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 LIC9099.
On 04/21/25, S1 submitted an LIC 624 stating. “The community will be seeking a three-day discharge” for R1; no Eviction Notice was provided to CCLD at that time. On 04/24/25, LPA requested the Eviction Notice that was provided to R1. On 04/28/25, S1 emailed LPA a 30-day notice of discharge addressed to W1 dated 04/22/25. On 04/29/25, LPA advised S1, S2, and S3 via email, W1 by voicemail on 04/29/25 and by phone conversation on 04/30/25 that the Notice of Eviction presented to R1 was unlawful, and that the facility’s Licensee would be required to provide notification to R1 and R1’s responsible party that the notice would be rescinded immediately. W1 was unaware of the notice, the details, and had not received any written Eviction Notice from any representatives from the facility. W1 provided proof of a formal notice hand delivered to R1 while in the community amongst other residents. R1 is currently admitted in Memory Care (MC) and the notice contained confidential information signed by residents R2, R3, and R4, other than R1. S2 confirmed that he.she was instructed by S1 to hand deliver the notice to R1 in the presence of other residents.
Based on LPA’s interviews and records reviewed, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met; therefore, the above allegation is SUBSTANTIATED. Deficiency is cited from Title 22 California Code of Regulations and listed on LIC9099D. Failure to submit proof of correction by plan of correction due date, and any repeat violations within a 12-month period may result in civil penalties.
Exit interview conducted, appeal rights and a copy of this report provided to Tsedey Mekonnen, Concierge..
|