Complaint Investigation Report

S1 stated that during one of these instances their open hand made contact with the back of C1’s neck as they attempted to divert C1’s hands away. Per S1, this was unintentional and was not a slap nor was it forceful and was only intended to redirect C1’s hands away from their person and not to cause injury to C1 in any way. During their interview, C1 denied being familiar with S1 and stated they had been tapped on the elbow but was unable to identify the individual or indicate the time or place where the tap on their elbow occurred.

During their interview, S2 stated that on January 24, 2025, they observed C1 displaying physical aggression by grabbing their peers by their shirts. Per S2, S1 was leading the morning exercise and C1 continued attempting to grab S1 by the shirt. Per S2, S1 went to the other side of the room and out of their line of vision so that C1 could look at the Wendy’s menu, in an attempt to reduce C1’s physical aggression. S2 denied witnessing S1 hit C1 or any other client. S2 denied personally hitting or witnessing any other staff hitting a client. During their interview, S3 stated they were present at the time of the incident but stated they were preoccupied with other clients at the time and denied witnessing S1 hit C1. Per S3, they conducted a body check for C1 following the incident and did not observe any redness, discoloration, or any other type of injury. During their interview, S4 stated they were not physically present at the facility at the time of the incident but had been contacted by phone by the AD informing them of the incident. Per S4, they immediately came to the facility and along with S3 conducted a body check for C1 and stated no redness, discoloration or any other type of injury had been observed. S4 denied witnessing or having any knowledge of S1 hitting C1 or any other facility client.

Due to conflicting information received during interviews conducted, LPA is unable to determine if staff hit a client. Although the above 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 at this time the above allegation is unsubstantiated.

An exit interview was conducted and copy of this report was provided at the end of the inspection.