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 | Four (4) out of four (4) Clients at the facility denied seeing any physical force used by S1. They provided positive character references for S1, stating they missed S1s presence at the facility. When interviewed, C1 was unable to explain how the injury occurred but spoke fondly of S1 and stated C1 missed S1 at the facility.
The dentist who performed dental work on C1 indicated that the bridge was durable and in order for the bridge to break C1 would have needed to bite down on something extremely hard and twisted it in their mouth. The dentist added that C1’s tooth could have broken if it was hit straight on with something hard. Crucially, the dentist noted that there was no evidence of any facial trauma on C1, which typically accompanies a forceful impact on the face.
The department Staff concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove the allegation of abuse occurred. The combination of C1s documented history of aggressive self-harm, the lack of corroborating witness testimony, and the absence of external facial injuries led department staff to determine that the injury could not be definitively linked to staff misconduct.
Based on the evidence found during the investigation, the allegations listed Staff handled resident in a rough manner resulting in injury, is deemed UNSUBSTANTIATED. A finding that the complaints are UNSUBSTANTIATED means although the allegation may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur. During today’s visit, no deficiencies were cited per Title 22, Division 6, of the California Code of Regulations.
An exit interview was conducted, and this report (LIC9099) was discussed and provided to Facility Licensee Tammy Osby and Conrad Osby.
|