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 | Regarding hiring professional movers to assist with moving residents back to the facility due to the emergency evacuation except for R1, R1 stated that the other residents were provided with a company credit card to pay for the movers except for R1.
According to the State Official, R1 was very particular of the transportation arrangement and R1 arranged for a friend who has a van to drive R1 back to the facility. The State Official stated that some other residents moved their furniture to their temporary location but R1 did not, so the van was big enough to fit all of R1's belongings.
According to the Regional Vice President of Operations, the relocation arrangements were made by the previous management, ISL and she did not have the details.
After the investigation, this allegation is deemed to be unsubstantial.
Regarding the allegation of - facility provided false assessment to CCL to support the eviction, the reporting party stated that the facility provided false unusual incident reports concerning to R1 to CCL of the events that never happened.
As part of the investigation, LPA interviewed R1, the Administrator, and reviewed unusual incident reports.
According to R1, the facility reported false incidents to CCL, for example, he/ she was yelling and screaming, wearing inappropriate attire in the public area, and the facility provided accurate information to the mobile crisis team that resulted in R1 being hospitalized.
According to the Administrator, the facility was following the reporting requirement by reporting the incidents that were observed. The Administrator stated that there were a couple of events that triggered a call to a local community outreach support agency and R1 was taken to the hospital for further evaluation based on their assessment of the situation.
Based on the incident reports submitted by the facility, each of them indicated an unusual incident that happened at the facility which triggered the facility to report it to the Department as part of the Reporting Requirement under Title 22.
After the investigation, this allegation is deemed to be unsubstantiated.
Although the above investigations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. |