complaint·November 20, 2025

Continued from 9099... COVID quarantine. Per licensee, R1 was agitated and fought with the staff to be let out of their room. However, R1’s attempts were unsuccessful and R1 remained confined to their room until at least 9/30/25. During investigation, LPA interviewed staff. Staff report that R1 was isolated to their room between 1-2 weeks. Additionally, complaint alleges violation of personal rights of R1 in that during isolation, R1 was not provided any activities. R1 did not have a TV in their room. Licensee put a TV in R1’s room the 2nd day of isolation. However, the TV only played a screensaver of a fishbowl. During investigation, LPA confirmed through observation that the TV only displayed a fishbowl screensaver. LPA was informed that TV did not work other than the screensaver and that remote was not available or lost. During investigation, LPA made observations of R1’s room. Room did not contain any materials that could be considered an activity such as a book, magazine, word search, tablet, crayons, crafts, or DVD player. Aside from a few photographs on the wall R1 had nothing else in the room except a bed, chair, and lamp. LPA did not observe anything in the form of entertainment or stimuli located in R1’s room. LPA confirmed through interviews that the facility was not having an outbreak of COVID and the R1 was the only resident who had tested positive for COVID. The Department of Public Health did not and does not have any requirement for the limitation of visitation. Additionally, the State of California is not in a state of emergency pertaining to COVID. On 3/11/24, CCL sent out PIN 24-01-ASC which superseded PIN 23-13-ASC issued 6/15/23. PIN 23-13-ASC indicated the latest guidance on isolation and testing, visitation, and infection control requirements including masking guidance and the removal of quarantine recommendations for persons in care and staff pertaining to COVID. However, per the California Department of Public Health, as of 1/9/24, this guidance is for historical purposes only. Therefore, there are no regulatory requirements in place requiring isolation or denial of visitation by those that have tested positive for COVID. So, the licensee cannot of their own volition choose to limit visitation by I1 to the facility to visit with R1. So, based on LPA’s interviews and observation, 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 9099D. Continued on 9099C(2)... . Continued from 9099C... Exit interview conducted with licensee and appeal rights given. Note** LPA and Admin discussed concerns regarding COVID safety precautions. Licensee expressed that he is concerned above all things about the safety and health of his staff and residents. Licensee recognizes that the state of California is not in an emergency state pertaining to COVID. However, in order to ensure the safety and health of all residents and staff licensee will provide an addendum to the House Rules stating that any visitors that are identified as being positive for COVID will be allowed to enter the facility but will be required to wear a mask during visitation.