|
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: 1091053-SUD (Substance Use Disorder) Investigator(s): Scott Brandt 651-431-6556 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) sent inappropriate photographs of his/herself to a vulnerable adult (VA). Date of Incident(s): Prior to September 8, 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 2, paragraph (c); and subdivision 17, paragraph (a): Any sexual contact or penetration between a facility staff person or a person providing services in the facility and a resident, patient, or client of that facility. Sexual contact is defined by Minnesota Statutes, section 609.341, as the intentional touching of the intimate parts with sexual or aggressive intent. 'Intimate parts' includes the primary genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttocks, and breast. 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 for this investigation was obtained remotely, including documentation from the facility and through five interviews conducted with a facility management staff person (P1), the SP, a facility client (C), and two facility staff persons (P2 and P3). Although this investigator contacted the VA, the VA did not respond to requests to be interviewed. Facility documentation showed that the VA received services at the facility between May 8, and June 22, 2023. Documentation also showed that the VA enjoyed playing basketball and lifting weights, and that the VA had a history of substance use. P3 provided the following information: · On September 8, 2023, the C asked to talk to P3 because the C had some concerns related to the SP and the VA. The C told P3 that the VA told the C that the SP and the VA had been communicating, after the VA left services at the facility and while the SP was still employed, on Snap chat (a social media application in which photographs and messages which can be sent between users disappear at a timeframe determined by the user). The VA told the C that s/he had received photos of the SP in the SP’s bathtub, but P3 did not see the photo. Then, P3 told P1 that there “might be some concerns” between the VA and the SP, but P3 did not remember what else s/he told P1. · P3 had not seen interactions between the VA and the SP. · When P3 was asked why there was a delay with the C telling P3 about what the VA told him/her, P3 thought it was the “mentality you don’t tell on people” right away. P1 said that s/he did not have any concerns related to the C’s ability to provide information and also that s/he did not have concerns related to the SP’s employment at the facility. The C told this investigator that although s/he did not remember the date, that the VA showed the C a photo, on the VA’s phone, of the SP partially clothed in the SP’s bathtub. The photo did not show any intimate parts. The C described the SP as being “not full naked” and said that s/he saw “bubbles” in the picture. When the VA showed the C the photo, the VA was “super hyped up.” When the C was asked to describe the interactions s/he witnessed between the VA and the SP, the C said that they “giggled” a lot. The SP denied communicating with the VA in any way outside of working at the facility, denied sending a photograph to the VA and denied any sexual contact with the VA. The facility’s Summary of Internal Investigation of Report provided information that was consistent with the information obtained from P3 and the C. The report also stated that the facility interviewed “nineteen” staff persons to ask questions about interactions they had observed between the SP and the VA and of those interviews, 18 said they had “no knowledge of anything out of the ordinary” between the SP and the VA and the nineteenth staff person did not remember who the SP was. The facility’s training records showed that all staff persons interviewed for this investigation were trained on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act and the VA’s specific care plans prior to September 1, 2023. Conclusion: On September 8, 2023, the C told P3 that the VA and the SP were communicating on Snap chat and that the VA had received photos of the SP, who was partially clothed, in the SP’s bathtub. When that happened, P3 told P1. The SP denied sending the photo to the VA and denied communicating with the VA outside of the facility. Although the C was the only person to see the photo and there was no reason to discredit his/her information and the SP denied the allegations but had reason to minimize his/her actions, given that it was not determined when the photo was sent to the VA and the C stated it was after the VA was no longer receiving services at the facility, that the facility interviewed 19 staff persons, some of whom were interviewed by this investigator, and there was no information provided that anyone had concerns related to the interactions between the SP and the VA, and that there was no information that the SP and the VA had a further relationship or sexual contact, therefore there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the SP had sexual contact with the VA or whether the SP’s interactions with the VA represented a failure to provide the VA with reasonable and necessary care and services. It was not determined whether sexual abuse or neglect occurred (any sexual contact or penetration between a facility staff person or a person providing services in the facility and a resident, patient, or client of that facility. Sexual contact is defined by Minnesota Statutes, section 609.341, as the intentional touching of the intimate parts with sexual or aggressive intent. 'Intimate parts' includes the primary genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttocks, and breast and 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’s Summary of Internal Investigation of Report showed that policies and procedures were adequate, followed, and that no additional training was needed. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No action taken.
|
