|
December 13, 2024 David Lindberg, Authorized Agent Rudolph Community & Care 12400 Princeton Avenue, Suite B Savage, MN 55378 RE: Report No. 202302912 Rudolph Community & Care License No. 1115051/1069732 Dear Mr. Lindberg: The Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), Division of Licensing, received your request for reconsideration of the citation issued in the Correction Order (Attachment A) issued to you by the Department of Human Services on July 19, 2023. Reconsideration Determination Citation. This citation was issued because the license holder did not provide services in response to a person’s identified needs as specified in the coordinated service and support plan and the coordinated service and support plan addendum consistently. On April 1, 2023, a client (C) left the facility without anyone knowing and was unsupervised in the community for an unknown amount of time before being located by law enforcement. According to the C’s coordinated service and support plan and the coordinated service and support plan addendum, the C should not be in the community unsupervised. Applicable Law. License holders are required to provide services in response to the person's identified needs, interests, preferences, and desired outcomes as specified in the support plan and the support plan addendum. Minnesota Statutes section 245D.07, subdivision 1a, paragraph (a). Your Response. In your reconsideration request, you state the Investigation Memorandum (IM) indicated that the program and staff person’s actions were consistent with the VA’s plan and that the VA was able to elope despite these measures. Reconsideration Determination. DHS may issue a correction order when a license holder fails to comply with an applicable law or rule. Minnesota Statutes section 245D.07, subdivision 1a, paragraph (a), requires license holders to provide services in response to the person's identified needs, interests, preferences, and desired outcomes as specified in the support plan and the support plan addendum. C’s Support Plan Addendum states, C cannot be in the community without staff. It states C “is very vulnerable and is dependent on staff to monitor for [his/her] safety at all times when in the community” and that staff will be no farther than an arm’s length away when C is in a community setting. On reconsideration you do not dispute that C was in the community and staff were not with C to monitor him/her and nor were they no more than an arm’s length away. C was located approximately a mile away from the facility without any staff present, inconsistent with the C’s plans. In your reconsideration request you argue the violation did not occur because the IM states staff followed the VA’s plans. The IM states, the supervision provided to the VA “before leaving” was consistent with the VA’s support plan/addendum and that upon discovering C was gone, staff followed the facility’s policies and procedures. C’s plans were followed before s/he left the facility. However, since C’s plans state C cannot be alone in the community, and C was alone, you did not comply with C’s Support Plan Addendum, as required by Minnesota Statutes section 245D.07, subdivision 1a, paragraph (a). The record supports this citation, and it is affirmed. Disposition: The Commissioner has reviewed the relevant law and all the information you submitted in response to the correction order. The evidence presented supports the citation, and it is affirmed. This is a final agency decision. Sincerely,
Kofi Montzka, Attorney Legal Counsel’s Office Office of Inspector General c: Christianna L. Finnern Winthrop & Weinstine, PA Capella Tower 225 S. 6th Street, Suite 3500 Minneapolis, MN 55402
|
