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 | Per the reporting party, the parents of C1 reported that when the child was walking toward the restroom, the licensee's dog bit C1.
When LPA conducted interviews, S1, S2, and S4 all stated that the dog jumped on the child's leg when the child was coming out of the restroom. The dog was being playful, not aggressive. All three observed the child's body after the incident at various times, and none noticed any marks or injuries. C1 never cried or complained of any pain. The mark that the parents showed S1 was on the back of the child's thigh. The dog jumped on the front of the child's left leg. S3 stated that S1 and she checked the child's body and did not see any bite marks.
When LPA conducted interviews, C1 stated that Champagne bit them but kept changing the spot of the injury to several different areas of each of their legs. The child was unable to show a concrete spot where the dog bit them. When conducting interviews, C2 stated that C1 told them that Champagne bit them. When S3 and S1 heard this, they came and checked their body. C2 showed their left calf to show the area of the injury. C2 explained that they did not see a mark on C1, and neither did the teachers. The parents did not provide a doctor's report when requested by LPA.
The second allegation indicates that “Staff did not provide aid to child's injury.”
Page 2 |