complaint·August 23, 2024

R1’s admission at the facility or for R1’s medications. ADM stated to have made numerous attempted telephone calls to R1’s Family Member (FM) FM1 to seek assistance in re-activating R1’s Medical funding. LPA reviewed R1’s resident record and obtained copies of resident records. LPA did not observe any documents in R1’s record that R1 is conserved or has a Power-of-Attorney. LPA interviewed R1 during visit and R1 stated that R1 does not need medications. On 08/16/2024, LPA Marrufo conducted a telephone interview with FM1. FM1 stated to not have any conservatorship or legal authority on behalf of R1. FM1 stated to have visited R1 at the facility and observed changes in R1’s verbal communication that led FM1 to believe R1 was not receiving any medications. On 08/16/2024, LPA Marrufo conducted a telephone interview with Witness W1, who is a staff at R1’s placement agency. W1 stated that R1 has been R1’s own decision maker throughout the entire process of R1’s Medical becoming de-activated. W1 stated that after R1 was discharged from the hospital before R1 was admitted to the facility, there were discussions within R1’s placement agency that R1 lacked capacity to make decisions and the only person available to help R1 was FM1, who was not R1’s conservator or power of attorney. On 08/16/2024, LPA Marrufo conducted a telephone interview with Witness W2, who is a staff at R1’s placement agency. W2 stated to have left a voicemail with ADM on 08/02/2024 and then later received a telephone call back from ADM on 08/07/2024 and reported to ADM that R1’s Medical had been re-activated. See LIC9099-C for more information. Page 2 of 3. During interview with ADM on 08/22/2024 at another facility where ADM is a staff and where LPA was conducting an annual inspection visit, ADM stated that R1’s placement agency contacted ADM stating that R1’s Medical had been re-activated. However, ADM stated that when ADM contacted R1’s placement agency’s billing department to receive funds for R1, the billing department staff at R1’s placement agency told ADM that R1’s Medical had not been reactivated and the billing agency would be rejecting ADM’s request for back pay for R1’s care. ADM stated that during a meeting between ADM, R1, and R1’s placement agency that occurred on 08/20/2024, R1 was asked if R1 would like to have R1’s Medical re-activated and R1 declined. Based on information from interviews conducted with staff, resident, and witnesses, and records reviewed, although the allegation listed above may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur. Therefore, the allegation is unsubstantiated. No Deficiencies were cited under California Code of Regulations Title 22. This report was reviewed with Myla Ilagan and a copy of this report was provided. Page 3 of 3. END REPORT