Complaint·December 5, 2024

Continued from 9099... The resident passed away on 10/21/24 and the resident’s personal effects, not including hospice equipment, were removed 10/22/24. So, the resident’s responsible party is responsible to pay a total of eight [8] days for the period covering 10/15/24 to 11/15/24 The daily rate was $235.48 so a total of $1883.84 is the amount due to the licensee to cover the time period of 10/15/24 to 10/22/24. The licensee was paid $7300 to cover the time period of 10/15/24-11/15/24. • $7300 divided by 31 is $235.48 • $7300 minus $1883.84 is $5416 So, the amount due to the resident's responsible party was $5416. However, during the resident’s final days of transition, the licensee charged the resident an increased supervision for care needs fee, as the resident now required increased supervision. This increased fee was in the amount of $1000. This fee was agreed to via verbal agreement that occurred via telephone between the licensee and the resident’s responsible party on 10/28/24, as acknowledged in evidence obtained. So the refund due to resident’s responsible party is $4416. The licensee refunded the resident’s responsible party $4475 on that same day, 10/28/24, the check was mailed to the resident’s responsible party's post office box. On Friday, November 1, 2024 the resident’s responsible party acknowledged, in writing, that they received the check from the licensee in the amount of $4475. Per Health and Safety Code 1569.652(c) a licensee has 15 days after the resident’s personal property is removed to issue a refund of any monies due. In this instance, the licensee refunded the monies due within 6 days. On 10/25/24 the resident contacted an outside consulting firm to advocate for a refund from the licensee. Per evidence obtained, resident asked licensee to cover half of the fee paid to an outside consulting agency in the amount of $350. However, there is no regulation within California’s Title 22 that requires licensees to pay for advocacy fees. CCL has investigated the complaint alleging staff did not provide resident's authorized representative with the correct refund . We have found that the complaint was unfounded, meaning that the allegation was false, could not have happened and/or is without a reasonable basis.