Complaint Investigation Report

A resident (R1) told a third party individual that a staff member (S1) had attacked them during the above incident. R1 told this third party that S1 punched R1 in the face, broke R1’s glasses, and cursed at R1. The third party individual did not observe any bruises or other signs of injury on R1's face. In an interview with an LPA in December, R1 said that nobody was cursing, and that their glasses broke because they fell down. At first, R1 maintained that S1 had struck them, but then admitted that staff did not hit them, push them, or knock them to the ground.

In an interview, S1 said they had been driving at the time, while S2 was in the passenger’s seat. S1 said that, after R1 got out of the moving van, R1 grabbed S1’s hair and scratched S1 on the face. S1 denied using profanity, and said that they and a responding law enforcement officer had to find R1’s glasses afterward.

In an interview, S2 said they stayed in the van while S1 got out to go after R1. S2 said they did not see the altercation as it unfolded, but they saw S1 with a bloody scratch on their face, and didn't believe that R1 had gotten hurt. S2 said they did not hear any cursing during the incident.

LPA Moleski requested and reviewed a law enforcement dispatch report related to this incident. The report indicated that S1 was seen “scratched up” at the time officers arrived at the scene. Officers declined to take R1 on a 5150 hold, and the event was concluded as R1 agreed to ride back to the facility.

LPA Moleski reviewed R1’s file. R1’s individual program plan (IPP) indicates that they will elope in order to obtain sugary and/or caffeinated drinks, and may become aggressive in these situations. The IPP also indicates that R1 will become verbally and/or physically aggressive after spending all of their personal and incidental funds.

The department has determined the following as it relates to the allegations that staff handled a client in a rough manner, that staff did not safeguard a client’s personal items, and that staff spoke inappropriately to a resident: Based on interviews and record review, the above allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED, which means that although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violations occurred. No deficiencies were cited during this visit. An exit interview was held and a copy of this report was left with Cardona.