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
R1 stated during interview, R1 had a lengthy conversation with S1 expressing frustration about how the situation was handled and that S1 did apologize for S3’s actions and agreed to have a conversation with S3. S1 and S3 admitted that the conversation should have been in a more private setting, not in front of other residents.
Facility did not communicate with resident for non-payments
During interviews with S1 and R1 it was revealed that S1 did not communicate with R1 regarding non-payments until R1’s rent wasn’t paid for two (2) months. S1 admitted during interview that S1 never brought up the issue to R1. R1 also stated during interview of having no knowledge of non-payment until the day S3 decided to talk about it in front of the other residents.
Based on LPA's information obtained during investigation, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met; therefore, the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, are being cited on the attached LIC9099D.
Exit interview conducted with Paul Lam. A copy of this report and appeal rights provide |