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]
The Department’s investigation uncovered a different narrative. All interviews unanimously corroborated: a) R1 themselves wanted to be transported to the hospital and P1 consented to the transfer; b) In the months leading up to this incident, licensee repeatedly communicated concerns about R1’s escalating behaviors with their responsible party, physician, social worker, and payee; and c) Licensee sought to work collaboratively with the payee to find alternate placement for R1, and so did not issue a 30-day eviction notice.
Interviews and written correspondence revealed that P1 both desired and anticipated that R1 would be directly referred from the hospital to a higher level of specialized care (at a location other than the facility). Seeking to save money, P1 contacted licensee, indicating they wished to vacate R1’s room at the facility to end R1’s prorated rent fees. P1 themselves selected the time and date for the move out, and personally vacated R1’s room on the afternoon of August 4th, 2022. Subsequently, R1 did not meet hospital criteria to be transferred to a higher/specialized care setting. On August 5th, 2022, the hospital tried but could not discharge R1 back to the facility, because R1 no longer was a resident of the facility (in administrative, financial, and practical terms).
The Department concluded that P1 was the primary actor/driver for R1’s move-out; licensee did not force/require them to take such action. Absent P1’s actions, licensee intended to continue reserving R1’s room until they returned, complete with their belongings, and to charge rent fees accordingly (consistent with R1’s admissions agreement contract). While R1 was at the hospital, they also told LPA they did not want to return to the facility because they needed more mental health support than the facility could provide.
Based on interviews and records, while R1’s behaviors were indeed problematic for licensee, there does not exist a preponderance of evidence to prove that licensee unlawfully evicted R1. The allegation is therefore unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Shetler, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 01/16) were provided. |