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 their interview, Staff 3 (S3) stated that they first saw the video about a year ago when Staff 4 (S4) shared it with them. S3 stated they are unaware of who took the video or how S4 obtained the video. Per S3, they shared the video with AD immediately after it was taken however AD did not complete an incident report or report the videos to authorities and instead recommended an in-service training for staff.
During their interview, S4 stated they did not know S2 personally but recalled them delivering supplies, food, and medicine. Per S4, S1 worked with them at the facility, and they never witnessed them hit or harm any of the clients. S4 stated both S1 and S2 no longer work at the facility, and they have not seen them nor had any further contact with them since.
During their interview, S5 identified previous staff, S1 in video one and video two. S5 identified previous staff, S2 in video three. S5 denied any knowledge of who took the videos and stated that they had not seen the first two videos prior but saw the third video about a year ago when S3 sent it to them. S5 stated they deleted the video after viewing it and stated that they had not reported what they viewed. S5 denied ever witnessing any abuse or mistreatment of the clients.
Based on staff interviews and video evidence, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met; therefore, the above allegation is found to be substantiated. Deficiencies are being cited per Title 22 Division 6 of the California Code of regulations. (See LIC9099-D) and an Immediate $500 Civil Penalty is being assessed (see LIC421IM). Additional Civil Penalty is pending determination as per Health and Safety Code 1548(f)(1)(A).
An exit interview was conducted. A copy of this report, and appeal rights were left at the facility. |