|
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: 1072140-H_CRS (Home and Community-Based Services-Community Residential Setting) Investigator(s): Carla Harvieux carla.harvieux@state.mn.us Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) misused a vulnerable adult’s (VA’s) funds to buy items for him/herself and his/her family members (FMs). Date of Incident(s): Prior to December 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 was obtained during a site visit conducted on January 22, 2024; from documentation at the facility and law enforcement records; and through interviews conducted with facility staff persons (the P and the SP), the VA’s case manager (CM), and the VA’s guardian (G). The VA met this investigator but said that s/he had no concerns regarding his/her care at the facility. However, the VA provided information to the P regarding concerns with his/her finances, and that information was included below. Facility documentation showed that the VA was diagnosed with traumatic brain injury, bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, and borderline personality disorder. The VA worked part time in the community and attended a day program that provided employment services to persons with disabilities. The VA was learning to use a public transportation system to travel within the community. Budgeting his/her money was important to the VA because s/he wanted to have enough money to buy items that s/he wanted. Staff persons worked with the VA to manage his/her funds, and the VA was to prepare a weekly budget for him/herself. The VA was vulnerable to financial exploitation and had trouble balancing money for his/her needs versus wants. The VA was very friendly and liked meeting new people, but s/he might worry about what others thought of him/her. Facility documentation and interviews with this investigator provided the following: · According to the P, who was a supervisory staff person, the VA told him/her in early December of 2023, that s/he thought the SP previously misused his/her funds to buy items that s/he did not request the SP to purchase. There were prepaid debit cards (including a reloadable card for the VA’s employment wages), a bank card, and a prepaid card with money for the VA’s personal needs, that the SP used to make purchases for the VA. P1 said that the SP was the only staff person who had access to the cards, and s/he assisted the VA to make purchases. The cards were kept in a “safe” that was opened with a key on a key chain which hung on a wall in the office when the incidents occurred. Any staff person who worked at the facility had access to the keys, but the SP should have been the only staff person who knew the personal identification numbers (PINs) for the VA’s cards. · The P took the VA’s concerns seriously and checked into them. During the time that the SP was responsible for managing the VA’s funds, the P found that there were no receipts for about $2,600 worth of items the SP purchased for the VA. In addition, there were receipts for purchases of items the VA did not typically use, including hygiene products and baby items, which were bought at a time when the SP was not on shift at the facility, and online purchases made at an online only retailer. The VA did not have children and did not use his/her cards unless s/he was shopping with staff persons. The P thought that the VA did not know how to shop online and thought that the SP used the VA’s funds to buy items for the SP’s family members. · The P assisted the VA to replace all the cards and obtain new PINs, and the facility reimbursed the VA for purchases that were likely not made for him/her, which totaled $2,971.59. Going forward, an additional supervisory staff person would verify card purchases monthly to ensure that the VAs’ funds were spent appropriately. After the SP’s employment with the facility ended, there were no unexplained purchases for the VA and the receipts for purchases made for him/her were accounted for. There were additional concerns that the SP misused facility funds, which were referred to the law enforcement agency for investigation. · The G said that s/he had no issues with the care the VA received at the facility and was aware that the facility changed the way finances were handled after it became aware of the concerns in this report. The VA was “paranoid” and had a history of providing inaccurate information and embellishing. It was in the VA’s best interest that s/he not be interviewed for this report because it would greatly upset him/her. It was unknown whether the VA knew his/her PINs and the G did not respond to requests for information regarding authorizations that would have would have allowed the SP to buy the items from the online retailer in this report. · The SP, who was a supervisory staff person, said the facility was extremely understaffed and it was difficult to hire staff persons. Staff persons assisted the VA to get ready for work, took the VA shopping for personal needs items, transported him/her to and from appointments, helped the VA prepare meals, and assisted the VA with navigating the public transportation systems to get to and from work. Each week, the VA could spend between $60 and $100 to go on outings with his/her friends according to the VA’s plans. The SP ensured that the VA had access to those funds when the VA requested them. The VA’s bank cards and any cash s/he had was in a safe, inside a filing cabinet in a locked closet with medications in the facility office. The safe came from another service location operated by the company and was not new when it was brought to the facility. The safe did not lock but the closet did, and the keys for the closet were in the office, which was accessible to all staff persons. · The SP kept receipts at the office for purchases made for the VA and said that all staff persons who worked at the facility had access to the VA’s cards and their PINs. In addition, the VA knew his/her PIN and might have made purchases him/herself for which there were no receipts, because staff persons did not require the VA to provide receipts for items that s/he bought. The VA might provide inaccurate information to staff persons and tell others that the SP gave him/her $40 when the SP had given the VA $60, so staff persons began to ask the VA to sign a receipt to confirm the amount of money s/he received and the date when it was received. · On a date the SP could not recall, s/he assisted the VA to purchase a bedding set that included an expensive comforter with matching accessories, sheets, and pillows, from a local retailer. The VA had expensive tastes and liked nice things. There were two “big” shopping trips each year for the VA to completely replace worn out clothing and shoes, and the SP spent about $200 on each of those trips. The SP said that the VA was with him/her on each shopping trip, and s/he did not purchase items for the VA when the VA was not present. The SP occasionally bought items for him/herself and his/her family members when s/he shopped with the VA, but did not use the VA’s funds to purchase the items. · In addition, the VA previously asked the SP to buy personal care items and scents for him/her from an online retailer. The SP obtained permission from the G to make the purchases for the VA, and then bought the items the VA requested. The costs of the requested items varied, but one purchase was for about $160. The SP used the VA’s money that s/he earned from the VA’s job to pay for the items and made them with the SP’s personal account with the online retailer. The SP used the VA’s cards to pay for the purchases, and they were delivered in the VA’s name to the facility. In the interview with this investigator, the SP logged into his/her account with the online retailer and showed this investigator that s/he used the VA’s name and address for some of the purchases, and their costs. The SP said that the VA might still have some of the items that s/he purchased for the VA, because the bottles and containers the items came in were attractive and might be used to decorate the VA’s bedroom. The SP denied that s/he purchased items for him/herself, or his/her family members using the VA’s funds. A tour of the facility on January 23, 2024, showed that there were items that were identical to some of the items the SP purchased on the dresser in the VA’s bedroom. The items were partially full of the scented products they contained when they were purchased, and they were not solely used for decorative purposes. Records from a law enforcement agency showed that the agency was aware of the allegations in this report but took no additional action. The facility’s Resident Credit/Check/Cash Card Policy showed that the residents’ credit/check/cash cards were to be kept in a locked box where all currency was stored. The PIN that was used to obtain funds at cash machines was to be known only by the house supervisor and the individual resident’s legal representative, when applicable. All receipts were to be kept in the locked box and the residents’ funds were reviewed at least quarterly. Residents might have access to their PINs if it was approved by their respective guardians, but residents were asked not to share PINs with others and the house supervisor was also to have the PIN. Personnel files showed that the facility trained its staff persons on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act, the facility’s policies and procedures, and the VA’s plans of care prior to working with the VA. The SP was trained on the facility’s policies and procedures in February and March of 2023, and there were no disciplinary actions for the SP at the facility. However, documentation from the facility written by the SP on October 5, 2023, showed that the SP did not feel supported in his/her role at the facility and was concerned because management staff persons did not visit the facility monthly as requested. There were also issues with inadequate staffing and inadequate assistance to fill vacant shifts. The SP worked all shifts on four consecutive weekends and wrote that s/he had voiced concerns about poor behavior from staff persons to management staff persons but was told to “stop complaining” according to the documentation. The SP praised the facility residents and staff persons who worked their scheduled shifts but felt unappreciated, ignored, and “targeted.” Conclusion: The VA worked a few days a week in the community and received his/her wages on a debit card that could be used to make purchases. The VA also had a debit card and a card with money to buy personal needs items for the VA. The VA had mental health diagnoses and the G was concerned that s/he might be very upset if s/he was interviewed regarding the concerns in this report. In late 2023, the VA told the P that s/he thought that the SP misused his/her funds to buy items that were not for the VA. When the incidents occurred, the VA’s funds and financial cards were to be kept in the locked safe in the facility office, but the key to the safe was on a key chain in the office. The key was accessible to all staff persons, but only the SP was to have the VA’s PINs for the cards. The P reviewed purchases made with the VA’s cards/funds and determined that there were no receipts for about $2,600 worth of purchases made for the VA, including purchases from an online only retailer and purchases made for items the VA did not typically use. The VA did not shop online and did not use his/her cards without assistance from staff persons. The SP said that the safe in which the VA’s cards and funds were kept was brought from another program location and kept inside an unlocked filing cabinet in a closet in the facility office. All staff persons who worked at the facility had access to the VA’s cards and their PINs and the VA knew his/her PIN, too. The SP kept receipts for items s/he purchased for the VA, but the VA was not required to keep receipts for items that s/he purchased. In addition, the VA had a history of providing inaccurate information about money, and the facility began asking the VA to sign receipts when staff persons gave the VA his/her funds. The SP showed this investigator that s/he made purchases for the VA using the VA’s funds, but used the SP’s account at the online only retailer and shipped the purchases to the VA at the facility. The SP felt targeted at the facility for raising issues/concerns that s/he had and denied that s/he used the VA’s funds to buy items for him/herself or his/her family members. Some of the items the SP purchased for the VA were in the VA’s bedroom at the time of a visit to the facility and were partially full of the scented products they contained when purchased. The P determined that $2,971.59 of the VA’s funds were unaccounted for and reimbursed the VA. The VA’s cards were replaced and given new PINs. Although there were no receipts for some purchases made with the VA’s funds and the SP bought items for the VA using the SP’s account online, given that the keys to the locked box containing the VA’s cards were in a common area of the office, that the SP said that the VA knew his/her PINs and had access to his/her cards, that the online account showed items shipped to the VA at the facility and that some of those items were in the VA’s bedroom in January of 2024, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the SP willfully used, withheld, or disposed of the VA’s funds or 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 which determined that its policies and procedures were adequate but were not followed by the SP. After the incidents were brought to the facility’s attention, a facility supervisor began verifying all card transactions each month to ensure that the purchases were accurate. At the time this report was written, the SP was no longer employed at the facility. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further action taken.
|
