complaint·July 21, 2025

None of the staff interviewed witnessed the injury reported on 5/16/25. One witness (W1) was interviewed on 6/24/25 and stated they picked up C1 both times on 5/16 and 5/29 the alleged injuries occurred at the facility. W1 indicated they saw C1 licking their lips and noticed some redness below C1\342\200\231s nose on the first incident 5/16/25 . W1 stated they witnessed scratches and some blood on the side of C1\342\200\231s leg on the second incident 5/29/25 . W1 immediately requested for S1 to observe the injuries. W1 stated that the facility staff did not report the incident. W1 informed C1\342\200\231s parent of the injuries witnessed on 5/29/25, and none of the staff reported any knowledge of C1\342\200\231s injuries while at the facility. Nine parents were interviewed on 6/24/25 and 7/17/25. Seven parents interviewed stated they had no issues with the facility reporting incidents. Most parents felt if there had been an injury or incident, they were informed either through verbal communication or by receiving an injury report. Two parents (P4 & P6) indicated that their children have been injured at the facility, and it had not been reported to them. Facility provided documents showing correspondence regarding the alleged injuries and photos were obtained. LPA received photos of C1's injuries from reporting party on 6/3/25. Based on the evidence obtained, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be substantiated. California Code of Regulations, (Title 22), is being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. Exit interview conducted and report was reviewed with the facility representative Melissa Murphy-Correa . Appeal rights were provided. A notice of site visit was given and must remain posted for 30 days. Failure to comply with posting requirements shall result in an immediate civil penalty of $100. This page was created in error.