Complaint Investigation Report

The QAS and LPA conducted multiple interviews with facility staff via phone calls and in person, 2 day program staff, and the facility administrator. According to consistent statements from these interviews and documentation in the progress notes, it is believed by the facility staff that C1 sustained injuries while at the day program during an incident involving food-seeking behavior in a trash can.

During a collateral visit, a copy of the Tri-Counties Regional Center Vendor Incident Report was reviewed. The report, dated 8/11/25, described an incident in which C1 ran toward a trash can and was scratched on the right cheek by a box. LPA reviewed the facility’s Daily Progress Notes and body check documentation. On 8/13/25, an injury was noted near C1’s left eye and left forehead, specifically on the inner upper eyelid. Photographs show the eye bruising is only visible when C1’s eyebrow is lifted.

During the collateral visit to the day program, LPA observed C1 wearing a hoodie and walking with their head down. Program staff confirmed this is C1’s typical posture and reported noticing eye bruising on 8/18/25. It remains unclear whether the bruising was present during the prior week while C1 attended the program.

On the evening of 8/13/25, staff members independently reported that C1 was running around the facility and slipped on a rug in the common area, hitting their head on a small black cabinet used for video game storage. The injury was documented as being on the top of C1’s head. The facility administrator took C1 to the emergency room on 8/14/25 for evaluation. An incident report submitted to Licensing on 8/22/25 corroborates the staff statements.

An interview with C1 was not conducted due to C1 being non-verbal. An interview with the only other verbal client was also not conducted, as that client had been relocated due to their guardian’s concerns regarding C1’s behavior.

A copy of the police report was obtained. It stated that the injuries were “not consistent with being struck,” and the case was determined to be unfounded.

Based on record review, and interviews, the allegations may have happened, but there is not a preponderance of evidence, at this time, to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED.

Exit interview conducted and copy of report printed for facility.