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 | LPA Moleski reviewed R1’s LIC 602 and observed that they were not permitted to be in the community unsupervised.
In an interview, the facility’s house manager (S1) said that R1 left the facility, but was followed by a caregiver (S2) as R1 walked over to a nearby neighbor’s property. In an interview, S2 said that they followed R1 for the entire time they were away from the facility. S3 was also working at the facility on April 17, 2025. S3 said they observed R1 leave the facility through the front doors, with S2 following after them. S3 said they stayed inside in order to supervise the remaining residents.
LPA Moleski attempted to contact the neighbor visited by R1, but they did not respond to a request for an interview. LPA Moleski obtained a police report regarding this incident, dated April 17, 2025. In that police report, the neighbor’s initial statement to law enforcement was recorded. The neighbor told police that they witnessed R1 approach their home, followed by facility staff. However, R1 had refused to return to the facility with the staff, according to the report. R1 was eventually placed on a 5150 hold, per the report.
The department has determined the following as it relates to the allegation that staff did not supervise a resident, resulting in an elopement (AWOL):
Based on interviews and record review, the above allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED, which means that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that a violation occurred.
No deficiencies were cited during this visit. An exit interview was held and a copy of this report was left with
Egante. |