 9099C] Upon being notified of the Department’s investigation on November 5, 2025, ADM sent S1 a text message notifying them of termination. On November 6, 2025, the Department received screenshots of text messages between ADM and facility staff confirming ADM’s awareness of the thefts and the ultimatum given to staff to come forward. During ADM’s interview, they explained that they were new to the business and unfamiliar with all regulatory requirements. ADM stated they attempted to give S1 a second chance based on personal cultural values. ADM assumed operational responsibilities in May 2025 after negotiating a contract with the Licensee. A review of facility records confirmed that an application for Change of Ownership (CHOW) was submitted on September 19, 2025, but had not yet been approved. Therefore, the Licensee remained the legal owner and responsible for the facility’s compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. On December 16, 2025, the Department interviewed the Licensee (LIC), who stated that the business had been sold to ADM in May 2025, at which time “day-to-day operational control” was transferred. LIC acknowledged being the “licensee of record” but denied any knowledge of S1 or the thefts. A review of records obtained on November 6, 2025, included a private text message exchange between ADM and LIC containing screenshots of a red phone. ADM asked, “Is this the phone?” LIC responded, “It doesn’t matter to me anymore. That phone and phone number is off our account.” LIC then provided an IMEI number, which indicated a match for the IMEI of the facility’s stolen phone. [Continued on LIC 9099C] [Continuation of LIC 9099C] Based on interviews and records reviewed, a preponderance of evidence indicates that on or before October 20, 2025, S1 committed thefts within the facility, including stealing a resident’s $2,000 bracelet and the facility’s iPhone. Interviews with ADM and staff (S2–S4), along with record review, further corroborated that facility management was aware of the thefts as of October 20, 2025. Per Health & Safety Code §1569.153, reports are to be made to local law enforcement within 36 hours when the administrator of the facility has reason to believe resident property with a then current value of one hundred dollars ($ 100) or more has been stolen. Despite this, ADM did not meet mandated reporting requirements or take action to protect residents until being notified of the Department’s investigation on November 5, 2025, at which point ADM sent S1 a text message to terminate their employment. On November 7, 2025, the Department issued and served an immediate exclusion order prohibiting S1’s employment or presence in any state-licensed facility or Home Care Organization (HCO). [See LIC 811 for Confidential Names] Based on observation, interview and record review, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met and both allegations are substantiated. Deficiencies were cited in accordance with Chapter 8, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations and are listed on the attached LIC 9099(d). An exit interview was conducted with Caregiver Bayani. A copy of this report, along with the LIC 9099(d) and Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC 9058) was provided to Caregiver Bayani and emailed to Licensee at the conclusion of the visit. Signature below confirms receipt.