|
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: 1080737-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) forced a vulnerable adult (VA) to purchase alcohol for the SP on multiple occasions using the SP’s money. The SP was too young to buy alcohol. Date of Incident(s): Prior to December 22, 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 (4): In the absence of legal authority a person forces, compels, coerces, or entices a vulnerable adult against the vulnerable adult’s will to perform services for the profit or advantage of another. Summary of Findings: Pertinent information was obtained during a site visit conducted on February 22, 2024; from documentation at the facility; and through interviews conducted with facility staff persons (the P and the SP), the VA, the VA’s guardian (G), and a liquor store employee (E). Facility documentation showed that the VA was diagnosed with a mild developmental disability, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and a “severe emotional disturbance.” The VA was a very social person who liked interacting with others and s/he wanted to be included and accepted. However, the VA might not recognize the emotions of others or correctly read social cues. The VA had three hours of unsupervised time in the community daily which s/he sometimes used to go shopping. No documentation showed whether the VA had a history of substance use but s/he was vulnerable to financial exploitation. The VA had difficulty discerning what was real and what was fictional, and s/he might make up stories or embellish them to impress or intimidate others, especially to make him/herself look “tough.” When closely questioned, the VA might acknowledge that previous statements s/he made were not accurate The VA was interested in persons who were not the same gender as the VA and might have poor verbal boundaries with them. Listening to music and going for rides in the community were activities that the VA enjoyed. Facility documentation, the facility’s Internal Review, and interviews with this investigator provided the following: · The VA said that the SP asked the VA to buy alcohol for him/her at a liquor store in the community on more occasions than s/he could recall, because the SP was not old enough to buy it. The VA could not recall specific dates/times of the purchases, but said they began in the summer of 2023 and identified a type of alcoholic product that the SP often asked him/her to buy. The SP took the VA to the liquor store in a facility van, told the VA what to buy, and gave the VA money to buy the alcohol s/he requested. The VA then went into the store and purchased items for the SP with cash and brought the change and the liquor to the SP in the van. The SP and VA were alone when the purchases were made, and the VA felt that the SP took advantage of him/her. · The P, who was a supervisory staff person, said that the SP began working at the facility in July of 2023 and left employment at the facility in mid-December of 2023, for reasons not related to the allegations in this report. In late December of 2023, the VA told the P that the VA had been buying alcohol for the SP since the summer of 2023 at the liquor store. The P took the information seriously and told the VA that the facility supported him/her. There were no prior concerns with the SP’s work at the facility. · The SP stated that when s/he worked at the facility, s/he cleaned, provided transportation, and prompted individuals at the to complete activities of daily living. The VA was kind but tried to “hide” his/her actions from facility supervisory staff persons if s/he thought s/he might get in “trouble” for them. The SP had family obligations and had to keep a job to earn a living to support his/her family. The SP did not have money to “waste” on buying alcohol and bought nothing for him/herself with the money s/he earned at work. The SP denied that s/he gave the VA money to buy liquor for him/her or asked him/her to buy it. · The G said that the VA might tell him/her half of a story, but s/he had to ask for more information to get the full picture of what occurred. It was “50/50” whether the VA provided accurate information and the VA was easily swayed. When the VA wanted something or had a specific plan, s/he might insist upon carrying out the plan, but when the G and the VA’s case manager (CM) discussed the plan with the VA, s/he understood the points the G and CM made and considered their suggestions. Previously, the VA contacted the G often to talk or ask questions, but the G recently noticed a change in the VA’s behaviors and observed that the VA had been upset for reasons that s/he did not discuss with the G. It was surprising to the G that the VA would purchase alcohol for a staff person, but the VA might be more willing to buy alcohol for a staff person with whom s/he had a good relationship. The VA did not discuss the concerns investigated in this report with the G. · The E, who was a manager at the liquor store, said that the store stopped selling the type of product that the VA identified, in the summer of 2023, or possibly prior to then. The facility’s Drug and/or Alcohol Testing Policy stated that staff persons were not to use or be under the influence of alcohol during work hours. The facility’s personnel and training records showed that staff persons interviewed for this report were trained on the facility’s policies and procedures and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act prior to the incident. Conclusion: The VA was friendly and enjoyed interacting with others. However, it might be difficult for the VA to distinguish reality from fiction, and s/he had a history of providing inaccurate or embellished information to present a “tough” image. The VA said that the SP took the VA to the liquor store to buy alcohol for the SP with the SP’s money, because the SP was too young to buy it. The VA could not recall the dates/times of the trips to the liquor store, but they were frequent. In December of 2023, the SP stopped working at the facility for reasons unrelated to the concerns in this report, according to the P. After the SP’s employment ended, the VA told the P that the SP forced him/her to buy alcohol for the SP. The SP stated that s/he used all his/her money to support his/her family and had no money to buy alcohol. The SP denied that s/he asked the VA to buy liquor for him/her or gave the VA money to buy it. The G said that the accuracy of information the VA provided varied. The VA had recently been upset and his/her behaviors had changed, but the VA had not discussed any concerns with the G. The G was surprised to learn of the allegations investigated in this report and thought that the VA would be more likely to buy alcohol for a staff person with whom his/her relationship was good. The E said that the store stopped selling the type of product identified by the VA in the summer of 2023, or prior. Although the VA said that the SP forced him/her to purchase alcohol for the SP on multiple occasions between July and December of 2023, given that the E said that the store stopped selling the product identified by the VA in July 2023 or prior, that the VA had a history of providing inaccurate information, and that there were no witnesses to the purchases, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the SP forced, compelled, or coerced the VA to perform services for the advantage of the SP. It was not determined whether financial exploitation occurred (in the absence of legal authority a person forces, compels, coerces, or entices a vulnerable adult against the vulnerable adult’s will to perform services for the profit or advantage of another). Action Taken by Facility: The facility completed an Internal Review which stated that its policies and procedures were adequate but not followed. 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.
|
