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 | OS1 stated R1 had discharged from another facility and was in route to Merrill Gardens. However, while in route R1‘s Responsible Party (RP) was notified R1 was not able to reside at the facility due to their age. An interview with the Executive Director (ED) revealed they received a call from corporate level staff who review all the new admits assessments and intake paperwork. During the call the ED was informed of facility policy that does not allow the admission of individuals under the age of 59. The interview with the ED also revealed they were a new employee and was not aware of the facility's age limitation policy, the ED expressed being very remorseful and apologetic in regard to the situation.
A record review and an interview with OS1 revealed R1 had not yet moved into the facility, and an eviction notice was never issued or warranted because R1 was not yet physically residing at the facility.
Based on LPA’s records review, and interviews conducted with staff and outside sources the above allegation was determined to be unsubstantiated. An unsubstantiated finding means although the allegation may have occurred the preponderance of the evidence standard has not been met.
Due to the facility’s closure, no exit interview was conducted. A copy of this report, along with Licensee Rights (LIC 9058 01/16), were mailed via USPS certified mail to the last mailing address on file. |