|
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: 1100494-HCBS (Home and Community-Based Services) Investigator(s): Carla Harvieux 651-431-6616 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) accepted four checks that a vulnerable adult (VA) wrote to him/her when the VA was hospitalized and had impaired judgement. Date of Incident(s): Prior to March 31, 2023 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 9, paragraph (b), clause (1): In the absence of legal authority a person willfully uses, withholds, or disposes of funds or property of a vulnerable adult. Summary of Findings: The apartment where the VA lived and received services was an unlicensed residential setting where the VA received services that were administered under the parent company’s home and community-based services license. Pertinent information for this investigation was obtained remotely, including documentation from the facility and law enforcement records; and through interviews conducted with a facility staff person (P). A law enforcement officer (LEO) interviewed the VA and the SP, and information from those interviews was summarized below. The VA was a person with mental illnesses who preferred quiet calm environments. The VA was vulnerable to financial exploitation but not subject to guardianship. The VA’s ability to read, comprehend, and retain information was affected by a traumatic brain injury that s/he previously sustained and s/he needed additional time to process information. Feeling safe, healthy, and happy was important to the VA and facility staff persons were to assist him/her with medication administration and management, medical appointments, accessing the community, personal cares, shopping, home management tasks, and cooking. When staff persons assisted the VA with shopping, they were to assist him/her loading/unloading items and putting them away. When assisting the VA with his/her mail and paying bills, staff persons were to help the VA sort through the mail and organize it. The VA had a great sense of humor and loved reminiscing about his/her life. Information provided by the P in an interview with this investigator and information from the VA and SP in interviews with the LEO provided the following: The VA provided information to the P and to the LEO which showed that the VA was going to be hospitalized in early March of 2023 and asked the SP to shop for him/her, pay his/her bills, and feed his/her pet while s/he was in the hospital. On March 4, 2023, the VA wrote four checks to the SP to use for $25, $40, $40, and $50, and gave them to the SP, but could not recall what bills the SP was to pay with the checks or what items the SP was to purchase. On March 17, 2023, the P learned about the checks and that the VA thought that the SP was “stealing” from him/her. The P obtained copies of the checks, which had been endorsed by the SP and cashed. In addition, the VA thought that the SP took about $18 in change in a jar, two medical marijuana cartridges, and a cannabidiol oil cartridge from his/her residence on a date that the VA could not recall and told the LEO that the SP might have taken a Blu-ray/DVD player from the residence. The VA did not want to pursue charges or get anyone "in trouble," and the LEO told the VA that s/he could choose whether to seek criminal charges against the SP. The P said that s/he and the SP were aware of the VA’s hospitalization and had discussed that the SP should not go to the VA’s residence while the VA was in the hospital. After talking with the VA on March 17, 2023, the P called the SP to discuss the VA’s concerns. According to the P, the SP said that s/he entered the VA’s residence while the VA was in the hospital so that s/he could take the trash out and take care of the VA’s pet. The SP told the P that s/he accepted a $50 check from the VA to buy unspecified items for the VA’s residence and gas for the SP’s car. The SP purchased items for the residence, left the items and the receipt for them on a table at the residence, and took an unspecified amount of “change” from the purchase which s/he intended to give to the VA the next time s/he was at the residence. The SP was suspended and told that the facility would investigate the VA’s concerns. The P instructed the SP to return the change to him/her from the purchase s/he made for the VA and have no contact with the VA until the investigation was completed. The SP returned the change, and the facility gave the VA his/her change and reimbursed the VA for his/her losses. The SP did not complete an interview with this investigator but in an interview with the LEO, the SP said that s/he accepted the checks from the VA for gas money and for supplying services to the VA such as cleaning the VA’s residence. When the VA was hospitalized, the SP was not paid by the facility and provided services to the VA “on the side.” The SP denied taking the change in the jar, two medical marijuana cartridges, a cannabidiol oil cartridge, or a Blu-ray/DVD player from the residence. The SP thought that the items the VA felt were missing were misplaced in the VA’s residence and the SP had no reason to lie because his/her employment at the facility was terminated. Records from the law enforcement agency showed that the agency investigated the allegations in this report but took no further action. The facility’s Funds and Property Policy stated that staff persons were not to handle the clients’ funds. If a client asked a staff person to assist them with their money, staff persons were to direct them to their case workers for assistance. Staff persons were prohibited from borrowing money from clients, lending money to clients, purchasing personal items for clients, accepting gifts from clients, selling merchandise or services to clients, buying merchandise or services from clients, or using the clients’ debit, credit, or other cards. The facility’s personnel and training records showed that the SP was trained on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act prior to the incident and on the VA’s plans. Relevant Rules and/or Statutes: Minnesota Statutes section 245D.10, subdivision 1, states that the license holder providing either basic or intensive supports and services must establish, enforce, and maintain policies and procedures as required in this chapter, chapter 245A, and other applicable state and federal laws and regulations. Conclusion: On March 4, 2023, the VA wrote four checks to the SP totaling $155 but could not recall what the SP was supposed to do with money. Copies of the checks showed that the SP endorsed and cashed the checks. On March 17, 2023, the VA told the P that s/he thought that the SP was stealing from him/her and thought that the SP took about $18 in change, two marijuana and one cannabidiol cartridges, and a Blu-ray/DVD player from his/her residence. The VA did not want to pursue criminal charges against the SP. The SP said that s/he accepted the checks that the VA gave him/her which were for gas for the SP’s car, to pay the SP for cleaning the VA’s residence, and other services. The SP denied that s/he took the change, the cartridges, or the Blu-ray/DVD player from the VA’s residence and thought that those items were misplaced in the residence. The facility repaid the VA for his/her losses and records from the law enforcement agency showed that the agency investigated the allegations in this report but took no further action. The SP’s failure to follow the facility’s policies and protocols when s/he accepted checks from the VA was inconsistent with the actions of a professional caregiver in a DHS licensed program, was non-therapeutic conduct, and was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, 245D.10, subdivision 1. However, given that the VA said s/he gave the checks to the SP and declined to pursue criminal charges against him/her, and that the law enforcement agency closed its investigation but took no further action, there was a not a preponderance of the evidence whether the VA’s funds were used without legal authority or whether his/her property was willfully withheld or disposed of. It was not determined whether financial exploitation occurred (in the absence of legal authority a person willfully uses, withholds, or disposes of funds or property of a vulnerable adult). Action Taken by Facility: The facility completed an Internal Review which determined that its policies and procedures were adequate but not followed. The facility immediately suspended the SP when it became aware of the VA’s concerns. At the time this report made public, the SP was no longer employed at the facility. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: Given that the facility took immediate corrective action, the facility was not issued a correction order for the violation outlined in this report.
|
