Complaint Investigation Report

Allegation: Staff hit residents. It has been alleged that staff hit residents.

It is alleged that staff hit a resident during an incident that occurred at the facility on 04/07/26. It is also alleged that staff hit a resident with a shoe and/or a cane. Interviews with two (2) out two (2) clients in care revealed that both clients deny that staff hit residents with a shoe, cane, hand or foot. Interviews with five (5) out of five (5) staff, including licensee revealed that clients are not hit by staff and/or the licensee. Staff do not hit clients with a cane, shoe, foot or hand. All staff/licensee interviewed indicated that they have not witnessed any staff and/ or the licensee hitting residents with a cane, shoe, foot or hand. Five (5) staff reported that no clients or staff are using or have a cane. Five (5) staff revealed that all staff have completed personal rights training as part of the Direct Support Providers’ training. During visit, LPA did not observe a cane in the facility. Review of Staff Records revealed that all staff are certified as Direct Support Providers (DSP2) and all staff have received Personal Rights training. In-service training on client Personal Rights was conducted by facility in March 2026. All staff had current CPI( Crisis prevention Intervention) training.

Regarding the 04/07/26 incident between client #1 (C1) and staff #2 (S2). The facility reported the 04/07/26 incident to the department. On 04/07/26, S2 was assisting C1with a glucose reading, when C1 became upset. S2 reported that S2 did not kick or hit C1 during the incident. S2 stated that while S2 was seated in chair at the kitchen table with S2’s legs outstretched, S2 stated that C1 leaned in towards S2's legs. S2 stated that S2 did not move S2’s legs and S2 did not use a kicking motion. The licensee stated that S2 did not kick C1, however, Licensee was not present during the 04/07/26 incident between C1 & S2. Licensee came to the facility after the 04/07/26 incident occurred and licensee called local law enforcement (Norwalk Sherrif) to initiate a 51/50 hold for C1. Norwalk Sherrif declined to place C1 on a 51/50 Hold due to C1 not meeting criteria for a 51/50. Licensee reported the 04/07/26 incident to C1’s Regional Center. During the investigation, C1 declined to be interviewed by LPA, however C1's family member was interviewed.

The investigation did not reveal a preponderance of evidence to corroborate the allegation.

Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED.

LPA Mallett conducted an exit interview with Licensee Loida Samonte and a copy of this Licensing report was provided.