|
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: 1079262-H_CRS (Home and Community-Based Services-Community Residential Setting) Investigator(s): Gessner Rivas gessner.rivas@state.mn.us Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) stole a personal item from a vulnerable adult (VA). Date of Incident(s): Unknown. 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 October 29, 2024; from documentation at the facility and through five interviews conducted with the VA, a facility staff person (P), a case manager (CM), the VA’s guardian (G), and the SP. The VA was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, borderline personality disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The VA was a fan of the Minnesota Vikings and missed the residence where s/he previously resided. The VA’s Individualized Abuse Prevention Plan (IAPP) stated that the VA had a history of providing inaccurate information and accusing staff persons and other residents of taking her/his personal items that the VA had misplaced. The VA stated s/he kept a steam iron, which s/he purchased about three years prior, in the lower level of the facility in a cabinet. The VA used the iron for crafts. The last time that the VA had used the iron was a month prior to the report being received by this investigator. The VA informed staff persons that s/he could not find it, the VA believed the iron had been stolen. The VA stated that s/he had requested a lock on her/his bedroom door, but the facility refused. The VA was not aware of any other resident at the facility having a lock on their bedroom door. The CM stated that the VA told him/her that a staff person stole the VA’s iron. When the VA told the CM that the SP took the VA’s iron, the VA also told the CM that the SP slapped a facility resident, pushed a facility resident into his/her wheelchair, and called residents a “nuisance.” The VA did not provide names or specific details. However, then the VA told the CM and this investigator that s/he had not witnessed any of those things and what s/he told the CM was a “misunderstanding” of information. The SP denied the allegations and the P had not witnessed this. Therefore, without further details, this allegation was not investigated further, and the VA’s iron being taken was the focus of this investigation. The SP stated that the VA had a history of hiding things when s/he wanted to have an item replaced. The SP denied taking the VA’s iron. The VA had requested to have a lock on her/his door, the facility agreed to put a lock on the door if the facility could have a copy of the key in case of emergencies, but the VA said no, so no lock was placed on the door. The facility’s Internal Review stated that the VA said that s/he could not find her/his iron. The VA stated that s/he believed her/his iron had been stolen. Staff persons at the facility looked but could not find the VA’s iron; the facility planned on replacing the VA’s iron. The G was aware that the VA was not happy at the facility but had no concerns about the VA’s treatment at the facility. The facility’s personnel and training records showed that staff persons who provided information for this report were trained on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act. Conclusion: Information showed that the VA said that s/he could not find her/his iron. The VA stated that s/he believed her/his iron had been stolen. Staff persons at the facility looked but could not find the VA’s iron; the facility planned on replacing the VA’s iron. Although the VA said his/her iron was stolen, given that the VA’s IAPP noted that the VA had a history of accusing staff persons of taking items s/he had misplaced, that the SP denied taking the iron, and that there was no further information that the VA’s iron was taken by a staff person or the SP, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the SP or any staff person took the VA’s iron. 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’s Internal Review determined that policies and procedures were adequate and followed. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further action taken at this time.
|
