|
July 29, 2022 Abdi Mohamoud, Authorized Agent Degan Child Care Center LLC 1545 East Lake Street Minneapolis, MN 55407 License Number 1082747 (Child Care Center) Dear Abdi Mohamoud: This matter arises from an Order of Conditional License, dated January 28, 2022. (See attached Exhibit A). On February 14, 2022, the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), Licensing Division, received your request for reconsideration for 12 of 25 citations issued in the Order of Conditional License. The violations challenged by Degan Child Care Center LLC (“Degan”) are addressed below. The unchallenged violations are deemed conclusive. A. Reconsideration of the Citations Identified in the Order of Conditional License Staff Qualifications and Training 1. Violation: Staff distribution requirements were not maintained. Infant classroom (Infant classroom)
· There was no documentation on site to show that SP2 qualified as teacher or assistant teacher, therefore SP2 is considered an aide. SP2 and another aide were in the Infant classroom supervising two children. A teacher qualified staff person was required.
School Age 1 classroom (School Age classroom) · Three aide qualified staff persons were supervising 22 children in the School Age 1 classroom. A teacher qualified staff person was required. Rule Violated: Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0040, subpart 2. Repeat Violation: This is a repeat licensing violation. The license holder was cited for a similar violation in a Correction Order dated March 23, 2018. Your request for reconsideration: Regarding the infant classroom, Degan stated that SP2 was a teacher-qualified staff person at the center since 2018, and included documentation. Degan also stated that at the time of the visit, SP2 had submitted a renewal for their Child Development Associate (“CDA”) credential, but that CDA credential renewal processing was delayed due to COVID-19 restrictions. Regarding the school age classroom, Degan stated that because the citation did not identify the three staff persons in the classroom, it disputes the violation. DHS’ response: The first staff member required to meet the staff-to-child ratio must be a teacher. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0040, subpart 2. On the date of the licensing visit, November 2, 2021, no staff person in the infant classroom was current with teacher-qualifications. SP2’s CDA credential expired on March 31, 2021. SP2 was not issued a renewed credential until November 19, 2021. While Degan indicates that SP2’s CDA credential was up for renewal, the documentation provided by Degan states that SP2 was being reviewed through the renewal amnesty process. The renewal amnesty process is applicable when a license has already expired. The record supports finding that SP2’s CDA was expired at the time of the licensing visit. In addition, while Degan states that it could not adequately dispute the violation with regards to the school age classroom because it could not identify the three staff persons in the classroom, Degan was made aware of the names of the staff persons in the classroom during the exit interview, and should also have been aware of the names of the staff persons assigned or scheduled to work in that classroom based on its own records. Degan was responsible for ensuring that staff persons meet the required qualifications for their position. Degan did not do so for SP2 or the staff persons in the school age classrooms. This violation is affirmed. 2. Violation: The program did not have documentation on site to show that 1 of 3 (SP2) staff persons met the education requirements of the teacher job classification for which the staff person was employed (SP2). SP2 had a CDA credential but the credential had expired in March of 2021. Rule Violated: Minnesota Rules, parts 9503.0032, subpart 2; and 9503.0120, item B. Repeat Violation: This is a repeat licensing violation. The license holder was cited for a similar violation in a Correction Order dated March 23, 2018. Your request for reconsideration: Degan stated that SP2 was a teacher-qualified staff person with CDA credentials, and that at the time of the visit SP2 had already submitted for renewal of her CDA credential. Degan stated that the credential renewal processing renewal was delay due to COVID-19 restrictions. DHS’ response: Licensed child care centers are required to maintain personnel records for each staff person that include documentation indicating that the staff person meets the requirements of the their position, including the education and experience requirements. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0120, item B. SP2 was working as a teacher, even though, as discussed above, their CDA credential had expired. The Commissioner appreciates Degan’s efforts to obtain and stay current with this documentation after the licensing visit. However, on the date of the visit, Degan did not have documentation indicating that SP2 met the requirements of a teacher in its personnel records for SP2. This violation is affirmed. Infant Care 8. Violation: Each infant's bottle was not labeled with the child's first and last name. A sippy cup on the low shelf in the Infant classroom was not labeled with a child's first or last name. Rule/Statute Violated: Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0145, subpart 7, item D. Repeat Violation: This is a repeat licensing violation. The license holder was cited for a similar violation in a Correction Order dated March 23, 2018. Your request for reconsideration: Degan stated that the sippy cup on the shelf was clean, empty, and not labeled because it belonged to the center. Degan stated that any time a sippy cup is used, staff ensure that it is labeled with the child’s first and last name. DHS’ response: A child care center serving infants must label each child’s bottle. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0145, subpart 7, item D. DHS appreciates Degan’s efforts to implement policies that ensure proper labeling of items. In this case, however, as the licensor observed that the appeared to have been used, was unlabeled, and was in area used by staff and children (infant classroom), the record supports finding that the sippy cup was in use by an infant. This violation is affirmed. 9. Violation: The required crib safety inspections were not completed on a monthly basis. The crib inspection form contained markings for inspections, however because the inspections did not contain dates after January 2021, it could not be determined that the subsequent crib inspections were completed on a monthly basis. Rule/Statute Violated: Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.146, subdivision 4. Your request for reconsideration: Degan stated that it conducts monthly crib inspections for all cribs using the DHS crib inspection forms, however, on one inspection form the date was not filled in. Degan stated that this was human error, but leniency should be granted because there were 11 cribs being inspected at the same time. DHS’ response: License holders are required to perform monthly crib inspections on every crib accessible to any child in care, and document the results of the inspections and any action taken with unsafe cribs. Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.146, subdivision 4. In this case, a crib inspection form did not have any dates listed for the monthly crib inspections – the cells for the inspections dates were blank for all but one month. Without the dates of the crib inspections listed, DHS cannot verify that inspections were completed monthly. While DHS appreciates that this was human error, monthly crib inspections and the required documentation of those inspections are vital to protecting the health and safety of children served by the program. There is sufficient evidence to support the violation, and it is affirmed. Physical Environment 13. Violation: A rug or rugs were curled or had frayed edges (Preschool classroom). The map rug was fraying along one long side. Rule/Statute Violated: Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0140, subpart 20. Your request for reconsideration: Degan stated that each classroom has multiple rugs that get replaced as they get dirty or damaged. Degan stated on the day of the inspection a child has pulled a thread out of the map rug. After the teacher informed management, that thread has been cut from the rug on the same day. Degan stated that it is not fair to be cited for a pulled thread on a large rug, and that the rug was never a tripping or safety hazard to children. DHS’ response: Rugs in areas used by children must be free from tears, curled or frayed edges, and hazardous wrinkles. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0140, subpart 20. Degan acknowledged that the rug was damaged, and stated that the damage occurred the day of the licensing review when a child pulled a thread from the rug, and that the rug was remedied the same day. The rug in question was visibly damaged due to a significantly frayed edge. In addition, when the licensor observed and documented the damage, the rug was in an area used by children. This violation is affirmed. 14. Violation: Electrical outlets were not tamper-proof or shielded. One outlet was unshielded in the dramatic play area in the Toddler classroom. Rule/Statute Violated: Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0155, subpart 11. Repeat Violation: This is a repeat licensing violation. The license holder was previously cited for similar violations in the following orders: · Correction Order dated May 23, 2019 · Correction Order dated March 23, 2018 Your request for reconsideration: Degan stated that there are more than 50 outlets at the center, and all of them are shielded at all times, except this one time, when a staff person made an error and forgot to cover an outlet. DHS’ response: Except in a center that serves only school-age children, electrical outlets must be tamper proof or shielded when not in use. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0155, subpart 11. Degan does not exclusively serve school-age children, so all outlets not in use are required to be tamper proof or shielded. During the licensing visit, the licensor observed an outlet that was not shielded or tamper proof; there were two children in the room at the time. The Commissioner appreciated Degan’s efforts to comply with this requirement and its assertion that this was a one-time mistake. However, the evidence supports the violation, and it is affirmed. Health and Safety 17. Violation: Menus did not comply with the nutritional requirements of the USDA. Menus did not include: · a grain; · the name of the breakfast cereal to confirm sugar limits are not exceeded; and · the type of milk (whole, 1%, skim). Rule/Statute Violated: Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0145, subpart 2. Your request for reconsideration: Degan stated that it uses a contractor to provide food and menus, and that the menus provided by the contractor’s nutritionist do explain the type of grain, milk, and cereal provided. DHS’ response: When food is provided by the license holder, menus must comply with the nutritional requirements of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) requirements. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0145, subpart 2. Each meal served in the program must include fluid milk, vegetables, fruits, grains, and meat or meat alternatives. Code of Federal Regulations, title 7, section 226.20(a). The menu provided during the licensing visit included at least one meal without an identified grain component. While this meal included a grain with desert, grain-based deserts do not count towards meeting the grains requirement. Code of Federal Regulations, title 7, section 226.20(4)(iii). Breakfast cereals must contain no more than 6 grams of sugar per dry ounce. Code of Federal Regulations, title 7, section 226.20(4)(ii). The menu provided during the licensing visit did not identify the types of cereal provided. Identifying the type of cereal is necessary to ensure compliance with the USDA’s maximum sugar limits for cereal. Finally, fluid milk must be provided with every meal. USDA has separate requirement for milk type (whole, one percent, skim) for different age categories. Code of Federal Regulations, title 7, section 226.20(a)(1). The menu provided during the licensing visit did not identify the type of milk served to each age category of children. Degan stated that a contractor provides the food and menus, and that the menus provided by the contractor have the required information. While a contractor may provide the food and the menu, it is ultimately Degan’s responsibility to ensure that the menus comply with USDA requirements. In addition, the menu reviewed during the licensing visit was the menu identified by the director on site as the correct menu, and was the menu posted in the infant classroom. Further, when this issue was raised during the exit interview, the license holder did not provide any other menu for review, or even mention another menu. The record is sufficient to support the violation, and it is affirmed. 18. Violation: Written parental permission had not been obtained for administering medicine. There was no documentation of a parent signature approving the administration of medication for an allergy individual child care program plan (ICCPP). Rule Violated: Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0140, subpart 7, item A. Your request for reconsideration: Degan stated that it cannot verify whether the citation is correct or not, because the violation does not identify a specific child. DHS’ response: The license holder must get written permission from the child's parent before administering medicine. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0140, subpart 7, item A. The file for a child with an ICCPP for an allergy medication did not include parent permission for administering allergy medication. Degan stated it could not respond to this violation because it did not know the name of the child. However, the DHS licensor provided the license holder with the name of the child during the exit interview. The record is sufficient to support the citation, and it is affirmed. Children’s Files 22. Violation: A record had not been maintained at the program for each child. There was no record for 1 of 1 (C2) children in attendance on the day of the visit. Rule/Statute Violated: Minnesota Rules, parts 9503.0115; and 9503.0125 Your request for reconsideration: Degan stated that C2 was not enrolled in the child care program: Degan’s director was C2’s parent, and brought the child to the office to breastfeed; C2 was later picked up from the office by a family member. DHS’ response: License holders must maintain a record for each child enrolled in the center. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0125. The licensor observed C2 in attendance at Degan, however, Degan did not have a record for C2. Degan stated that C2 was not enrolled, and that the child was brought to the office just to breastfeed, and was later picked up by a family member. The record demonstrates that C2 was in attendance at the program for a significant portion of the day. When licensors arrived at Degan, the director was in the office and C2 was in the infant classroom in the care of another staff person. During the four-and-a-half hours that the licensors were at Degan, C2 remained in the care of staff in the infant classroom. As such, C2 was in attendance at the school under the care of Degan staff and not C2’s parent, and should have been enrolled with a record maintained. The record is sufficient to support the citation and it is affirmed. 23. Violation: One of four (C4) children's files reviewed did not contain a current immunization record, a signed notarized statement of parental objection to the immunization, or a medical exemption. Rule Violated: Minnesota Rules, parts 9503.0125, item G; and 9503.0140, subpart 5. Repeat Violation: This is a repeat licensing violation. The license holder was cited for a similar violation in a Correction Order dated March 23, 2018. Your request for reconsideration: Degan stated that it had an immunization record for C4, but that it was misplaced in her sibling’s enrollment file. Degan says it has 80 children enrolled, and it is human error to place records in the incorrect child’s file. DHS’ response: Records for children enrolled in the center must include documentation of current immunization, a signed notarized statement of parental objection to the immunization, or a medical exemption. Minnesota Rules, parts 9503.0125, item G; and 9503.0140, subpart 5. One of the four children’s files reviewed did not contain this information. Degan states that it had the immunization record, but that it was located in a sibling’s enrollment file due to human error. During the licensing visit, the director and DHS licensors reviewed the child’s file as well those of the child’s siblings; the immunization records were not found. The record is sufficient to support the violation and it is affirmed. 24. Violation: There was not a written individual child care program plan on file for 1 of 1 (C4) children with special needs that is reviewed and followed by all staff who interact with the child. There was a written ICCPP for this child, however, there was no documentation to show that staff who are responsible for the care of the child had reviewed and would be able to follow the ICCPP. Rule Violated: Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0065, subpart 3. Your request for reconsideration: Degan stated that is has completed ICCPPs for all children when required. After the ICCPP form is complete, staff are given the form to become familiar with the child’s needs. Staff also complete orientation, which includes ICCPP training, and the training date is documented on the orientation form. DHS’ response: When a license holder admits a child with special needs, the license holder must ensure that an individual child care program plan is developed to meet the child's individual needs. The individual child care program plan must be in writing and specify methods of implementation and be reviewed and followed by all staff who interact with the child. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0065, subpart 3. C4 had a written ICCPP in their records. All staff who interact with C4 were required to review and follow the ICCPP. However, there were no records that Degan’s staff reviewed this particular ICCPP. While Degan states that staff received ICCPP training during orientation and documented the date of training, that is a separate requirement from requiring staff to review the specific ICCPP for a child that with whom the staff will be interacting. The Commissioner appreciates Degan’s efforts to ensure that staff are familiar with the needs of children with ICCPPs. In this case, however, Degan did not maintain documentation that it complied with this requirement. The violation is affirmed. Policies and Administrative Records 25. Violation: The license holder did not review and update the emergency plan annually. The emergency preparedness plan was developed in April 2020. There was no documentation to verify that an annual review and update of the center's emergency plan occurred in 2021. "Annual" or "annually" means prior to or within the same month of the subsequent calendar year. Rule/Statute Violated: Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.41, subdivision 3, paragraph (d). Your request for reconsideration: Degan stated that it did complete the annual review on April 2, 2021, but the licensor must have reviewed the parent copy of the emergency plan, rather than the administrative copy which contains dates of review. Degan also stated that they were not cited for this violation during a previous licensing visit which occurred after April 2021. DHS’ response: The license holder must review and update the emergency plan annually and maintain documentation of the review in its records. Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.41, subdivision 3, paragraph (d). These records must be maintain on-site and available for inspection at the request of the Commissioner. Minnesota Rules, part 9503.0115, item (A). During the licensing visit, there were no records on-site that documented that an annual review of the emergency plan was conducted in 2021. The record supports finding that Degan did not maintain records of the annual review as required. The violation is affirmed. B. Reconsideration of the Conditional License Under Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.06, subdivision 1, when issuing a conditional license, the Commissioner must consider the nature, chronicity, or severity of the violation of the law or rule and the effect of the violation on the health, safety, or rights of persons served by the program. In its request for reconsideration, Degan challenged 12 of the 25 citations, and requested that the Conditional License be rescinded. While Degan challenged the basis for many citations because they were identified by a DHS licensor who was training under another DHS licensor during the licensing visit, all 12 of the challenged citations were reviewed, found to be supported by the record, and affirmed. Even if all of the challenged citations were rescinded, the remaining violations, along with the history of repeat violations, are sufficient to warrant an Order of Conditional License. Degan stated that the violations cited should result in a correction order, rather than an Order of Conditional License. However, Degan’s recent licensing history shows that the majority of the violations identified and affirmed here were repeat violations that were previously cited via correction order. · On March 21, 2018, Degan was issued a correction order that identified 24 violations. · On May 23, 2019, Degan was issued a correction order that identified in 12 violations, eight of which were repeats of previous violations. · On June 25, 2020, Degan was issued a correction order that identified eight violations, five of which were repeats of previous violations. · On June 1, 2021, Degan was issued a correction that identified two violations, one of which was a repeat of a previous violation. · The present Order of Conditional License identified 25 violations, 16 of which were previously cited via correction. While the Commissioner appreciates Degan’s stated commitment to compliance, 16 repeat violations indicate that Degan can benefit from additional oversight. The need to improve staff training and maintain and clean the physical environment and equipment is apparent in many of the violations. The Commissioner has considered the nature, chronicity, and severity of the licensing violations and determined that a conditional license is warranted. Based on the number and serious nature of the violations, as wells as the chronicity of the repeat violations, the Commissioner believes the program can benefit from additional oversight to ensure it can gain and continue compliance with licensing regulations. Based on the following factors, the Commissioner has determined that the record supports the Order of Conditional License: · Staff Qualifications DHS identified six violations related to staff qualifications, including three citations where Degan failed to follow the requirements for training on CPR, first aid, and sudden unexpected infant death. It is also concerning that zero of the five staff files reviewed for child development and learning training requirements had documentation that that the staff person completed the required training. These issues are exacerbated because Degan was cited for a similar violations within the past four years. These violations alone may warrant a conditional license. · Supervision DHS cited one violation related to supervision. During the licensing visit, the DHS licensor observed a school-aged child enter the toddler classroom by themselves, and a staff person instructed the child return downstairs to their classroom. In addition, a school-aged child wandered out of their own classroom and entered another school-aged classroom before wandering back – staff were not aware that the child had left their classroom. These two incidents in the span of one licensing visit, demonstrate staff’s lack of awareness, and Degan’s lack of training and enforcement, of child care center supervision requirements. While these violations alone may not warrant a conditional license, taken as a whole with the other violations, they support the conditional license order. · Infant Care DHS cited two violations related to infant care. One violation was because an infant’s sippy cup was not labelled with the child’s first and last name. In addition, one violation related to the failure to maintain documentation of monthly crib safety inspections. While these violations alone may not warrant a conditional license, taken as a whole with the other violations, they support the conditional license order. · Physical Environment DHS cited six violations related to the physical environment. The indoor space used by children was not clean, nearly all classrooms had areas that were visibly dirty. The toddler classroom contained several areas that were particularly unclean: the stools in the bathroom were dirty with a black substance, the children’s chairs in the classroom were dirty with a black substance, and the play kitchen was dirty with yellow and brown substances. In addition, the toilet in a school-aged classroom was unflushed, had a visible ring of brow debris in the bowl, and had a dried yellow substance on the seat. Two correction orders were previously issued for similar violations. Multiple areas used by children were not in good repair, including cracked glass in a door, detached and missing trim, gouges in the wall, peeling paint, broken doorknobs, unshielded outlets, a frayed rug, and leaking faucets. Three correction orders were previously issued for similar violations. The toddler classroom and four school age classrooms did not contain all of the required interest areas. These interest areas are essential to stimulate and encourage children in their learning and development, by exposing them to a breadth of areas in which they can explore, create, and experiment. It is concerning that so many classrooms lacked the required interest areas. Three correction orders were previously issued for similar violations. The physical environment violations alone warrant a conditional license. · Hazards DHS cited one violation related to hazardous objects accessible to children. The DHS licensor observed that hazardous objects were accessible to children in all classroom, including television cords hanging at a child’s height, a box of plastic gloves, and a contain of hair gel with the label, “keep out of reach of children.” Each of these items poses a risk to the health and safety to children served in the program. Two correction orders were previously issued that identified similar violations. While these violations alone may not warrant a conditional license due to their limited number, taken as a whole with the other violations, however, they support the conditional license order. · Health and Safety DHS cited two violations related to health and safety. Degan’s menu did not meet USDA requirements. The USDA requirements are important to ensure that children in care have nutritious food essential to growth and development. Degan may contract food preparation and menu development to a third party, but ultimately Degan is responsible for meeting these minimal nutrition standards. In addition, there was a child for whom parental permission had not been obtained for administering medicine, despite having an allergy potentially requiring the administration of medication. This is very concerning because when medication is necessary to respond to an allergic reaction, staff need written parental permission in order to administer medicine. While these violations alone may not warrant a conditional license, taken as a whole with the other violations, they support the conditional license order. · Equipment and Furniture DHS cited three violations related to equipment and furniture. Nearly all of Degan’s classrooms had equipment or furniture in poor condition. These included ripped fabric on seats, broken bookshelves, and a broken climber. Equipment and furniture in poor condition pose a safety risk to children. A correction order was previously issued that identified a similar violation. The minimum requirement of equipment and materials ensure that a center can adequately provide children with enriching activities that encourage development. Three school aged classroom lacked the minimal equipment and supplied required for the age group. These classrooms lacked rugs or carpeting, a music source and selections, cognitive development equipment, manipulative toys, rhythm instruments, and dramatic equipment, among other materials and supplies. The preschool classroom had multiple pieces of required equipment unopened in the original packaging, inaccessible to children. Two correction orders were previously issued that identified similar violations. The equipment and furniture violations alone warrant a conditional license. · Children’s Files Degan had three violations related to deficient children’s records. Degan did not have any records for one child in the infant classroom. Another child’s record did not contain an immunization record or acceptable alternative documentation. Finally, Degan did not document that staff reviewed the ICCPP of a child with special needs, and understood how to follow the ICCPP. While these violations alone would not merit the issuance of a conditional license, taken as a whole with the others, the conditional license is warranted. · Policies and Administrative Records Degan had two violations related to policies and administrative records. Degan did not post a licensing action in a conspicuous place for the required two years. In addition, Degan did not review and update the emergency plan annually. While these citations alone would not merit the issuance of a conditional license, taken in concert with the others, the conditional license is warranted.
Ø Based on the specific factors above, an Order of Conditional License is warranted to ensure that Degan understands the relevant licensing requirements and is able to come fully into compliance. Due to the need to monitor Degan for compliance with applicable licensing laws and rules, and to ensure the health and safety of children served by the program, the Commissioner affirms the January 28, 2022 Order of Conditional License. The period of the conditional license is two years, beginning on the date of this letter. Because the terms of your conditional license were stayed pending a decision on your request for reconsideration, the terms of the conditional license begin from the date of receipt of this letter. C. Terms of the Conditional License In addition to the child care licensing rules and statutes, you are required to comply with the following terms: 1. Within 15 days from receipt of this order, you must provide written notification of the conditional status of your license to all parents/legal guardians. Prior to providing the written notification to all parents/legal guardians, you must submit the written notice to your DHS licensor for approval. The notification must specify the length of time of the conditional status of your license, the reasons your license was made conditional, and must include either a copy of the Order of Conditional License or an offer to provide a copy of the order upon request. 2. Within 45 days from receipt of this order, you must ensure that all staff persons have successfully completed training as required under Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.40, subdivisions 1 through 7 and 9, including orientation, child growth and learning, first aid, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), sudden unexpected infant death and abusive head trauma, child passenger restraint systems, annual in-service, and ongoing health and safety training, as well as training on your risk reduction plan as required under Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.66, subdivision 3. You also must ensure that new hires successfully complete all applicable training. You must maintain documentation of the completed training in each staff person’s personnel record. 3. Within 45 days from when you received this order, you must submit documentation to verify that you have purchased equipment as required for all classrooms. The documentation submitted must include copies of receipts detailing the items purchased. On a monthly basis while your license is on conditional status, you must complete the enclosed equipment and supplies forms for each classroom, showing that you have maintained the required amount of equipment and supplies on an ongoing basis. Equipment and supplies forms must be completed at the beginning of each month, be maintained onsite, and made immediately available to the Commissioner upon request. 4. While your license is on conditional status, you must complete daily cleanliness, maintenance, and hazard checks of the facility, equipment, and outdoor play areas, and maintain documentation onsite to show that the checks have been completed. This documentation must be made immediately available to the Commissioner during on-site inspections and otherwise as requested. Your licensor will monitor your compliance with all applicable laws and rules. Verification of compliance may include unannounced visits. Failure to comply with the requirements in Minnesota Rules, parts 9503.0005 to 9503.0170 (DHS Rule 3), Minnesota Statutes, chapter 245A (Human Services Licensing Act), Minnesota Statutes, chapter 245C (Human Services Background Study Act), Minnesota Statutes, chapter 260E (Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors) and with the terms of your conditional license may result in further negative action, including revocation of your license. D. POSTING the Order of Conditional License Under Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.06, subdivision 8, you must post the Order of Conditional License in a place that is conspicuous to the people receiving services and all visitors to the facility for two years. This is a final agency decision and is subject to further review only by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Please note that there are time limits for seeking review by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. See Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 606 and Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, Rule 115. If you have any questions regarding the Order of Conditional License, please contact Donna Gainor, Unit Supervisor, at (651) 431-6529. Sincerely,  Afsheen Foroozan, Attorney Legal Counsel’s Office Office of Inspector General
|
