Complaint Investigation Report

Allegation #1: Staff retaliated against resident resulting in eviction.

The complaint alleges that the facility staff retaliated against a resident, leading to an eviction. Reports indicate that Regency Palms attempted to evict Resident #1 (R1) in a classic retaliation case. It appears that the facility is using unspecified incidents, which are common among residents with Major Neurocognitive Disorder (NCD), as justification for removing (R1). The family representative for (R1) is part of the Family Council. The facility does not want to evict (R1); instead, it tries to stop the family's advocacy efforts.

On May 23, 2025, between 09:30 AM and 10:50 AM, the Department interviewed staff members identified as Staff #1 through Staff #3 (S1-S3). Three (3) out of the three (3) staff members could not validate this allegation. (S1-S3) denied any retaliation. (S1-S3) are aware that the incidents involving (R1) are not used for retaliation to serve for an eviction. (S1-S3) stated that they denied having retaliation due to (R1)’s family representatives’ involvement with the Family Council for Regency Palms. (S1-S3) stated the family’s involvement with the Family Council held monthly. These council meetings are specifically for residents and family members, and no Regency Palms personnel or staff are ever involved in these meetings. (S1) is notified when the meeting is scheduled and will promote it by posting in public spaces where visitors congregate. (S2-S3) stated they are not privileged to discuss any topics at these meetings, minutes a written record of a meeting, or capture key discussions, decisions, and action items.

On May 23, 2025, between 11:00 AM and 11:10 AM, the Department interviewed a resident member identified as Resident #1 (R1). (R1) uttered an appreciation for living at the facility, highlighting the staff's friendly demeanor, who have consistently treated (R1) with kindness and respect. (R1) confidently stated that there had been no experience of mistreatment during (R1)'s stay. Furthermore, (R1) expressed surprise when asked about any eviction notice, indicating a complete lack of awareness regarding such a matter.

On May 23, 2025, between 9:50 AM and 10:12 AM, the Department interviewed a witness member identified as Witness #1 the power of attorney for (R1 ). (W1) reiterated incidents that occurred with (R1) at the facility and felt that these incidents were reasons for the eviction, and perhaps the family representative’s advocate for (R1) is a retaliation for the eviction served to (R1) in April 2025. (W1) stated that they did not have demonstrative evidence or written communications, including emails and text messages, related to providing as retaliation for the family’s involvement with the Family Council.