complaint·January 29, 2026

continued from 9099-A..... During investigation, LPA reviewed R1’s Preplacement appraisal which indicates that, upon admission, the facility concluded that R1 required a two-person assist. The Preplacement appraisal also indicates that R1 needed a two-person assist when needing help with transferring in and out of bed and dressing. Licensee advised LPA that additional reason for eviction was that he was sick of R1’s responsible party’s demands. LPA advised licensee of regulation 87224 which provides the conditions under which a resident can be lawfully evicted. Licensee did not issue a formal written eviction notice, only a text message indicating his frustration and desire to have R1 find another home. R1 subsequently left the facility. However, R1 was not removed from the facility by licensee, R1 left of their own accord. So, although the allegation 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. Copy of report read and given to administrator continued from 9099.... During the investigation, licensee advised LPA that they “could not handle” R1’s care any longer because R1 had “too many changes of condition". Licensee advised LPA during preplacement it was determined that R1 was only a one person assist, according to facility’s assessment. However, licensee claims that R1 was now requiring a two-person assist which is a higher level of care than previously identified. During investigation, LPA reviewed R1’s Preplacement appraisal which indicates that, upon admission, the facility concluded that R1 required a two-person assist. The Preplacement Appraisal also indicates that R1 needed a two-person assist when needing help with transferring in and out of bed and dressing. LPA reviewed R1’s Admission Agreement, which lists the basic services provided by the facility will include, at a minimum, assistance with bathing. LPA requested proof of facility providing showers to R1 but facility could not produce a shower log or any documentation of facility providing showers. Additionally, during the investigation, LPA conducted interviews. Witness (W1) reported to LPA that facility staff refused to give R1 showers due to R1’s large size and having to use a Hoyer lift; instead, they would give R1 bed baths. W1 reported to LPA that the only showers R1 received were provided by non-facility staff. Therefore, based on LPA’s interviews and record review, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegations are found to be SUBSTANTIATED. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6 Chapter 8, are being cited on the attached 9099-D. Copy of report read and given to administrator. Appeal rights given.