Complaint·November 21, 2023

The first of these two letters included R1’s advance health care directive, appointing R1’s RP as R1’s attorney-in-fact, along with a written authorization for this facility to release R1’s records to the complainant, which was signed by R1’s RP and dated 4/24/23. The second of these two letters reiterated the request for documents. Both letters were sent via fax. LPA Moleski reviewed R1’s file at the facility and observed a letter, dated 4/27/23, sent to the facility by representatives of R1’s RP. The letter outlined a request for R1’s complete resident records dating from 1/1/19 to present. LPA Moleski reviewed R1’s LIC 601 and observed that R1’s RP was listed as R1’s responsible party. During an interview, Almendrala confirmed that she had received both letters sent by representatives of R1's RP via fax. Almendrala provided copies of the letters to LPA Moleski. Almendrala said that, prior to receiving these faxed letters, she had provided R1’s RP with R1’s admission agreement, and no further documents. Almendrala said she took no further action after receiving the faxed letters. LPA Moleski interviewed a representative of the complainant on 11/17/23. The representative said the complainant no longer needs the documents requested. The department has determined the following as it relates to the allegation that the facility failed to provide records to a responsible party: Based on record review and interview with Almendrala, records were not provided within two days as required. Therefore, the above allegation is SUBSTANTIATED. A finding that the complaint allegation is substantiated means that the allegation is valid because the preponderance of evidence standard has been met. This facility is being cited per 22 CCR Section 87468.2(a)(19) . An exit interview was held with Almendrala. Appeal rights and a copy of this report were left with Almendrala.