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 | Allegation: Facility in disrepair
It was alleged that; the facility is in despair, lights were inoperable. This investigation consisted of facility observations and interview. On 3/19/2025 LPA Lee conducted a tour of the facility; upon observation the facility was observed in good repair. On 5/6/2025 LPA Hughes and Lee conducted a follow-up facility visit, and observed the facilities resident bathroom, which was observed to be in good repair, lighting within the facility was observed operable and in good repair. Additionally, on 5/28/2025, LPA Hughes interviewed 4 out of 5 residents who had no concerns with the facility being in disrepair. Based on observation, and interviews conducted, no corroborating evidence was identified upon examination of the allegation.
The investigation revealed the preponderance of evidence standards have not been met; therefore, the above allegations are found to be UNSUBSTANTIATED. A finding that the complaint allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED means that although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violations occurred.
Per California Code of Regulations (CCRs) - Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 6, no deficiencies were cited. An Exit interview was conducted with XXXXX and a copy of this report LIC 9099, LIC 9099-C, LIC 9099-A was provided, along with Appeal Rights and the LIC 811, the Confidential Names List.
|