Complaint Investigation Report

C1 statement revealed that C1 often chose to remain in their bedroom to avoid interaction with S1, highlighting how S1’s presence disrupted C1 daily living comfort. C2 similarly expressed distrust and discomfort with S1, particularly due to past negative experiences with former staff, and noted that even virtual appointments were uncomfortable with S1 present. C4 confirmed discomfort with S1’s proximity during medication and cleaning activities, further supporting the clients' claims.

Further client interviews also revealed that a meeting was held with the licensee, Jonathan Li, voicing their concerns but felt that their concerns were not heard and one client stated that they felt “bullied” into giving S1 a chance.

Staff member (S2) corroborated these concerns, stating that multiple clients expressed unease around S1, preferred not to be alone with S1, and required another resident to accompany them during medication administration.

With interview with S1, although S1 acknowledged the residents’ discomfort with S1’s presence and made efforts to be sensitive to clients in care, the majority and consistency of client and staff reports corroborated that S1’s methods and lack of experience working with individuals with developmental disabilities impacted the clients' sense of security.

Through interview, the licensee, Jonathan Li, admitted that concerns were raised by clients in care and acknowledged that a meeting was held, and that steps were taken to modify staffing arrangements due to client discomfort. However, Li noted that there is not documentation of this meeting.

Given the evidence gathered, including multiple corroborating statements from client and staff and the licensee's admission of corrective efforts had taken place, it is determined that S1’s interactions were inappropriate for the clients in care. Therefore, this allegation was SUBSTANTIATED.

A finding that the complaint allegation is Substantiated means that the allegation is valid because the preponderance of the evidence standard has been met.

Per California Code of Regulations (CCRs) - Title 22, Division 6, the following deficiencies are cited on the 9099D during this visit.

Exit interview was conducted with AD and a copy of this report and appeal rights were provided.