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 | During the course of the investigation, LPA interviewed staff 1 (S1 thru 2), child (C1 thru 2), and parent (P1 thru 4). LPA also obtained a copy of the children’s roster, and pictures of a bouncer and booster seat.
Allegation regarding- Care providers did not prevent day care child from sustaining injury. LPA interviewed S1, who disclosed that C3 may have sustained an ankle injury while using a Fisher-Price Infant-to-Toddler Rocker. S1 believes the rocker had an exposed screw that may have caused C3 to injure the ankle. Per S1, parents of C3 observed an ankle injury and asked S1 to put socks on C3. S1 stated that C3 would wear socks when using the rocker. S1 stated that the rocker was thrown away and LPA did not observe any rocker during the investigation on 11/13/23. LPA obtained a picture of the rocker used by C3 and observed that the licensee circled the screw covers and added a statement that the areas circled may have caused C3s ankle injury. LPA also accessed the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) website which found that the Fisher-Price Infant-to-Toddler Rocker had been recalled as of June 14, 2022. LPA also observed that the facility was previously cited on 03/01/2019 for having a bouncer accessible to children in care. S1 corrected the deficiency and stated that the bouncer was thrown away. LPA Ramos conducted a Plan of Correction visit on 03/07/2019 and corroborated that S1 removed and discarded the bouncer. S1 has been aware at least since 2019 that the Department prohibits the use of bouncers and any other item that falls into that category. LPA also interviewed S2, who stated being aware of C3s ankle injury, however, didn’t know how it occurred. LPA attempted to interview C1 thru 2, however, children were not qualified. LPA interviewed parents (P1 thru 4). According to P1, S1 was gone “a lot” and children were left with S2. The exact length of time was given, and LPA determined that S2 is qualified to provide care and supervision. According to P1, C4 has been removed from the facility. Parents (P3 thru 4) made no disclosures. According to P3, C2 is always happy during drop off. P3 and P4 stated they do not have any concerns regarding S1 and S2 or the facility.
Allegation regarding- Care providers did not prevent day care child from sustaining injury. LPA interviewed S1, who disclosed that C3 sustained a bruise on the left cheek while falling from a Kids2 booster feeding chair. Per S1, C3 was placed in the booster feeding chair that was placed on top of a dining room chair, did not fastened C3s seat belt and placed the booster seat tray.
Page 2 of 3 |