|
November 17, 2022 Blake Elliott, Authorized Agent Bridges MN 1932 University Ave West Saint Paul, Minnesota 55104 RE: Request for Reconsideration of Correction Order License Number: 1079030 (245D - HCBS) Report No.: 202201855 Dear Mr. Elliott: The Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), Division of Licensing, received your request for reconsideration of two of two citations in a Correction Order (Attachment A) issued to you by the Department of Human Services on June 3, 2022. After an independent review of the record, the Commissioner has determined that there is sufficient evidence to support the two citations. Reconsideration Determination Citation 1. This citation was issued because the license holder did not provide services as assigned in the coordinated service and support plan (CSSP). As a result of a maltreatment investigation conducted on April 19, 2022, it was determined that on multiple occasions while providing Individualized Home Supports with Training, a staff person brought a person (P) served on the staff person personal errands including getting his/her oil changed in his/her personal vehicle. The staff person also paid the P for agreeing to run the staff person’s personal errands. Applicable Law. The license holder must provide services as assigned in the CSSP. The provision of services must comply with chapter 245D and the federal waiver plans. The license holder must provide services in response to the person’s identified needs, interests, preferences, and desired outcomes as identified in the person’s CSSP and Coordinated Support and Service Plan Addendum (CSSPA). The services must be provided in a manner that supports the person’s preferences, daily needs and activities and accomplishment of the person’s personal goals and service outcomes, consistent with the principles of person-centered service planning. Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.07, subdivision 1. Your Response. You state the staff person was trained but went “rogue” an ignored their training and company policy. You state that once supervisory staff was notified of the incidents the staff person was suspended and a report was made. Reconsideration Determination. You do not dispute that the staff person did not provide services as assigned in the CSSP. You argue, you, as the license holder should not be cited for this violation because you trained the staff person. Minnesota Statutes 245D.07 states, “license holders” are responsible for providing the services in the person’s CSSP. Therefore, when the staff person failed to do so you violated the law. Because there was a violation of the law, Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.06, provides that the Commissioner may issue you a correction order. As such, there is sufficient evidence to support citation 1 and it is affirmed. Citation 2. This citation was issued because the license holder did not ensure the designated coordinator and designated manager provided program coordination, evaluation, and oversight as required. The license holder failed to provide program coordination, evaluation and oversight. The designated coordinator failed to ensure oversight of the license holder’s responsibilities assigned in the P’s coordinated service and support plan addendum (CSSPA). The designated manager failed to ensure the duties of the designated coordinator are fulfilled according to requirements in 245D.081, subdivision 2. Applicable Law. The license holder is responsible for coordination of service delivery and evaluation for each person served and program management and oversight. The designated coordinator must provide supervision, support, and evaluation of activities that include oversight of the license holders responsibilities assigned in the person’s CSSP and CSSPA. The designated manager is responsible for ensuring the duties of the designated coordinator are fulfilled according to the requirements of subdivision 2. Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.081, subdivisions 2 and 3. Your Response. You state the designated coordinator and designated manager did provide program coordination, evaluation and oversight as required. You contend their duty was to provide corrective action when there are incidents and emergencies and that staff did so for this incident. You state supervisors are not required to predict unforeseeable behavior that is hidden by staff. Reconsideration Determination.
Disposition: The Commissioner has reviewed the relevant laws and all of the information you submitted in response to the Correction Order. The record supports this citation and it is affirmed. This is a final agency decision. Sincerely,
Kofi Montzka, Attorney Legal Counsel’s Office Office of Inspector General
|
