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-C, 1 of 2] However, when LPA asked for permission to look at C1's feet for any sign of a prior bite or scratch, C1 refused to let LPA remove their shoes. C1 told LPA they had suffered no skin injury, and LPA saw nothing to dispute this. LPA interviewed S3, who corroborated the account provided in the SIR. LPA also interviewed Staff #4 (S4), the one other person at the facility during the alleged incident. S4 said they were nearby but did not witness the exact moment in question. S4 said they visually checked C1’s feet, and did not see any injury or mark.
The Complainant said in the past, C1’s responsible person (RP) had asked a facility manager Staff #4 (S4) care-related questions about C1. However, S4 kept replying via text message, despite RP specifically asking them for a return phone call, primarily because RP had arthritis in their hands. However, CCLD uncovered additional context. C1 is followed by San Diego Regional Center (SDRC). Interviews of facility managers and SDRC personnel showed around 10/02/2025, a care conference/meeting occurred involving C1, RP, SDRC case manager, and facility staff. At this meeting, they discussed how RP’s daily phone calls to facility staff about non-urgent matters were frequent enough, long enough, and/or to multiple enough staff, that said calls potentially interfered with delivery of care to C1. It was agreed at that meeting that communication boundaries should be implemented. Per interview of RP, S4 did generally answer their questions completely, albeit through text messages. During his own 10/17/2025 site visit, lasting around four (4) hours, LPA witnessed a facility caregiver speak on the phone with RP more than once, politely providing them updates on C1.
Based on records and interviews, a preponderance of evidence does not exist to show that Licensee’s staff lacked language skill to communicate with C1, that Licensee’s staff did not give C1 needed medication, that Licensee’s dog bit C1 at facility, or that Licensee did not fully meet communication requirements with C1’s responsible person. These allegations are therefore Unsubstantiated, and no deficiencies were cited for them.
An exit interview was conducted with Manager Elizabeth Rivera, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided. |