April 30, 2026                    CERTIFIED MAIL

Ziad Oumer, Authorized Agent

Optimum Recovery Services

2940 36th Ave S

Minneapolis MN 55406

License Number 1121439

Report Number 202511692

ORDER OF LICENSE REVOCATION

Dear Ziad Oumer

The Department of Human Services (DHS) is revoking your license to provide substance use disorder treatment services at 2940 36th Ave S Minneapolis, MN 55406. This revocation is based on failure to comply with licensing laws and rules and commissioner’s evaluation of the program. Details of our findings are provided below. Our next steps and your options are also detailed.

The revocation goes into effect on May 15, 2026, at 5:00pm to allow time for delivery of this order and ten days for you to inform the Commissioner whether you intend to appeal the license revocation explained below.

LICENSING VIOLATIONS DETERMINED ON January 12-14, 2026

DHS determined that your program did not follow licensing rules and statutes, as described below.

1. Violation: The license holder did not meet requirements for receiving public funding reimbursement from the commissioner for services provided in the following ways:

a. Services were billed; however, not provided as follows:

i. Four hours of group services were billed on November 3, 2025; however, there was no supporting documentation in the client record (client file numbered 2); and

ii. One hour of individual counseling was billed on October 3, 2025; however, there was no supporting documentation in the client record (client file numbered 2); and

b. Multiple services were billed during the same time frame as follows:

i. Documentation shows that both group counseling and individual counseling were provided to the client on October 8, 2025, from 9:00am-12:30p (client file numbered 2); and

ii. Documentation shows that both group counseling and individual counseling were provided to the client on October 8, 2025 from 9:00am-1:00pm (client file numbered 3).

Statute Violated: Minnesota Statutes, sections 245A.167, paragraph (a).

2. Violation: On January 12, 2026, a DHS licensor determined that the license holder did not initiate a background study on two staff persons (personnel files numbered 1 and 2) before they began positions allowing direct contact with persons served by the program:

a. Staff (personnel file numbered 2) began working in a position allowing direct contact with persons served by the program in June 2025; however, the license holder did not initiate a background study to DHS until September 11, 2025.

Under Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.07, subdivision 3, paragraph (d), the Commissioner shall not issue a fine to a license holder who self-corrects a background study violation before the Commissioner discovers the violation. A license holder who has previously exercised the provision of paragraph (d) to avoid a fine for a background study violation may not avoid a fine for a subsequent background study violation unless at least 365 days have passed since the license holder self-corrected the earlier background study violation.

Because the license holder self-corrected the background study violation involving staff (personnel file numbered 2) before the Commissioner discovered the violation, the license holder is not being fined for the background study violation involving staff (personnel file numbered 2); and

b. Staff (personnel file numbered 1) began working in a position allowing direct contact with persons served by the program on September 10, 2025; however, the license holder did not initiate a background study to DHS until October 7, 2025. Although the license holder self-corrected the background study violation involving staff (personnel file numbered 1) on October 7, 2025, at least 365 days had not passed since the license holder previously self-corrected the background study for staff (personnel numbered 1) on September 11, 2025.

License holders determined to have a background study violation are required to pay a $200 fine for each violation. Because license revocation is a more severe sanction against your license, DHS is not imposing this fine.

Statute Violated: Minnesota Statutes, section 245C.04, subdivision 1, paragraph (h).

3. Violation: Three of three personnel files reviewed for personnel file content did not meet requirements. The personnel files did not contain:

a. A completed application for employment signed by the staff member and the staff members’ qualifications for employment (personnel files numbered 1 and 2);

b. The date of first direct contact with persons served by the program (personnel files numbered 1 through 3); and

c. An inquiry required by Minnesota Statutes, sections 604.20 to 604.205 made to the staff member’s former employers regarding substantiated sexual contact with a client employer name and addresses for the past five years for which the staff member provided psychotherapy services (personnel files numbered 1 and 2).

Statute Violated: Minnesota Statutes, sections 245A.041, subdivision 6 and 245G.13, subdivision 3, clauses (1) and (3).

4. Violation: One personnel file was reviewed for requirements governing annual trainings and did not meet requirements (personnel file numbered 3). There was no documentation of the following annual trainings for calendar year 2025:

a. Mandatory reporting as specified in Minnesota Statutes, sections 245A.65, 626.557, 626.5572, and chapter 260E, including specific training covering the license holder’s policies for obtaining a release of client information; and

b. HIV minimum standards.

Statute Violated: Minnesota Statutes, sections 245A.19, paragraph (b), 245A.65, subdivision 3, and 245G.13, subdivision 2, paragraphs (c) and (d).

5. Violation: Two of two personnel files reviewed for requirements governing orientation did not meet requirements. There was no documentation of the following orientation:

a. Within 24 working hours (personnel files numbered 1 and 2):

i. Specific job responsibilities;

ii. Policies and procedures;

iii. Client confidentiality;

iv. HIV minimum standards; and

v. Client needs;

b. Within 72 hours of first providing direct contact services on (personnel files numbered 1 and 2):

i. Mandatory reporting requirements as specified in Minnesota Statutes, sections 245A.65, 626.557, and 626.5572;

ii. Program abuse prevention plan; and

iii. Internal policies and procedures related to the prevention and reporting of maltreatment of individuals receiving services;

c. Before direct contact with a person served by the program

i. Maltreatment of minors reporting requirements and definitions in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 260E (personnel files numbered 1 and 2);

ii. Emergency overdose treatment (personnel file numbered 1); and

iii. Drug and Alcohol Policy (personnel file number 1); and

d. Documentation of 12 hours of training in co-occurring disorders within six months of employment (personnel file numbered 2).

Statute Violated: Minnesota Statutes, sections 245A.19, paragraph (b), 245A.65, subdivision 3, and 245G.13 subdivisions 1, clause (7), and 2, paragraphs (d) and (e).

6. Violation: Four of four client files reviewed for requirements governing client orientation did not meet requirements. There was no documentation of the following orientation:

a. On the day of service initiation:

i. Client rights and responsibilities (client files 1 through 3);

ii. Grievance Procedure (client files 1 through 3); and

iii. Opioid Education material approved by the commissioner (client files 1 through 4);

b. Within 24 hours of admission:

i. Maltreatment of vulnerable adults (client files 1 through 4); and

ii. Program abuse prevention plan (client files 1 through 3); and

c. Within 72 hours of admission to the program (client files numbered 1 through 4):

i. HIV Minimum standards; and

ii. Tuberculosis.

Statute Violated: Minnesota Statutes, sections 245A.65, subdivision 1, paragraph (c), 245G.04 subdivision 3, 245G.09, subdivision 3, paragraph (a), clause (1), and 245G.15, subdivisions 1 and 2.

7. Violation: Four of four client files for initial services plan did not meet requirements as follows:

a. The client file did not contain an initial services plan (client file numbered 4);

b. The initial services plan was not completed within 24 hours of service initiation. The initial services plan was due September 2, 2025; however, it was not completed until October 31, 2025; 59 days late (client files numbered 1 through 3);

c. The initial services plan was a templated document that was the same for all clients reviewed and was not person-centered and client specific (client files numbered 1 and 3); and

d. The initial services plan did not document immediate health and safety concerns (client file numbered 2).

Statute Violated: Minnesota Statutes, section 245G.04 subdivision 1 and 245G.09, subdivision 3, paragraph (a), clause (2).

8. Violation: Four of four client files reviewed for vulnerable adult determinations did not meet requirements in the following ways:

a. The client file did not contain a vulnerable adult determination (client files numbered 4); and

b. The vulnerable adult determination was not completed within 24 hours of the day of service initiation. The vulnerable adult determination was due September 2, 2025; however, it was not completed until October 31, 2025; 59 days late (client files numbered 1 through 3).

Statute Violated: Minnesota Statutes, section 245G.04, subdivision 2, paragraph (a).

9. Violation: Eight of eight client files reviewed for requirements governing comprehensive assessments did not meet requirements as follows:

a. The client file did not contain a comprehensive assessment; therefore, a level of care determination was not completed according to Minnesota Statutes, section 254B.04 (client files numbered 1,4, 5, and 7)

b. A comprehensive assessment was not completed by the end of the fifth day on which a treatment service was provided as follows:

i. The comprehensive assessment was due on October 6, 2025; however, was not completed until October 27, 2025; 21 days late (client files numbered 6 and 8); and

ii. The comprehensive assessment was due on October 6, 2025; however, was not completed until November 1, 2025; 26 days late (client files numbered 2 and 3); and

c. The comprehensive assessment did not contain the following:

i. The person-centered reason for the delay and planned completion date documented within the client file (client files numbered 2 and 3);

ii. Clients’ age (client file numbered 2);

iii. Clients’ household members (client files numbered 2 and 3);

iv. Substance use history including amounts, type of substances, frequency and duration, route of administration, periods of abstinence and circumstances of relapse (client file numbered 2);

v. Clients’ relationships with the client’s family and other significant personal relationships, including the client’s evaluation of the quality of each relationship (client files numbered 2 and 3);

vi. Clients’ resources (client files numbered 2 and 3);

vii. Clients’ family health history (client files numbered 2 and 3);

viii. Determination of whether the individual screens positive for co-occurring mental health disorders (client files numbered 2 and 3); and

ix. Recommendation for the ASAM level of care identified in Minnesota Statutes, section 254B.19, subdivision 1 (client file numbered 2).

Statute Violated: Minnesota Statutes, section 245G.05 subdivisions 1, paragraphs (a) and (c), and subdivision 3.

10. Violation: Eight of eight client files reviewed for individual treatment plan (ITP) did not meet requirements in the following ways:

a. The client file did not contain an ITP (client files numbered 2 through 5 and 7);

b. The ITP was not signed by the end of the tenth day on which a treatment session had been provided, not to exceed 30 days, as follows:

i. The ITP was due on October 13, 2025; however, it was not completed until January 12, 2026, 92 days late and completed after the start of the licensing review (client file numbered 6);

ii. The ITP was due on October 13, 2025; however, the ITP had not been signed by the alcohol and drug counselor. The client signed the ITP on January 9, 2026; 89 days late (client file numbered 1); and

iii. The ITP was due on October 13, 2025; however, the ITP had not been signed by the alcohol and drug counselor. The client signed the ITP on November 13, 2025; 32 days late (client file numbered 8);

c. The ITP was not based on the comprehensive assessment (client file numbered 1); and

d. The ITP did not include the following (client file numbered 1):

i. A treatment strategy;

ii. Participants involved in the client’s treatment planning;

iii. Resources to refer the client to when the client’s needs will be addressed concurrently by another provider; and

iv. Active interventions to stabilize mental health symptoms.

Statute Violated: Minnesota Statutes, section 245G.06, subdivisions 1 and 1a, clauses (1), (3), (5), and (6).

11. Violation: Four of four client files reviewed for requirements governing client record documentation did not meet requirements in the following ways:

a. Client documentation did not record:

i. Type of treatment service for the following dates:

1. September 29, 30, October 1 through 3, 6 through 10, 13 through 16, 20 through 24, and 28, 2025 (client files numbered 1 through 3);

2. November 5 through 7, 10, 11, 24 and 25, 2025 (client file numbered 2); and

3. December 1 and 2, 2025 (client file numbered 3); and

ii. Client response for the following dates:

1. October 7, 15, 28, and November 25, 2025 (client file numbered 1);

2. October 3, 7, 8, 14, 15, and November 25, 2025 (client file numbered 2);

3. October 15 and 28, 2025 (client file numbered 3); and

4. January 7, 2026 (client file numbered 4);

b. Documentation of treatment services was not signed within 7 days of providing the treatment service for the following dates:

i. September 29, 30, October 1 through 3, 6 through 10, 13 through 16, 20 through 23, and November 8, 2025 (client file numbered 1);

ii. September 29, 30, October 1 through 3, 6 through 10, 13 through 16, 20 through 23, and November 11, 24 and 25, 2025 (client file numbered 2);

iii. September 29, 30, October 1, 2, 6 through 10, 13 through 16, 20 through 23, November 24, and December 1, 2025 (client file numbered 3); and

iv. December 29, 31, 2025 , January 2 and 7, 2026 (client file numbered 4);

c. The staff member who provided the service did not record the treatment service. Through staff interviews and confirmed through client documentation review, it was determined that documentation of treatment services provided during the months of September and October 2025 (client files numbered 1 and 3) was not completed by the staff person who provided treatment service. The treatment director indicated that they created the notes in the client files however a different staff person facilitated the treatment service; and

d. Client documentation was not accurate as follows:

i. Multiple group notes for the same time frame were documented in the client file, and it was unable to be determined which note was reflective of the services actually provided on the following dates:

1. September 30, 2025 (client files numbered 1 through 3);

2. October 3, 2025 (client files numbered 1 and 2); and

3. October 8, 2025 (client files numbered 1 through 3); and

ii. Discharge summary contained inaccurate admission date (client file numbered 3).

Statute Violated: Minnesota Statutes, section 245G.06 subdivision 2a, and 2b, paragraph (c), and 245G.09, subdivision 1.

12. Violation: One client file reviewed for requirement governing discharge summaries (client file numbered 3) did not meet requirements in the following ways:

a. The service discharge summary was not completed within 5 days of the client’s service termination. The client was discharged on December 19, 2025; however, the discharge summary was not completed until January 5, 2026, 12 days late; and

b. The discharge summary did not include the following:

i. The client’s issues and needs while participating in treatment, including services provided;

ii. Description for each of the ASAM six dimensions; and

iii. Continuing care recommendations.

Statute Violated: Minnesota Statutes, section 245G.06, subdivision 4, paragraphs (a), and (b), clauses (1), (2), (3), and (6).

REASON FOR LICENSE REVOCATION

1.   Failure to comply with licensing laws and rules

DHS determined that your program failed to fully comply with the laws and rules that apply to licensed substance use disorder treatment facilities. DHS has also considered the nature, chronicity, or severity of the violations that led to the revocation of your license.

Nature, severity, and chronicity

Many of the violations cited in the Order of Revocation are violations impacting the health, safety or rights of individuals served by the program. The violations include:

· Eight violations related to the documentation and provision of treatment services were determined (violations numbered 1 and 5 through 10). These violations were determined in all of the client files. As a SUD treatment license holder, you are required to provide person-centered treatment services based on recommendations from the client’s comprehensive assessment. Staff interviews, along with review of client documentation, demonstrated that clients were receiving services according to the program’s treatment requirements, not as clinically indicated. Further, a lack of treatment documentation found during a review of client files indicates that clients are not receiving a level of care appropriate for their needs. Additionally, services provided were not consistent with what was reimbursed through public funding, with client files indicating that clients were receiving multiple services during the same time frame.

· Four violations related to client assessments and treatment planning were determined (violations numbered 6 through 9). A review of all current client files was completed for comprehensive assessment and treatment plans requirements. None of the client files reviewed had comprehensive assessments and individual treatment plans completed within the statute required timeframes. Completion of the required assessments and treatment plans is a critical component of treatment so that services provided are person-centered and clinically indicated.

· Five violations related to background studies, orientation and staff development were determined (violations numbered 2 through 5 and 11). A review of all current employee files was completed and only contained a background study clearance document. No other required documents maintained in the file. The health and safety of your clients is compromised when staff do not have required background studies completed, and staff are not trained on items such as emergency procedures, maltreatment reporting and the program abuse prevention plan.

· The license was issued by DHS on September 20, 2024. During the licensing review, program staff stated that the program had only begun serving clients in September 2025, which was confirmed through review of client records. The nature and severity of the violations identified above occurred over a four-month time span, which raises concerns with the license holder’s ability to demonstrate competent knowledge of the applicable requirement of statutes and rules. As a result of the short time span the license holder was serving clients, this was the first licensing review conducted; therefore, chronicity was not determined.

Legal Authority: Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.07, subdivision 3(a)(1).

2.   Commissioner’s evaluation of program

In determining whether a licensing action is warranted, DHS evaluated the facts, conditions, and circumstances concerning your program’s operation. This includes consideration of the well-being of persons served by your program, and information about the qualifications of staff persons that are working in your program, along with the license holder’s ability to demonstrate competent knowledge of the applicable requirements of statutes and rules. When speaking to the Authorized Agent (AA) while on site during the review to discuss the severity of the citations and determine competency, the AA asked for citations related to staff files not to be included in the order. Additionally, the license holder did not maintain a staff file for any of the current staff.

As a license holder you are enrolled to receive public funding reimbursement for services. You must comply with enrollment requirements as licensing standards. You have violated these standards as described in violation number one above. Additionally, you have not engaged in person centered treatment planning as demonstrated by all persons currently served by your program not having assessments, treatment plans, accurate and timely documentation of treatment services and requiring all persons served by your program to attend the same amount of treatment hours. Furthermore, all staff persons currently working at the program did not receive orientation or training to program policies and procedures and two staff persons started in positions providing direct care and treatment to individuals served by the program before they had a cleared background study.

DHS has determined that revocation of your license is appropriate based on the commissioner’s evaluation of the program.

  Legal Authority: Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.04, subdivision 6.

Due to the serious nature of these violations and the conditions in the program, which impact the health and safety of persons served in your care, your license to provide substance use disorder treatment services is revoked.

YOUR RIGHT TO APPEAL

You have the right to appeal the revocation. Your request must be in writing and clearly state that you are requesting a contested case hearing for this matter. Your request must be made before the deadlines provided below. If you do not meet this deadline, you lose your right to an administrative appeal. The timeline to appeal began when you received this order.

If you are mailing your request, it must be sent by certified mail and postmarked within 10 calendar days from when you received this order. Please send it to:

Commissioner, Department of Human Services

Office of Inspector General

Legal Counsel’s Office

Attention: Licensing Legal Unit

PO Box 64953

St. Paul, MN 55164-0953

If your request is being personally delivered, it must be received by DHS within 10 calendar days from when you received this order. Please bring it to:

Commissioner, Department of Human Services

Office of Inspector General

Legal Counsel’s Office

Attention: Licensing Legal Unit

444 Lafayette Road North

St. Paul, MN 55155

Upon DHS’ receipt of your timely appeal, your case would be scheduled for a contested case hearing in front of an Administrative Law Judge. Following this hearing, the Commissioner of DHS will issue a final order. If you do not appeal or if the order is affirmed by the Commissioner following a hearing, DHS is prohibited from issuing you and the controlling individuals a license for five years. In addition, any additional licenses held by you or the controlling individuals shall also be revoked.

Legal representation at the contested case hearing:

You do not need a lawyer to appeal. However, a lawyer can help you with your appeal. The state or county will not get you a lawyer and will not pay for a lawyer. If you cannot afford a lawyer, you may be able to get free legal advice or help with your appeal. To find out if free help is available, contact: Volunteer Lawyers Network at 612-752-6677; Central Minnesota Legal Services at 612-332-8151; Southern Minnesota Legal Services at 651-222-4731; or go to www.lawhelpmn.org to find a local legal services program that may be able to help you.

You can also find information on contested cases from the Office of Administrative Hearings website at https://mn.gov/oah/self-help. Click on Administrative Law Overview, then click on Administrative Law Contested Case Hearing Guide for a list of frequently asked questions.

Operating the program pending the outcome of the appeal:

If you file an appeal within the timeframes described above, you may continue to operate pending the outcome of your appeal. If you continue to operate, you must comply with the conditions described below. If you continue to operate, you must do so in full compliance with all licensing laws and rules. Failure to follow a law or rule that may impact the health or safety of persons served by your program could result in the immediate suspension of your license.

If you continue to operate pending the outcome of your appeal, you must comply with the following conditions:

1. While operating pending appeal, you cannot apply for or be issued an additional DHS License;

2. Within 7 days of filing an appeal, you must submit to your DHS Licensor a draft of the required notice to clients and parties who refer individuals to your program of the status of your license: revoked operating under appeal for approval. The notice must include the reasons your license was revoked, and it must include either a copy of the Revocation Order or an offer to provide a copy of the order upon request.

3. Within 14 days of filing an appeal, you must notify current clients and all parties who refer individuals to your program of the status of your license: revoked operating under appeal. While operating pending appeal, you must notify new clients and referral sources that the license is revoked and operating under appeal before they begin receiving services. A copy of the notice with client and/or legal representative(s) signature must be maintained in the client file.

4. Within 14 days of filing an appeal, you must submit to DHS Licensing a resume for any proposed Compliance Officer that addresses each qualification listed below. The license holder agrees to ensure that the program’s Compliance Officer will not hold the position of owner, treatment director or authorized agent. The program’s Compliance Officer must have the following minimum qualifications and must be approved by the program’s DHS Licensor:

a. Two years of professional experience in the following:

1) A regulatory or compliance position;

2) Involved in direct care as a providing mental health services, or

3) If applicable, the development and implementation of mental health or substance use disorder treatment planning in a DHS licensed mental health or substance use disorder licensed program.

b. Working knowledge of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 245A, Human Services Licensing and MN Statutes, Chapter 245G, Substance Use Disorder Licensed Treatment Facilities; and

c. A bachelor’s degree or higher in Human Services, Social Work, Sociology, Psychology; or, a related field may substitute for one year of professional experience in Human Services, Social Work, Sociology, Psychology or a related field.

5. Within 30 days of compliance officer approval, you must implement DHS Licensing’s self-monitoring plan that ensures an ongoing, systematic approach for monitoring compliance with applicable licensing laws, rules, and statutes. The Compliance Officer must conduct within the first quarter a review of License Holder’s policies and procedures to ensure compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 245A and 245G. This includes an assessment of staff implementing the policies and procedures.

Documentation requirements of the results of the monthly reviews are outlined in the DHS self-monitoring plan, discrepancies found within the reviews and corrective actions taken must be submitted to the program’s DHS Licensor quarterly, and continuing every three months thereafter, on the 15th of month following the quarter, for 2 years from the effective date of the appeal or otherwise determined by DHS licensing.

6. Within 30 days of filing an appeal within the timeframes described above, you must submit documentation to demonstrate all violations identified above have been corrected. This includes verification of staff training, revising noncompliant policies and procedures, etc.

Legal authority for this licensing action

· This action is taken under Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.07, subdivision 3, which describes under which conditions DHS may revoke a license.

· The timeline to appeal a revocation order is provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.07, subdivision 3(b).

· Minnesota Statutes, section 245.095 defines which programs administered by DHS are included in the exclusion provision, and further defines “excluded,” “individual,” and “provider.”

· License holders have a right to appeal licensing actions and request a contested case hearing, under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 14 and Minnesota Rules, parts 1400.8505 to 1400.8612.

· If a license holder files a timely appeal of a revocation order, the license holder may continue to operate the program pending a final order of the appeal under Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.07, subdivision 1(b).

· Under Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.04, subdivision 7, paragraph (d), clause (3), the commissioner shall not issue or reissue a license if the applicant, license holder, or controlling individual has had a license issued under this chapter revoked within the past five years.

· Under Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.04, subdivision 7, paragraph (d), clause (5), when a license issued under this chapter is revoked under clause (1) or (3), the license holder and controlling individual may not hold any license under chapter 245A for five years following the revocation, and other licenses held by the applicant, license holder, or controlling individual shall also be revoked.

· Under Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.07, subdivision 1, paragraph (b), the commissioner may include terms the license holder must follow pending a final order on appeal.

Questions

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, you may contact Maura McGarry, Supervisor, at 651-431-6671

Sincerely,

Paula Halverson, Unit Manager

Licensing Division

Office of Inspector General

PO Box 64242 • Saint Paul, Minnesota • 55164-0242 • An Equal Opportunity and Veteran Friendly Employer
https://mn.gov/dhs/general-public/licensing/