|
MALTREATMENT INVESTIGATION MEMORANDUM Minnesota Statutes, section 626.557, subdivision 1 states, “The legislature declares that the public policy of this state is to protect adults who, because of physical or mental disability or dependency on institutional services, are particularly vulnerable to maltreatment.”
License Number and Program Type: 1070248-H_CRS (Home and Community-Based Services-Community Residential Setting) Investigator(s): Danielle Morrison Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that on July 29, 2022, approximately 7 p.m., a staff person (SP) had a cup that s/he was drinking out of while driving a vulnerable adult (VA). The next day, the cup was found by a staff person (P1) and said it was believed the cup smelled of alcohol. Date of Incident(s): July 29, 2022 Nature of Alleged Maltreatment Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 626.557, subdivision 9c, paragraph (b), and Minnesota Statutes, section 626.5572, subdivision 15, and subdivision 17, paragraph (a): The failure or omission by a caregiver to supply a vulnerable adult with care or services, including but not limited to food, clothing, shelter, health care, or supervision which is reasonable and necessary to obtain or maintain the vulnerable adult's physical or mental health or safety, considering the physical and mental capacity or dysfunction of the vulnerable adult and which is not the result of an accident or therapeutic conduct. Summary of Findings: Pertinent information was obtained during a site visit conducted on August 11, 2022; from documentation at the facility; and through six interviews conducted with three supervisors (P1, P2, and P3), a facility staff person (P4), the VA’s guardian (G), and the vulnerable adult (VA). This investigator reached out to the SP by various methods with no response. The VA’s diagnoses included paranoid schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, and a developmental disability. The VA liked to hang out with friends, watch movies, and color. P1 provided the following information: · P1 saw the SP with a pink cup when the SP arrived for work on July 29, 2022, although there was nothing in the cup at that time. · The next morning P1 arrived at the facility and the VA said the SP left his/her pink cup outside by a chair next to the garage. · P1 brought the cup inside to rinse it out. Before P1 poured out the “reddish, pinkish” liquid, s/he said it “smelled like wine.” · P1 asked the VA how s/he knew it was the SP’s cup. The VA stated the SP had the cup in the van when s/he picked up the VA from his/her significant other’s house the night before. P4 provided the following information: · On July 29, 2022, around 10 p.m. when P4 arrived for his/her shift, the SP was lying on a little couch in the office. P4 told the SP s/he was there, the SP got up, and left without saying a word, like s/he was “waking up to go home.” · P4 saw the cup sitting outside but it was kind of dark that night. P4 also stated that s/he saw the cup before on an end table, but did not see it in the SP’s hands before. · P1 asked P4 to smell the cup and P4 stated it smelled like “a wine cooler or something.” P4 asked P1 whose pink cup it was and P1 said the VA told him/her it was the SP’s. P2 provided the following information: · P3 arrived at the facility on August 1, 2022, and s/he and P2 smelled the contents of the cup. P2 stated that the liquid was “a tinge of pink” and smelled like “Boone’s Farm wine.” · P2 and P3 spoke with the VA on that day and s/he told them the same things s/he told P1. The VA provided the following information: · The VA described the SP’s cup as “all pink with designs.” The VA said it looked like what the SP was drinking was clear, “kind of like water.” This was the only time the VA saw the SP have the cup in the vehicle. · The VA said the SP was acting a “little wild” and the vehicle was going back and forth. The VA motioned to this investigator a side to side action with his/her hands. P3 and the facility’s Internal Review provided the following information: · When P3 arrived at the facility s/he said the contents of the cup looked like a “pinkish color wine” and smelled like a “fruitier type of wine.” · The SP stated the cup belonged to a family member who had dropped the SP off at work and asked the SP to take the cup with him/her. The SP denied drinking from the cup and was not aware of any alcohol in the cup. The G was aware of the situation and said the VA was an accurate reporter. The facility’s Drug and Alcohol Policy stated that “being under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs while on the job may pose a serious health and safety risk to others, which will not be tolerated” and “it is the intent of Mains’l to maintain a drug and alcohol-free workplace.” The SP was trained on the facility’s policies and procedures and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults. Conclusion: On July 29, 2022, the SP picked up the VA at his/her significant other’s home and drove the VA back to the facility. The VA stated that the SP had the pink cup in the vehicle with clear liquid in it. The next day P1 found the cup outside and went to empty the “reddish, pinkish” liquid from the cup and it smelled like “wine.” P4, P2, and P3 also smelled the contents of the cup and they all stated that it smelled like a type of “wine.” Although the VA stated the SP was acting a “little wild” and the vehicle was going back and forth when the SP picked up the VA, given that the VA saw a clear liquid, the SP denied having the cup in the vehicle when s/he picked up the VA, and the SP denied drinking from the cup, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the SP was drinking while driving the VA. It was not determined whether neglect occurred (the failure or omission by a caregiver to supply a vulnerable adult with care or services, including but not limited to food, clothing, shelter, health care, or supervision which is reasonable and necessary to obtain or maintain the vulnerable adult's physical or mental health or safety, considering the physical and mental capacity or dysfunction of the vulnerable adult and which is not the result of an accident or therapeutic conduct). Action Taken by Facility: The facility completed an Internal Review and found their policies and procedures adequate. The SP no longer worked at the facility. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further action taken.
|
