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 | It was alleged that the facility was not upholding Resident #1 (R1)’s admission agreement that R1 signed upon admission. LPA reviewed R1’s admission agreement signed and dated 11/17/2020 for the now-closed facility Eden Garden “C”, INC. (facility #197603977). The facility underwent a change of ownership (CHOW) which went into effect on 01/15/2025. R1 was admitted under the initial facility’s house rules and policies, which included a pet-policy allowing pets and R1’s dog. The house rules and policies of the current facility has a no-pet policy and no cameras allowed in resident rooms. R1 was admitted under an agreement that allowed them to have their pet and a pet camera in their room to monitor their dog when away from the facility. R1 was told that they were no longer allowed to have their pet or their pet camera. However, R1 was grandfathered into the current facility with the initial facility’s policies. R1 did not sign the current facility’s admission agreement due to the no-pet and no-camera policy and was told by the Administrator that their pet was no longer allowed to reside in the facility despite having a physician’s order for their emotional support animal (ESA). At this time, there are no regulations regarding ESAs or service animals in facilities. However, per regulation, residents have the right to refuse to sign the new admission agreement, meaning that the old admission agreement needs to be upheld. On 02/07/2025, R1 was issued an eviction notice based on the premise that they “have not signed the required admission agreement, which is necessary document for continued residency at this facility.” The Department reviewed this eviction notice and deemed it unlawful. Licensee was notified on 02/07/2025 that the eviction notice shall not be in effect as it does not fall under eviction criteria of CCR Title 22 Section 87224. The Administrator rescinded this notice on 02/19/2025 during LPA’s initial visit. LPA explained that residents cannot be forced/coerced into signing documents they do not want to, and that the facility must respect and uphold the admission agreement R1 initially signed. LPA further explained that licensees have the right to determine their own pet policy and camera policy as those are up to their discretion and Licensees have the right to not accept prospective residents with pets/cameras. However, the facility cannot attempt to evict R1 or tell them to relocate their pet due to new policies after a CHOW. Based on interview and record review, the allegation “Resident's previous admission agreement is not being upheld” is deemed SUBSTANTIATED at this time.
Administrator was unable to stay for the remainder of the visit and designated staff Christian Trambulo to sign the report. LPA delivered report telephonically to Administrator.
The following deficiency was observed (See LIC 9099-D) and cited from the California Code of Regulations, Title 22. Administrator was informed that failure to correct the deficiency may result in civil penalties.
Exit interview conducted. Appeal rights and a copy of the report was provided. |