|
January 8, 2026 Natasha T. Robinson Attorney Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. 60 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402-4400 License Number: 1120847 CRS ORDER OF CONDITIONAL LICENSE RECONSIDERATION DECISION Dear Ms. Robinson: On September 17, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), Division of Licensing, issued an Order of Conditional License to Dungarvin Minnesota LLC (Dungarvin or license holder), which placed its Community Residential Setting (CRS) license on conditional status for a period of two years. (See attached Exhibit A). On October 1, 2025, DHS received the license holder’s request for reconsideration. On October 14, 2025, Sherburne County Health & Human Services (Sherburne County or county) wrote a letter to DHS responding to the license holder’s request for reconsideration. I. RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL LICENSE A. The license holder’s arguments on reconsideration. In its request for reconsideration, the license holder requested that DHS reconsider the Order of Conditional License “in its entirety including each violation alleged in the Order and imposition of the conditional license.” The license holder raised six arguments, each of which is addressed below. First, the license holder argued that the five correction orders were timely and effectively corrected. DHS appreciates that the license holder has stated that it corrected the citations in the correction orders by the deadlines provided, as it was required to do. However, the license holder does not dispute that it did not request reconsideration of the citations in the five correction orders and that, as a result, they are final. The license holder also does not dispute that the citations were correct at the time they were issued. DHS appropriately considered the citations in the five correction orders when considering the nature, chronicity, and severity of the licensing violations, and the effect of the violations on the health, safety, or rights of persons served by the program, as discussed below. Second, the license holder argued that it has been very difficult to work with one of its residents, M.B., to keep M.B.’s bedroom and living area in the lower level of the home clean. M.B. has a history of hoarding and has been diagnosed with persistent mood disorder, borderline personality disorder, and mild intellectual disabilities. Since M.B. moved into the home in September 2023, cleanliness in his area of the home has been an issue and the license holder stated that it has attempted to work with M.B. to clean the area. Although DHS appreciates the efforts the license holder has made, unsanitary conditions continue to exist throughout the home, including in M.B.’s areas. Third, the license holder argued that since February 2025, conditions in the home have improved and that the home is cleaner. The license holder has continued to implement the cleaning and disinfecting protocol it developed and trained staff on, which included consistent cleaning of all areas and regular deep cleans. Records created by staff support that this protocol continues to be followed. The license holder continues to use professional pest control services, which include treatments for both rodents and insects such as cockroaches. The license holder contends that staff have not seen cockroaches in the home since February 2025. Lastly, the license holder contends that the county did not find any additional violations during is unannounced visit to the home on August 19, 2025. DHS appreciates the efforts the license holder has made to improve the conditions of the home. It appears, however, that unsanitary conditions still exist in the home. In its October 14, 2025, letter to DHS in response the license holder’s request for reconsideration, the county noted that although conditions in the home have improved, there was still “garbage” clutter mostly in the basement of the home. The county continued to recommend that staff follow the daily and weekly cleaning protocol that the license holder created. The county also noted that it would continue to make unannounced visits to monitor the condition of the home. Fourth, the license holder argued that the allegations, considered in their totality alongside all relevant facts and circumstances, lack the nature, chronicity, and severity to impose a conditional license. The license holder argued that the unsanitary conditions in the home have improved because it has: (1) worked with M.B and his care team, despite resistance and pushback from M.B. and (2) established a cleaning protocol that involves multiple cleans per day, regular deep cleaning, a checklist and regular check-ups to ensure compliance, professional pest control services, and additional staff training. The license holder also argued that the presence of cockroaches is not a sign of chronic or severe issues because (1) it takes a long time to fully eliminate cockroaches and (2) it is very difficult to do so because of M.B.’s behaviors (bringing food and garbage home, and resisting cleaning efforts). The license holder states that the home is cleaned and routinely disinfected, pest control professionals have not identified issues in several months, and staff have not seen signs of cockroaches. Based on all of the above, the license holder contends that the nature, chronicity, and severity of its violations do not support a conditional license. This argument is addressed below in section B. Fifth, the license holder argued that in issuing the conditional license, DHS did not evaluate the factors stated in Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.04, subdivision 6(a). In particular, the license holder argued that DHS did not meaningfully evaluate the program’s operation and well-being of persons served by the program, and that if DHS had done so, its evaluation would have showed that a conditional license was not appropriate. Regarding the program’s operation, the license holder argued that since February 2025, it has made significant operational efforts to improve the conditions in the home (as described above). Lastly, the license holder argued that DHS imposed a strict liability standard in issuing the conditional license (because there were problems, a sanction was automatically warranted). This argument is addressed below in section B. Lastly, the license holder argued that the terms and duration of the conditional license are unnecessary, unwarranted, and improper (exceed the seriousness of the violations). However, a request for reconsideration under Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.06, is limited to reconsideration of DHS’s decision to issue a conditional license and does not include reconsideration of the terms that are included in the Order of Conditional License. B. A conditional license is warranted. The Commissioner determined that it was appropriate to place the license holder’s license on conditional status based on the Commissioner’s evaluation of the program, under Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.04, subdivision 6, and the nature, chronicity, or severity of the licensing violations, under Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.06, subdivision 1. On reconsideration, the Commissioner considered both of these factors (the program evaluation and the nature, chronicity, or severity of the licensing violations) and determined that a conditional license is warranted, as described below. 1. The Commissioner’s evaluation of the program Before making a license conditional, the Commissioner shall evaluate information gathered under Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.04, subdivision 6. The Commissioner’s evaluation shall consider the applicable requirements of statutes and rules for the program or services. Minn. Stat. § 245A.04, subd. 6(a). The Commissioner shall also evaluate the facts, conditions, or circumstances concerning five factors, including “the well-being of persons served by the program” and the “license holder’s ability to demonstrate competent knowledge of the applicable requirements of statutes and rules . . . for which the license holder is licensed.” Id. at subd. 6(a)(2), (5). In this case, DHS did not impose a strict liability standard, but instead it appropriately evaluated relevant factors set forth in Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.04, subdivision 6(a). Over a relatively short period of time (July 2024 to February 2025), the license holder was issued seven citations contained in five correction orders that addressed repeated concerns with the unsanitary conditions of the home. The conditions persisted, were not fully remedied, showed that the license holder’s operation was deficient in correcting violations,1 did not have the ability to comply with statutory requirements, and affected the well-being of persons served by the program. Based on DHS’ evaluation of these relevant factors, DHS correctly issued the conditional license. 2. Nature, chronicity, or severity of the licensing violations Under Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.06, subdivision 1, when issuing a conditional license, the Commissioner must consider the nature, chronicity, or severity of the violation of the law or rule and the effect of the violation on the health, safety, or rights of persons served by the program. The Commissioner appreciates that the license holder has described the efforts it has made to correct the violations and to ensure its compliance with licensing statutes and rules in the future. The nature, chronicity, and severity of the licensing violations, however, warrants a conditional license. All seven citations in the five correction orders involved the health and safety of the persons served by the program. Specifically, the license holder was responsible for the following licensing violations: (1) dirty home (accumulation of dirt, grease, vermin, and insects); (2) dirty kitchen (dirty dishes, silverware, and open food containers on the floor; spillage (dried up and old) on cupboards and dishwasher; cockroach infestation in the dishwasher, drawers, and cupboard that contain boxed and bagged food; dead cockroaches behind the refrigerator and stove; dried up eggs in a pan on the oven along with old food all over the stove top; open containers of food and old dirty dishes with food left on counter tops and tables); (3) dirty carpets and hard floor surfaces; (4) cockroach infestation in the bathroom drawers and cupboards; (5) garbage in the downstairs living room, kitchenette, and bedroom; (6) basement bedroom has garbage and clothing all over the bed, floor, shelves, and dresser; (7) mattress in the basement bedroom is dirty with no bed sheets; (8) the garage is almost full of garbage; and (9) lighters and matches laying around the home. These health and safety violations are serious and warrant a conditional license. The Order of Conditional License includes five correction orders that were issued between July 2024 and February 2025. Of the seven citations in the five correction orders, four were repeat violations. This history of licensing violations in a relatively short period of time, including several repeat violations, demonstrates that the license holder has a history of noncompliance with licensing rules and statutes. The nature, chronicity, and severity of the licensing violations support a conditional license. II. CONCLUSION Based on all of the reasons above, an Order of Conditional License is warranted to ensure that the license holder understands the relevant licensing requirements and is able to come fully into compliance. Due to the need to monitor the license holder for compliance with applicable licensing laws and rules, and to ensure the health and safety of persons served by the program, the Commissioner affirms the Order of Conditional License issued on September 17, 2025. In its December 27, 2024, Recommendation for Licensing Action, the county recommended that the conditional license be for one year. The county recommended in its October 14, 2025, letter that the license holder and its staff continue to follow the daily and weekly cleaning protocol that was created, and that the county would continue to make unannounced visits to monitor the condition of the home. Based on the improvements the license holder has made and the recent recommendation of the county that the license holder continue to follow the cleaning protocol, DHS is modifying the length of the conditional license from two years to one year. Because the terms of the conditional license were stayed pending a decision on the license holder’s request for reconsideration, the terms of the conditional license begin from the date of receipt of this letter. The license holder will receive an Amended Order of Conditional License which will reflect the reduction in the length of the conditional license. III. TERMS OF THE CONDITIONAL LICENSE In addition to the CRS licensing rules and statutes, you are required to comply with the following terms: 1. Dungarvin must create a daily cleaning checklist that includes: a. Staff clean countertops, appliances, and cupboards daily with disinfectant. b. Staff check inside of kitchen and bathroom cupboards daily for dead insects. If any are found, they must be removed and the area disinfected. c. Staff must ensure trash is collected and taken out to the dumpster at least daily. d. Staff must ensure there are not dirty dishes and open food containers sitting out around the home, including bedrooms. e. Staff must ensure that all dishes are cleaned promptly after use or put into the dishwasher. Dishwasher should be run and emptied at least daily. f. Staff must ensure that the home is free of excess dirt, debris, and clutter. 2. Dungarvin must train all staff on the cleaning checklist and monitor that items are checked off daily. Your licensor will monitor your compliance with all applicable laws and rules. Verification of compliance may include unannounced visits. Failure to comply with the requirements in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 245A (Human Services Licensing Act), Minnesota Statutes, chapter 245C (Human Services Background Study Act), Minnesota Statutes, chapter 245D (Home and Community-Based Services), Minnesota Statutes, section 626.557 (Vulnerable Adults Act), and with the terms of your conditional license may result in further licensing action, including revocation of your license. IV. RIGHT TO APPEAL TO THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS This is a final agency decision and is subject to further review only by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Please note that there are time limits for seeking review by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. See Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 606 and Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, Rule 115. If you have any questions regarding the Order of Conditional License, please contact Tawnya Arueya, Supervisor, at 651-201-5571. Sincerely,
James Song, Attorney Legal Counsel’s Office Office of Inspector General Attachment (Order of Conditional License, dated September 17, 2025) 11 Although the Order of Conditional License did not expressly refer to the “program’s operation,” DHS considered this factor by acknowledging that the license holder received five correction orders in a short period of time for similar issues, which showed that the license holder’s operation was deficient by failing to correct violations.
|
