Complaint·May 20, 2026

Although three Staff members were present at the time of the biting incident, only S3 witnessed the incident. Per S3, C1 went towards C2 and tried to play with C2 and climbed on C2 and then C2 bit C1. According to interviews with S1, S2 and S3, there’s been biting incidents with C2 in the past. Although training on how to prevent biting was provided to Staff, Staff wasn’t able to prevent this incident from occurring even though Staff is aware that C2 has a history of biting. Regarding the allegation: Staff did not provide proper medical treatment to infant in care. Reporting Party (RP) alleged that Staff applied an ice pack to C1’s injury for a prolong amount of time which caused a blister due to frostbite. Per interviews with Staff, after the biting incident between C1 and C2, S2 applied an ice pack directly on C1’s injury. LPA took photo’s of ice packs and instructions on the ice pack which indicated: Do not use on infants. LPA conducted online research regarding the safety use of children ice packs and observed that ice pack should always be wrapped in a cloth or built in cover before applying to an infant’s skin which reduces the risk of burns or frostbite during cold therapy. Review of medical reported indicated that C1 had a superficial frostbite of the forearm with blister. Unusual but likely from prolonged ice pack exposure. Based on LPA’s record review, observations and interviews conducted, the preponderance of the evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegations are found to be SUBSTANTIATED. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 12 & Chapter 1, Article 6, Section 101216(e)(3) and 101216(a) are being cited on the attached LIC9099D. Exit interview conducted with Director Gina Nicastro and copy of this report and appeal rights provided. A Notice of Site Visit was also provided and must be posted for 30 days. page 2 of 2