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 | During interview with ADM on 08/22/2024 at another facility where ADM is a staff and where LPA was conducting an annual inspection visit, ADM stated that R1’s placement agency contacted ADM stating that R1’s Medical had been re-activated. However, ADM stated that when ADM contacted R1’s placement agency’s billing department to receive funds for R1, the billing department staff at R1’s placement agency told ADM that R1’s Medical had not been reactivated and the billing agency would be rejecting ADM’s request for back pay for R1’s care. ADM stated that during a meeting between ADM, R1, and R1’s placement agency that occurred on 08/20/2024, R1 was asked if R1 would like to have R1’s Medical re-activated and R1 declined.
Based on information from interviews conducted with staff, resident, and witnesses, 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 Myla Ilagan and a copy of this report was provided.
Page 3 of 3.
END REPORT |