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 | Continued from LIC 9099
Throughout the course of the investigation, LPA reviewed all documents obtained, conducted telephonic and in-person interviews with additional credible witnesses and other relevant parties. During today's visit, LPA conducted a brief physical plant tour, no health and safety concerns. The following was then determined:
Regarding allegation of “Staff does not ensure residents are accorded reasonable accommodations” it was alleged that a resident’s request to move to a vacant, refurbished room, due to recent flooding, outdated room conditions, and high monthly fees, was not considered by the former ED, Terri Seifert. Interview with former ED revealed that room change requests are evaluated on a case-by-case basis at management discretion, based on individual circumstances and unit availability. The current ED Lilit Mnatsakanyam, explained that according to corporate, residents who lived in the community prior to the ownership change from “Sunrise Senior Living of Woodland Hills” (Sunrise) to Ivy Park at Woodland Hills (Ivy Park) were communicated verbally during a meeting held with residents of the option to either keep their original Sunrise agreement with existing perks and discounts or sign a new agreement under Ivy Park. The Reporting Party (RP), who pays a monthly rent and a $42 care fee under a Sunrise agreement, did not recall being offered a new contract and admitted not inquiring about the differences. The RP expressed concern that new residents are paying significantly lower rent than those who moved in under previous ownership. In December 2024, the RP requested to be moved to a vacant, recently refurbished apartment of the same size, and to pay the same monthly rent as new residents moving into the community. According to the RP, this request was submitted verbally to community management. The RP stated that initially, there was no response, but after several weeks, they were approved to move into the refurbished unit, However, the monthly rent amount was not going to be reassessed or reduced. RP declined this offer and reported that later, they requested to remain in their current apartment and have their rent lowered instead, but the former ED indicated that they were never presented with this request. When asked, the RP acknowledged that they eventually stopped inquiring about the matter.
Continued on LIC 9099-C
|