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 LIC 9099] According to their LIC602 Physician’s Report, R1 had “vascular dementia” and “Lewy body dementia,” and had visual and hearing impairments. According to their LIC603 Preplacement Appraisal, R1 had “memory issues” and “confusion.” SDPD detectives wrote they attempted to interview R1 about the alleged incident. They concluded R1 was disoriented to time and place, “highly confused,” had “severely diminished short-term memory,” and did not know who S1 was. R1 was under the concurrent care of an outside hospice agency. Hospice visit notes showed that two hospice nurses and a social worker utilized their agency’s abuse screening tool/questionnaire with R1. R1 was drowsy and disoriented but managed to answer “yes/no” type questions. R1 consistently answered “no” to seven questions related to different types of abuse, including physical/sexual abuse. The social worker wrote, “[I] then asked [R1] if [they] felt safe in [their] current environment and [R1] said, ‘Yes.’”
According to CCLD’s Licensing Information System (LIS): S1 had no criminal record, successfully passed the required fingerprinting/background process, and had continuously worked at the facility since 2007. Per interview of the licensee, S1 was “very professional” over 13 years of employment, with no prior accusations of abuse/inappropriate behavior towards residents. S1 was interviewed on separate occasions by facility management, an SDPD patrol officer, SDPD detectives, and CCLD. S1 consistently denied the accusation, saying it was a false attack from P1, who had preexisting animosity towards them. Interviews of other staff and an outside source unanimously showed S1 and P1 had known interpersonal conflict prior to the date of the alleged incident. P1 was also interviewed on separate occasions by facility management, an SDPD patrol officer, SDPD detectives, and CCLD. P1’s account of the incident was not uniform across their interviews, which undermined the credibility of their testimony. P1 also admitted to not intervening/confronting S1 to protect R1, and to their late reporting of the incident 5 days after it allegedly occurred.
On the date P1 came forward with their accusation, R1 was taken to a local hospital emergency room (ER) for a physical examination. According to the hospital's records: R1 was calm and “comfortable,” but was “very forgetful.” Due to R1’s “severe dementia,” their “quality as a historian” was “limited.” When an ER nurse asked R1 if they had been sexually assaulted by a caregiver, R1 replied, “I’m hungry. Can I have something to eat?” When nurse then asked R1 if they had been inappropriately touched by a caregiver, R1 replied, “No.” R1 also denied seeing a caregiver masturbate in their bedroom.
[CONTINUED ON LIC 9099-C, 2 of 2] |