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 | The DRCS also stated that on September 21, 2024, after R1’s fall, the on-duty LVN assessed R1 and found no visible injuries. However, R1 complained of pain when stretching out their arm and experienced pain in their side and lower back. Despite the facility nurse’s recommendation for hospital transport, R1’s responsible party declined medical services. The DRCS further indicated that on September 26, 2024, the nurse became concerned when R1 refused to get out of bed for breakfast or lunch. The facility nurse contacted R1’s responsible party to express concerns that R1 may have been experiencing pain from the September 21, 2024.
In an interview, R1’s responsible party confirmed that on September 21, 2024, R1 expressed having pain in their hip and lower back but noted that this had been an ongoing issue. The responsible party admitted they were unsure whether they made the right decision by not taking R1 to the hospital after the fall. They also acknowledged that there had been instances when facility staff suggested R1 be transported to the hospital, but they were unwilling to do so every time R1 fell if there were no visible injuries or complaints of pain.
A review of hospital records dated September 27, 2025, revealed that upon arrival, R1 was diagnosed with acute fractures in ribs 8–11 on the left side and subacute fractures on the right side.
Based on a review of the evidence, the licensee did not immediately telephone 9-1-1 for R1, who had fallen, was expressing pain, and could not get out of bed due to experiencing extreme physical pain, solely because R1’s responsible party verbally refused medical care. While residents have the right to refuse medical care, the licensee remains responsible for ensuring that appropriate medical care is arranged. In this case, R1 would have had the right to refuse care against medical advice (AMA) in the presence of emergency medical technicians (EMTs) and/or emergency room medical professionals.
Based on the Department’s investigation, the licensee was found in violation. A citation under California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8, is issued on the attached LIC 809-D. The licensee was informed that a civil penalty might be assessed based on Health and Safety Code 1569.49(f).
An exit interview was then conducted with Memory Program Coordinator, Aiyana Martinez. The report was reviewed, and a plan of correction was jointly developed. At the conclusion of the visit, Memory Program Coordinator, Aiyana Martinez was provided with copies of the report, LIC 811 – Confidential Names List identifying Resident #1, and LIC 9058 – Licensee/Appeal Rights. The signature below confirms receipt of these documents. |