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 | [CONTINUED FROM LIC9099]
An eviction notice had been delivered to R1, and an eviction date was provided, however, R1 was already looking for a new facility due to having received a previous eviction notice, which required reissuance due to unrelated circumstances. According to the ED, R1 was able to locate and move to a different facility before the effective date of the most recent eviction notice, approximately one week after receiving it.
That same day, LPA contacted the RP. RP stated they were aware of the reasons the eviction notice was issued and confirmed that R1 had relocated to a new facility. RP reported that R1 was happy at their new facility and disclosed the reason R1 previously felt discriminated against, which related to the level of care R1 required. RP explained that this need made it difficult for R1 to find a new placement initially.
Regarding the statement that R1 “didn’t want to live anymore,” LPA asked RP whether they believed this indicated genuine intent. RP stated that R1 often uses that phrase without intent to act on it and that they did not believe R1 was at risk of self-harm.
LPA subsequently visited R1 at their current facility and conducted an interview. R1 stated they wished to move forward and leave the prior situation behind. R1 denied any intention to harm themselves and acknowledged feeling discriminated against during the eviction process. However, R1 expressed optimism about starting over at the new facility and not reliving the previous experience.
Based on interviews, record review, and LPA observations, the preponderance of evidence standard was not met. Therefore, the allegation is unsubstantiated. No deficiencies were cited in accordance with Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations.
Report and Appeal Rights were discussed with and provided to the Resident Care Director Ileen Lund. Signature below confirms receipt. |