|
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: 1070235-H_CRS (Home and Community-Based Services-Community Residential Setting) Investigator(s): Jason Pehler 651-431-4830 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported a staff person (SP) stole money from two vulnerable adults (VA1 and VA2). Date of Incident(s): Multiple incidents during 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 five interviews conducted with VA1, VA2, and three facility supervisors (P1, P4, and P5). The SP scheduled a phone interview, however on the day of the interview the SP did not answer, and did not return the voicemail. This investigator attempted to contact the SP by email, and a certified letter via United States mail to request an interview, however, the SP did not respond. Facility documentation showed VA1 was helpful, joyful, and kind. VA1 liked shopping, going out to eat, and his/her “favorite thing in the world” were baby dolls. VA1 was diagnosed with developmental disabilities, explosive personality disorder, hypersomnia, epilepsy, and diabetes. VA1 was susceptible to financial exploitation and needed help from staff persons to handle his/her finances because s/he did not understand what money was or if any would be missing. VA1 had a “money book” at the facility where his/her money was stored. VA1 did not have direct access to the money, but if s/he needed money staff would assist him/her to access it. Transactions with the money in the money book should be tracked on a cash record sheet. Facility documentation showed VA2 enjoyed walking around, going to the salon, bowling, and shopping. VA2 was described as friendly, kind, and helpful. VA2 was diagnosed with developmental disabilities, depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, fragile X syndrome and schizophrenia. VA2 was susceptible to financial exploitation and needed help from staff persons to handle his/her finances because s/he did not understand what money was or if any would be missing. VA2’s checkbook and bank statements were to be balanced by staff persons for accuracy. The facility stored VA1’s and VA2’s money in a 2-drawer file cabinet in the staff office at the facility. All staff persons had access to the file cabinet, and a supervisor was supposed to review the cash record sheet for VA1’s and VA2’s money on a regular basis. However, at the time of the investigation, the balances on VA1’s and VA2’s cash record sheet did not match the amount of money VA1 or VA2 had at the facility. There was no information VA1’s or VA2’s finances were reviewed by a supervisor between January and August 2023. VA1 and VA2 could complete community activities, including shopping, with all staff persons. The following is a summary of the facility’s Internal Review, VA1 and V2’s cash record sheet, and interviews with VA1, VA2, P1, P4, and P5: · On November 7, 2023, VA1 wanted to go out for lunch, and there was no money in his/her money book. The SP was contacted as s/he had taken VA1 to the bank on November 6, 2023, where VA1 withdrew $300. After arriving at the facility, the SP said, “It must be here,” and staff persons searched the facility for VA1’s money. After searching the facility, the SP stepped outside by him/herself for a moment, and returned with $240. The SP claimed s/he found the $240 in the garage. However, other staff persons had also searched the garage and did not locate any money. · VA2 said the SP took VA1 and VA2 to the bank on November 6, 2023. VA1 said the SP assisted VA1 “every time” s/he took money out of his/her bank account, and that the money was put in the office. Neither VA1 nor VA2 provided additional pertinent information. · P2 contacted P1 on November 7, 2023, and said the SP was “acting differently,” and there were concerns that the SP had taken VA1’s money. Additionally, P2 said VA1 did not have new items that would account for VA1 spending the money, and observed the SP had “really nice things for the money Mains’l pays [him/ her].” · The SP initially told facility investigators that s/he was the staff person that “usually” took VA1 to the bank, but later said s/he “hardly ever does.” The SP said s/he knew the process of putting VA1’s and VA2’s money in his/her money book, and that “everyone” had access to VA1’s and VA2’s money. The facility’s internal review did not address whether the SP was aware that transactions with VA1’s and VA2’s money were supposed to be documented on the cash record sheet money book ledgers. · P3 said s/he had previously assisted VA1 and VA2 withdrawing money, and documented those transactions in VA1’s and VA2’s money book. P3 said s/he received permission from P1 before going to the bank. · P4 said the SP was the staff persons that took VA1 and VA2 to the bank, but the SP did not respond to the facility when s/he was contacted during the facility’s internal investigation. P4 said it was suspected the SP was involved in the alleged incidents as the SP went to the bank with VA1 and VA2 on a “regular basis.” · VA1’s and VA2’s bank statements showed there were multiple withdrawals made each month between January and August 2023, with the amount of money withdrawn ranging from $40 to $700. P5 said the SP worked approximately 95% of the time in which money was withdrawn from VA1’s and VA2’s accounts. · P5 reviewed VA1’s and VA2’s financial records including VA1’s and VA2’s bank statements for 2023, cross referenced with VA1’s and VA2’s money book ledgers at the facility, and the SP’s timecard. P5 determined that most of VA1’s withdrawals occurred while the SP was working and after reviewing the bank statements facility administration attempted to contact the SP regarding the concerns, however the SP did not respond. VA1’s and VA2’s cash record sheets showed that from January through July 2023, there was documentation of multiple deposits and receipts from purchases. VA1’s purchases did not accumulate to the amount deposited, and the balance on the money record sheet increased from $524.70 on January 1, 2023, to 2,387.11 on July 30, 2023. From August 1, through November 6, 2023, cash deposits continued to be entered onto VA1’s cash record sheet, however there were only two receipts for purchases for a total of $20.21. The balance on VA1’s cash record continued to increase by hundreds of dollars each of the following months. On November 6, 2023, VA1’s cash balance on the cash record sheet showed $3,746.90, but VA1 only had $286.54 at the facility, leaving $3,460.36 unaccounted for. VA2’s cash record sheet showed a similar trend regarding the deposits and receipts, as well as an increasing balance during the same time frames as stated above for VA1. On November 6, 2023, VA2’s cash balance on the cash record sheet was $5,867.66, but VA2 only had $114.20 at the facility, leaving $5,581.12 unaccounted for. · P4 said the facility failed to review VA1’s and VA2’s finances. After the incident, the facility established new policies and procedures, and staff were retrained. The facility reimbursed VA1 and VA2’s missing money. LE was contacted during the investigation, but there was no information LE would be charging the SP. The SP, P1, and P5 were trained on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act and client specific plans for VA1 and VA2. The SP, P1, and P5 also completed the following trainings: “Do no Harm” and “Fraud Abuse – Waste/Abuse/Fraud.” Relevant Rules and/or Statutes: Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.09, subdivision 1, clause (1) and (2) states the license holder must provide the level of direct service support staff supervision, assistance, and training necessary to ensure the health, safety, and protection of rights of each person; and to be able to implement the responsibilities assigned to the license holder in each person's support plan or identified in the support plan addendum. Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.04, subdivision 13, paragraph (c), clause (1) states whenever the license holder assists a person served by the program with the safekeeping of funds or other property, the license holder must immediately document receipt and disbursement of the person's funds. Conclusion: It was reported the SP withdrew and took money from VA1’s and VA2’s bank accounts. The facility completed a review of VA1’s and VA2’s bank statements, VA1’s and VA2’s cash at the facility, VA1’s and VA2’s cash record sheet at the facility, and the SP’s timecards. The facility found VA1 had $3,460.36 unaccounted for, and VA2 had $5,581.12 unaccounted for. VA1 and VA2 were unable to provide specific details related to the missing money, however they did confirm the SP assisted them with withdrawing money from their bank accounts, and VA1 said the SP put the money withdrawn into the staff office. VA1 and VA2 did not have direct access to their money at the facility and required assistance from staff persons to obtain money. On November 6, 2023, the SP helped VA1 withdraw $300 from his/her bank account. However, on November 7, 2023, there was no money in VA1’s money book. The SP was contacted and came to the facility. The SP searched the facility, and after going outside by him/herself, the SP returned with $240. The SP stated s/he had found the money in the garage, but other staff persons had previously searched the garage and did not locate the money. P2 said the SP was “acting differently,” while s/he was at the facility on November 7, 2023. Facility administration attempted to contact the SP after they reviewed VA1’s and VA2’s financial information, however the SP did not respond. Although the SP worked on the day of approximately 95% of the withdrawals from VA1’s and VA2’s bank accounts, multiple other staff persons had access to VA1’s and VA2’s money in the staff office on a daily basis from January to November 2023. In addition, withdrawals from VA1’s and VA2’s bank were documented as deposits on each individual’s cash record sheets. Furthermore, the cash record sheets showed VA1 and VA2 made multiple purchases and had receipts each month until August 2023, however from August to November 2023, there was substantially fewer receipts for purchases. Therefore, it was more likely than not that there were missing receipts, which may have accounted for some or all of the money in question. Given the above, there was not a preponderance of the evidence as to how much money, if any, was used, withheld, or disposed of without legal authority. 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 the facility’s policies and procedures were adequate, but not followed. The facility identified a need for additional training for staff persons. The facility took corrective action including, but not limited to retraining all staff persons on person served finances, changed financial access so that only the supervisor has access to the VA1’s and VA2’s checking account, and the supervisor was retrained on incident reporting. Additionally, the SP no longer worked at the facility. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: Given that the facility took immediate corrective action to address the violations outlined in this report, a Correction Order was not issued. No further action was taken.
|
