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 IR states that on 12/05/2024, R1 told ADP staff that the jackets did not fit the staff, so the staff will take R1 to the mall on the upcoming weekend so they can pick what they want. R1 stated the staff were three males and gave the names of staff, including S2 and S3.
During visit on 12/10/2024, LPA Marrufo interviewed resident R1 and staff S1 and S2 as well as ADM. During interview, resident R1 stated to have purchased jackets for three staff as gifts. R1 stated none of the staff asked R1 to get them a gift. R1 stated to have purchased the gifts, “from the heart.” R1 stated that no one asked R1 to buy him/her a gift. R1 stated to have returned the jackets. R1 stated none of the staff offered R1 anything in return for the jackets. S1 and S2 stated to have never asked R1 for a gift. S1 and S2 stated that R1 offered them jackets as gifts but they did not accept the jackets. ADM stated that none of the staff asked R1 to buy him/her a gift. ADM stated that R1 asked the staff if they wanted a gift and the staff responded, “anything.” During visit on 12/10/2024, ADM counted R1’s money in R1’s Personal and Incidental Money Log while LPA Marrufo was observing and the amount of money was balanced against the log.
During visit on 05/09/2025, LPA Marrufo conducted a telephone interview with S3. S3 stated during interview that R1 asked S3 what kind of gift S3 wanted. S3 stated that although staff are not able to mention what kind of gift they want from residents, S3 told R1, “It is up to you.” S3 stated R1 gave S3 a jacket, but S3 did not accept the jacket because it was too big and expensive. S3 stated during interview to have told R1 to return the jacket. S3 stated to have taken R1 to the mall to return the jacket. S3 stated R1 did not buy anything else for the staff on the day R1 returned the jacket.
During visit on 05/09/2025, LPA Marrufo conducted an interview with S2 and a telephone interview with S1. Both S1 and S2 stated to have not told R1 to buy them another gift when R1 was returning the jackets.
Based on information from interviews conducted with staff, and records reviewed, although the allegation listed above may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur. Therefore, the allegation is unsubstantiated.
No Deficiencies were cited under California Code of Regulations Title 22. This report was reviewed with Administrator Audrey Salvador and a copy of this report was provided. Page 2 of 2. END REPORT. |