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 | It was also revealed by (1) client that S1 was told a visitor of C1 made them feel uncomfortable due to information that the visitor had previously abused C1, had yelled at staff and residents, and had stolen person items from a client at the facility. The client revealed staff told them to “deal with it”, and felt S1 favored C1 and felt dismissed when they continued to allow the visitor to come to the facility. Attempts were made to interview C1, however they were unavailable for interview. Text messages were provided which were verified by the LPA from S1 telling client to not “bother” staff when they expressed their concerns on C1’s visitor.
LPA interviewed (3) staff including S1, which revealed staff was unaware of any corroborating information that the visitor had abused C1, or stolen from a client at the facility. (3) staff revealed they continued to allow the visitor into the home due to C1’s personal rights to visitors. S1 denied favoring C1 and confirmed they have blocked clients and stated they believe they have that right are client are not entitled to their attention 24/7. Therefore, it was found that staff are displaying preferential treatment toward clients based on LPA observation, record review, and interview.
It was alleged that “Staff speaks inappropriately to resident.” It was alleged that on 08/07/2025 S1 sent Client #2 (C2) text messages saying they should move out of the facility, C2 had ruined their day due to having to come over to the facility because C2 is in other peoples business.
There were screen captured text messages provided to the LPA for review. The contact phone number sending the text messages and the text conversation was verified by the LPA in real time. Texts from S1 addressed to C2 stated “thanks a lot” for “the drama you cause”, “you ruined my day and I know I have to come over because your in people business”. S1 also texts “If you don’t like my house”, “ you’re welcome to move”, “please do”.
Interview with C2 revealed that S1 has been speaking to them in an inappropriate manner since January of 2025. S1 denied speaking inappropriately to C2 and confirm they sent the text messages above. S1 stated they believed they were not addressing C2 inappropriately as they did not curse, did not mean the statements in a negative way, and stated they have the right to tell clients when they are wrong and ruining their day.
|