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 | LPA reviewed the eight (8) photos of the alleged injuries. One (1) photo time stamped 03/26/2020, one day after the incident, showed R1 had some swelling on their left eye. LPA did not observe a cut on the resident’s face or black line under the resident’s eye.
Resident interviews provided conflicting information. One interview revealed S1 had punched R1 with a closed fist on their left eye. This interview could not provide information on time the incident occurred or what prompted the incident. Second interview revealed that this resident was present however they denied that the incident occurred.
The investigation revealed police responded to the incident. A review of the police report dated 03/25/2020 was completed. It documented interviews where it was reported S1 “slapped” R1 on their face twice. It was also documented law enforcement’s observation of R1’s eye being “slightly puffy”. The police report notes that law enforcement was told R1’s eyes were “puffy” from rubbing them all day.
Staff present during the incident were interviewed, which revealed staff denied S1 slapped R1. Staff provided information that R1 had earlier been in an altercation with Resident 2 (R2) where R1 had hit R2. R1 later was upset and alleged S1 had hit them. This was also corroborated and reviewed on a Progress Note written and signed by S2 dated 03/25/2020.
It should be noted that police referred the case to the District Attorney’s (DA) office, but the DA “declined prosecution in the matter” according to a letter dated 09/14/2023. Therefore, this allegation is unsubstantiated at this time.
Regarding the allegation, “Staff yelled at resident.” It was alleged that S1 had yelled at R1 on 03/25/2020. It was alleged that S1 had yelled at R1 and called them a “liar.” Staff interviews revealed that staff denied yelling or witnessing S1 yell at R1. During resident interviews, it was revealed that R2 called R1 a liar. Conflicting information was found whereas, one interview revealed S1 called R1 a liar and the other denied this incident happened. Therefore, this allegation is unsubstantiated at this time.
Findings that are unsubstantiated mean although the allegation may be valid, the preponderance of the evidence standard has not been met.
An exit interview was conducted with… where this report was reviewed and provided to them. |