|
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: 1072707-H_CRS (Home and Community-Based Services-Community Residential Setting) Investigator(s): Christine Henne/Beth Virden 651-431-3444 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) took a vulnerable adult’s (VA’s) PlayStation console without the legal authority to do so. Date of Incident(s): April 7, 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: Pertinent information for this investigation was obtained remotely, including documentation from the facility and law enforcement records; and through interviews conducted with the VA, the VA’s guardian (G), and facility supervisory staff persons (P1 and P2). Attempts were made via telephone, mail, and e-mail to contact and interview a staff person (SP), but the SP did not respond to the requests. The VA’s support plan and support plan addendum provided the following information: · In 2017, the VA moved into the facility seeking supports and services relating to his/her diagnoses, which included major depressive disorder and other specified anxiety disorder. · “[The VA] had vulnerabilities to giving [his/her] money to peers in the home and being without money … Staff will monitor for any concerns of abuse and will document with electronic charting and will report as needed.” · “[The VA] really likes to play video games.” The VA lived at the facility with other housemates. The facility provided at least one staff person 24-hours a day for care and supervision. The VA said that his/her PlayStation console was broken, and s/he asked a housemate to ask the SP if s/he could fix it. The SP then removed the VA’s PlayStation from the house (on April 7, 2023) and did not tell anyone that s/he had done so. The VA had not expected the SP to take the PlayStation. The police were called, and they retrieved the PlayStation console from the SP. When it was eventually returned to the VA (on April 27, 2023), it was still broken. The VA did not want the SP to get “in trouble” and declined pursuing criminal charges. Facility camera footage, P1, and P2 provided the following information: · The VA had previously discovered his/her PlayStation console broken and had set it on a basement table with the intent of getting it fixed. [Note: The date this occurred was not specified.] · On April 17 or 18, 2023, P1 noticed the VA’s PlayStation console was no longer on the table. The VA did not know where it was and had not given anyone permission to remove it. P1 asked all staff, and the SP responded via text message that s/he had the VA’s PlayStation console and was fixing it. P1 told the SP to return it; however, the SP did not do so right away and did not show up to work for various reasons, including car troubles and illness. The SP also did not respond to all the facility’s text messages and phone calls to setup a time to return the console. The facility filed a police report. The police contacted the SP, retrieved the PlayStation console from the SP, and returned it to the VA. · The facility’s camera footage showed the SP removing the VA’s PlayStation console from the basement table. Prior to doing so, the SP wrote something on a sticky note and attached it to the console. Although the camera did not clearly show what the SP wrote, it appeared s/he wrote the words, “Have” and “Fix.” · The facility’s policies and procedures, which the SP was trained on, stated that staff were not allowed to take property belonging to a person served. · P1 said that the SP had previously asked to borrow a shovel from the facility and then returned it the next day without incident. P1 did not have, and was not aware of, previous or related concerns with the SP’s conduct. · P2 said that there had been a similar incident “a few years prior” where the SP removed a person served’s property from the house to “fix it.” Following this incident, a supervisory staff person told the SP that this was not allowed. Facility documentation included screenshots of text messages, in which the SP acknowledged having possession of the VA’s PlayStation console. One message from the SP, dated April 22, 2023, talked about the SP’s car troubles. The SP wrote, “I can also drop [the VA’s PlayStation console] off wherever is fine. Aside. [The VA] will need a new HDMI cord. The one I tested it on is the only one I have.” The G did not know if the VA would have been “distressed” about not having his/her PlayStation console during the time when the SP had it. The VA had a history of borrowing the console to family members and did not typically play it every day. Facility documentation and interviews showed that the SP, P1, and P2 received training on the facility’s policies and procedures, and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act. The SP also received training on the VA’s support plan and support plan addendum; P1 and P2 were not required to receive this training. Conclusion: Information was provided that the VA asked a housemate to ask the SP to fix his/her PlayStation console. The SP then took the console out of the facility, which the VA was not informed of and did not expect the SP to do. Although taking the VA’s PlayStation console from the facility was inconsistent with the facility’s policies and procedures and that the SP had been instructed not to do so on a prior occasion, the VA wanted the console fixed and text messages showed the SP made attempts to fix it or test what was broken. Camera footage also showed the SP writing on a sticky note, which appeared to be information about the console needing to be fixed. The SP attached the sticky note to the console prior to taking it. Although the console was out of the VA’s possession for approximately 20 days, given that the console was broken and not able to be used by the VA during that time, that the SP was attempting to fix the console for the VA, that the SP did not conceal what happened from the facility or police, and that the SP returned console, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether in the absence of legal authority, the SP withheld the VA’s property. 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 and determined that policies and procedures were adequate but not followed. The SP was no longer employed by the facility. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further action taken.
|
