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 | (continue from LIC9099C)
The request also referenced the facility's Plan of Operation. Because some requested items were facility-wide documents rather than resident records, LPA distinguished those items from the facility-maintained resident records that form the basis of this allegation.
CCL records documented repeated follow-up in March, April, and May 2025 stating that requested resident records remained outstanding. During a subsequent interview, an outside source stated that the POA requested records in person, by email, and by certified mail and that requested facility-maintained resident records remained outstanding. The outside source also reported that facility staff stated some requested information would not be provided because management did not consider the information part of R1's resident file.
Before finalizing the finding, LPA provided facility management an additional opportunity to identify what records responsive to the written requests had been provided, the date and method of production, the recipient, and the reason any requested facility-maintained resident records were not produced. The evidence available for final review did not include documentation establishing that the facility provided the requested facility-maintained resident records, nor did it establish a timely supported response for withholding those records.
The Department considered the contrary evidence that the initial outside source was not the POA, that the June 2023 Service Care Plan was documented as provided, and that some requested documents, including the official death certificate and facility-wide Plan of Operation, were analytically distinct from facility-maintained resident records. Those facts do not overcome the later written requests made directly by the POA for facility-maintained resident records or the absence of documentation establishing that those records were provided.
Based on the direct written requests from the POA, proof that the facility received the requests, repeated follow-up that resident records remained outstanding, corroborating interview information, and the absence of documentation establishing production of the requested facility-maintained resident records, the preponderance-of-evidence standard was met. Therefore, the allegation is SUBSTANTIATED. Page 3 of 5 (continue at LIC9099C) |