Complaint·December 6, 2024

Based on documents provided by the facility, it revealed that the LULA lift was maintenance every month by the San Francisco Elevator Services. During LPA's visit on 3/28/2024, LPA observed the LULA lift was in operating condition. After the investigation, this allegation is unsubstantiated. The elevator was malfunctioned, however, the facility followed its preventive maintenance program as the elevator was being serviced on a monthly basis and the incident that happened in December 2023 was an accident and monitoring company responded immediately. Regarding to the allegation of- facility has no designated person to cover for administrator while he/she is not present, there is no additional information forthcoming from the reporting party. However, during the initial reporting, the reporting party stated that when R1 was stuck in the LULA lift, there was no manager on the premises to assist the situation. As part of the investigation, LPA interviewed the Director of Health Services who stated that there was always more than one manager at the facility during business hours and a manager was assigned to be on-call during non-business hours and the assigned manager would be answering calls from the facility and providing assistance 24/7. Based on documents provided by the facility, LPA observed a list of on-call managers who rotates on a weekly basis. After the investigation, this allegation is unsubstantiated as there was a designated manager covering the administrator when the administrator was not at the facility. Regarding to the allegation of Financial Malfeasance, there is no additional information provided by the reporting party. Based on the review of audited financial statements for fiscal year ends (FYE) 2021,2022, and 2023, Budget Presentations for FYE 2022 and interviews with the complainant and the Provider, the CCCB did not find instances of financial malfeasance related to the misuse of investment funds or monthly care fees. After the investigation, this allegation is deemed to be unsubstantiated. Although the above investigations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED A copy is provided.