1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 | “Staff did not provide proper supervision to clients in care” It is alleged that staff did not follow required 1:3 staffing ration in January 2026. Two (2) out of the two (2) staff interviews corroborated this allegation. LPA attempted interviews with C1, C2 and C4. Due to documented intellectual disabilities, and because C1, C2 and C4 are non-speaking or use limited speech, their responses could not be relied upon. Interview with C3 and C5 did not corroborate this allegation. Interview with C1-C5’s placement agency revealed that they reviewed staffing timesheets for 01/14/2026 which revealed there was only one (1) staff from 8am to 12pm, 1pm-9pm and no staff providing direct care/supervision from 12pm-1pm and after 9pm. From 01/05/26 through 01/08/26, there was one (1) staff from 6pm-8pm and no staff providing direct care/supervision after 8pm. On 01/09/26, there was 1 staff from 2pm-5pm, 6pm-10pm and no staff providing direct care/supervision until 8am, from 4pm-9pm there was only one (1) staff and no staff after 9pm providing direct care/supervision. Review of Eastern Los Angeles Corrective Action Plan (CAP) corroborated this allegation. Based on interviews and records reviewed, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be Substantiated.
“Facility does not have a waiver to retain clients over age of 60” It is alleged that four (4) out of the five (5) client’s in care are over the age of 60 and the facility does not have an approved aged over exception on file. Two (2) out of the two (2) staff interviews corroborated this allegation. LPA attempted interviews with C1, C2 and C4. Due to documented intellectual disabilities, and because C1, C2 and C4 are non-speaking or use limited speech, their responses could not be relied upon. Interview with C3 and C5 did not corroborate this allegation. Interview with C1-C5’s placement agency corroborated this allegation. Review of Eastern Los Angeles Corrective Action Plan (CAP) corroborated this allegation. Review of the facility file did not reveal this facility has requested or been approved for an aged over exception, for clients in care. During review of client files, LPA Ramirez observed that four (4) out of the five (5) clients in care are over 60 years of age. Based on interviews and records reviewed, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be Substantiated.
Based on LPAs observations and interviews, 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 and Chapter 1 & 6 are cited on the attached LIC 9099D.
Four (4) deficiencies were cited during this complaint investigation. A copy of this report, 9099-D and appeals rights was provided. |