|
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: 1097566-H_DSF (245D-Home and Community-Based Service-Day Services Facility) Investigator(s): Rebecca Mesto Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) asked a vulnerable adult (VA) for a kiss and after the VA declined, the SP touched the VA’s cheek. Date of Incident(s): August 10, 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 2, paragraph (b), clause (2): Conduct which is not an accident or therapeutic conduct which produces or could reasonably be expected to produce physical pain or injury or emotional distress including, but not limited to: the use of repeated or malicious oral, written or gestured language toward a vulnerable adult or the treatment of a vulnerable adult which would be considered by a reasonable person to be disparaging, derogatory, humiliating, harassing, or threatening. Summary of Findings: Pertinent information was obtained during a site visit conducted on September 6, 2022; from documentation at the facility; and through eight interviews conducted with the VA, three facility staff persons (the SP, P1, and P2), two administrative staff persons (P3 and P4), a staff person at the VA’s residence (RS1), and the VA’s case manager (CM). The VA enjoyed attending community based outings and liked spending time outdoors. The VA’s diagnoses included mild intellectual disability, post-traumatic stress disorder, avoidant personality disorder, and scoliosis. The VA was not subject to guardianship. The VA’s Self-Management Assessment & Support Plan stated that staff persons were to define clear boundaries with the VA, especially with staff persons of the opposite gender. The facility provided day services such as work and non-work activities. The VA attended the facility two days per week. Facility staff persons transported the VA to and from his/her home in the facility’s van. The VA provided the following information: · On the day of the incident, the SP drove him/her home. The SP did not typically drive the VA home. The VA sat in the front passenger seat. After dropping off all of the other clients, the SP stopped the van in the driveway of the VA’s home. The SP asked the VA to give him/her a hug and a kiss and after the VA told the SP “No,” the SP put his/her hand on the VA’s cheek, which the VA said was “kind of awkward.” Then the VA went inside of his/her house and told a residential staff person about the incident. · Previously, the SP “complain[ed]” to the VA that the facility did not take the clients on enough outings. The SP also talked about his/her relationship with his/her significant other. The VA did not supply any additional details about those conversations. RS1 provided the following information: · On August 10, 2022, after being dropped off at the VA’s residence by the SP, the VA told another residential staff person (RS2) about the incident with the SP. Then, RS2 informed RS1. RS1 talked to the VA and the VA said that during the drive home, the SP made comments that s/he thought the VA was cute. After dropping off the rest of the clients, the SP stopped in the VA’s driveway and asked the VA if s/he would give him/her a hug and a kiss. The VA told the SP no and went inside. · The incident gave the VA “a lot of anxiety” and made him/her “uncomfortable.” The VA did not want to go back to the facility if the SP was going to be there. RSI stated that the VA was a reliable reporter of events. · RS1 informed the facility of the incident via email. P1, P2, P3, and P4 provided the following information: · On the evening of August 10, 2022, P1 received an email from a staff person at the VA’s residence regarding an incident that had happened earlier that day when the SP dropped the VA off. On the next day the VA was scheduled to be at the facility (the following week), P1 picked up the VA from his/her residence and then had a conversation with the VA. The VA was “visibly upset” and said that the SP told the VA to kiss him/her and then after the VA declined, the SP touched the VA’s cheek. The VA cried in P1’s office and repeatedly asked why the SP did that to him/her. · One day after the incident, the VA was “really quiet” while on a walk with P2. The VA told P2 that when the SP dropped him/her off, the SP “grabbed” his/her face and told the VA to kiss him/her, but they did not kiss. · P3 stated that the VA told him/her that on the day of the incident, the SP dropped him/her off last, then parked in front of the VA’s driveway and asked him/her for a kiss. When the VA said no, the SP “brushed” his/her hand across the VA’s face before the VA went into his/her home. After the incident, the VA was “on edge” and did not want to be at the facility. The VA asked more questions about who was driving him/her home. · P1 stated that the SP was “not a good person,” and prior to the incident, made staff persons of the opposite gender feel “uncomfortable” because of the “unsettling” comments the SP made about/to them. One day, the SP drew a picture of P1’s “butt” and had two clients bring the picture to P1. The SP referred to P1 as a “big booty bimbo” or a “bubble butt bimbo.” · P2 stated that sometime prior to the incident, another client told him/her that the SP called him/her “darling or honey,” which the client did not like. P2 said that the SP was a “weird” person who was very “sexist,” and “belittled” staff persons and did not respect people of the opposite gender. The SP talked about wrestlers of the opposite gender, referring to them as “big ones,” which clients repeated. · P1, P2, and another staff person (who was not interviewed) told P3 that the SP acted “sexist” towards them, referring to persons of his/her own gender as “better” than the opposite gender. · P1 stated that the SP had a “group” of clients at the facility that s/he favored. The SP called the group his/her “dog pound” or “dog house.” P3 stated that the SP had a group called the “dog house” where initially, no persons of the opposite gender were allowed to join. When P3 talked to the SP about this group and about his/her “sexist attitude,” the SP apologized and said it was not what s/he intended. · When P4 talked to the SP after the incident, the SP was “visibly nervous” and did not make eye contact with him/her. The SP admitted to “pinch[ing]” the VA’s cheek but denied any kissing occurred. · P1, P2, and P3 each stated that the VA was a reliable reporter of events. P3 stated that the VA had never made any “complaints” similar to this in the past. P4 stated that the VA was a reliable reporter and did not “lie,” but may “exaggerate” some things. The SP provided the following information: · The VA was “more verbal” than most of the other clients. The VA was close to the SP’s age and was “interesting.” · On the day of the incident, the VA chose to participate in activities that the SP led, and had “complained” the “whole time” about the facility and the lack of community activities, as well as a problem with one of his/her housemates. The SP listened to the VA and talked to the VA about communication issues that the SP was having with his/her significant other, asking the VA for advice. The SP stated that s/he and the VA had a “comradery” and had “bonded.” At the end of the day, the SP drove the VA and other clients to their homes. The VA was sitting in the front seat and was the last person the SP dropped off. The SP stated that s/he “very lightly” “pinched” the VA’s cheek, as an “affectionate gesture.” As the VA was getting out of the van, the VA reached over and kissed the SP’s cheek and waved good bye. · The SP denied asking the VA for a hug or a kiss. The SP stated that after touching the VA’s cheek, s/he “immediately” knew s/he had done something “wrong” and s/he “stopped” him/herself. The SP stated that s/he was working with vulnerable adults to help people and was “surprised” to hear that there was a problem with that interaction. · The SP did not initially tell anyone at the facility that the VA kissed him/her because s/he did not want to get the VA in trouble. The VA kissing the SP on the cheek was “harmless,” but it did cross boundaries. · The SP denied drawing a picture of a staff person’s butt. The SP said s/he drew a picture of a wrestler and then a staff person “accused” him/her of drawing a person of the opposite gender’s “behind.” · At the facility, there was a group of clients that the SP referred to as the “dog pound.” It was comprised of five clients with similar interests who enjoyed engaging in the activities that the SP led. The SP said that no one was ever excluded from the “dog pound.” · The SP never felt “embraced” by staff persons at the facility and it was not the SP’s first place of employment that there was conflict between him/her and others. At one of the SP’s prior places of employment, persons made “false accusations” to “tarnish” his/her reputation. · The VA was not a reliable reporter of events. The CM stated that the VA was a “great” self advocate. The SP’s Job Description stated that staff persons were to model appropriate behavior and interactions. The facility’s Employee Handbook stated that professional conduct was expected of staff persons at all times, including determining appropriate boundaries for situations. Staff persons were to refrain from initiating physical conduct, such as hugging. Intimate relationships between staff persons and clients was prohibited. Facility documentation showed that all staff persons received training on the facility’s policies and procedures and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adult’s Act prior to the incident. Conclusion: Consistent information was provided that on the afternoon of August 10, 2022, the SP transported the VA to the VA’s home in the facility’s van. The VA sat in the front passenger seat and was the last client to be dropped off. The VA stated that the SP asked him/her for a kiss and hug and when the VA declined, the SP touched the VA’s cheek. The VA provided similar consistent information to staff persons at the facility and to his/her residential staff persons as s/he did to this investigator. The SP denied asking the VA for a kiss or hug, but did “very lightly” “pinch” the VA’s cheek as an “affectionate gesture” after working with the VA all day. The SP stated that s/he and the VA had a “comradery” and “bonded” the day of the incident. As the VA left the van, the VA kissed the SP’s cheek. The SP’s actions were inconsistent with the standards of a professional caregiver in a facility licensed by the Department of Human Services. The SP and the VA each stated that the SP talked to the VA about his/her relationship with the SP’s significant other. RS1 stated that the incident gave the VA anxiety, made him/her feel “uncomfortable,” and that the VA did not want to attend the facility if the SP was going to be there. Staff persons said that the VA’s demeanor changed after the incident. P1 stated that the VA cried after talking about the incident, P2 stated that the VA was quiet, and P3 stated that the VA was “on edge.” RS1, P1, P2, P3, and P4 each stated that the VA was a reliable reporter of events. The SP stated that the VA was not a reliable reporter of events. P1 stated that some of the SP’s interactions with staff persons made him/her feel “uncomfortable.” P2 stated that the SP was “sexist” and was not respectful and “belittled” other staff persons. Although the VA and the SP provided differing details about what occurred as the VA left the van, the SP’s actions were not consistent with the standards of a professional caregiver in a facility licensed by the Department of Human Services, however, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the SP’s conduct produced or could be reasonably be expected to produce physical pain or injury or emotional distress, which was considered disparaging, derogatory, humiliating, harassing, or threatening. It was not determined whether emotional abuse occurred (conduct which is not an accident or therapeutic conduct which produces or could reasonably be expected to produce physical pain or injury or emotional distress including, but not limited to: the use of repeated or malicious oral, written or gestured language toward a vulnerable adult or the treatment of a vulnerable adult which would be considered by a reasonable person to be disparaging, derogatory, humiliating, harassing, or threatening). Action Taken by Facility: The facility completed an internal review and determined that their policies and procedures were followed after the incident. The SP no longer worked at the facility. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further action taken.
|
