|
May 12, 2026
Richard Joslin, Authorized Agent Bright Path LLC 8649 Sandro Road Minneapolis, MN 55438 License Numbers: 1118740/1097629 (245D-HCBS) Report No. 202507778 Dear Richard Joslin: The Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), Division of Licensing, received your request for reconsideration regarding citations 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 in the Correction Order issued to you on October 16, 2025. After an independent review of the record, the Commissioner has determined there is sufficient evidence to support the citations and they are affirmed. You did not request reconsideration of citation 6, and that citation is now final. Reconsideration Determination Citation 1 The citation was issued because the license holder did not monitor implementation of policies and procedures by staff persons. On August 15, 2025, the interactions of a staff person (P1) with a consumer (C), as described in violations 4 and 5, were not in accordance with the facility’s Rights of Persons Served policy, Personal Electronics Policy, Data Privacy policy, and Emergency Use of Manual Restraints policy. Applicable Law Under Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.04, subdivision 14, paragraph (b), clause (3), the license holder shall monitor implementation of policies and procedures by program staff.
Your Response You submitted a letter in which you indicated the program had comprehensive, DHS-compliant policies in place and that staff were trained on those policies. You indicated that after the incident, the staff person was retrained, the C’s support plan was updated, and the program implemented additional supervision and de-escalation strategies. Reconsideration Determination The statute requires that the license holder monitor implementation of policies and procedures, and the information provided in the reconsideration request describes monitoring steps that occurred after the incident described in the citation. The reconsideration request acknowledged that P1 did not follow facility policies and training, and the license holder did not monitor implementation until after the incident occurred. There is sufficient evidence to support the citation, and it is affirmed. Citation 2 The citation was issued because the license holder did not ensure staff persons followed policies and procedures protecting clients’ data privacy rights. On August 15, 2025, P1 video recorded an interaction with the C on P1’s personal cell phone. Applicable Law Under Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.11, subdivision 3, the license holder must establish policies and procedures that promote service recipient rights by ensuring data privacy according to the requirements in applicable law as specified.
Your Response You submitted a letter in which you indicated license holders are not required to “ensure” that staff persons follow data privacy policies and procedures, but rather that they are required to establish data privacy policies and procedures as was done by the license holder. Reconsideration Determination Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.11, subdivision 1, requires a license holder to establish, enforce, and maintain policies and procedures as required in the section, and subdivision 3 as cited in the violation requires policies and procedures that promote service recipient rights by ensuring data privacy according to the requirements in specified law. In the request for reconsideration, you acknowledged P1 violated policy but assert that the program fulfilled its statutory obligations when it established data privacy policies and procedures. However, because the license holder did not also enforce the policies by ensuring P1 followed them, there is sufficient evidence to support the citation, and it is affirmed. Citation 3 The citation was issued because the license holder did not ensure that staff persons reviewed and received instruction on the client’s coordinated service and support plan or coordinated service and support plan addendum as it relates to the responsibilities assigned to the license holder to achieve and demonstrate an understanding of the person as a unique individual, and how to implement those plans. Applicable Law Under Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.09, subdivision 4a, paragraph (c), the staff person must review and receive instruction on the person’s support plan or support plan addendum as it relates to the responsibilities assigned to the license holder, and when applicable, the person’s individual abuse prevention plan, to achieve and demonstrate an understanding of the person as a unique individual, and how to implement those plans.
Your Response You submitted a letter in which you indicated the applicable law does not apply to the staff person (P2) because that person does not provide direct support, supervision, or service delivery to the VA. You indicated P2 serves as administrative personnel assigned to assist with internal review and compliance documentation, and P2’s duties are limited to ensuring policies are followed, records are maintained, and corrective actions are logged. Reconsideration Determination The applicable law requires that a staff person must review and receive instruction on the person’s support plan as it relates to the responsibilities assigned to the license holder. The facility’s Internal Review indicated that before P2 was assigned to compliance duties, s/he had not completed training specific to C’s plan of care or role-specific compliance training. Also, P2’s training records show that his/her annual training regarding basic required coursework and policy training appropriate to his/her position had lapsed. As a result, P2 did not have required training needed to conduct internal reviews/investigations and to make timely reporting decisions. There is sufficient evidence to support the citation, and it is affirmed. Citation 4 The citation was issued because the license holder did not provide services in response to a client’s identified needs, interests, preferences, and desired outcomes as specified in his/her support plans. The C’s Support Plan Addendum Intensive Services stated that if aggression occurred, staff persons were to encourage the C to walk away from situations and to practice coping skill such as deep breathing, puzzling, coloring, or listening to music. Staff persons also offered “space” in heightened situations. If staff persons were concerned about the C or other persons in “imminent risk of harm,” they called 9-1-1. On August 15, 2025, after the C was “verbally aggressive” and “having behaviors,” the C said s/he was going to his/her bedroom and did so. P1 followed the C to his/her bedroom and video recorded the C on his/her personal cell phone, which resulted in the C escalating and precipitated an interaction where P1 pulled the C’s hair. Applicable Law Under Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.07, subdivision 1a, paragraph (a), the license holder must 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, and in compliance with the requirements of this chapter. License holders providing intensive support services must also provide outcome-based services according to the requirements in section 245D.071.
Your Response You submitted a letter in which you indicated the program complied with the applicable law by formulating and training staff on the C’s individual support plan. You indicated the incident described in the citation occurred because P1 acted independently of their training and contrary to policy. You also indicated the program immediately retrained the staff person and reinforced the behavioral support plan expectations for staff working with the C. Reconsideration Determination You did not dispute that services were not provided in response to the person’s identified needs, interests, preferences, as required by the statute. The license holder is responsible for ensuring that staff implement their training, and the license holder did not ensure the C’s plans were implemented. There is sufficient evidence to support the citation, and it is affirmed. Citation 5 The citation was issued because the license holder did not protect a client’s protection related rights, including being treated with courtesy and respect. On August 15, 2025, after C was “verbally aggressive” and “having behaviors,” the C said s/he was going to his/her bedroom and did so. P1 followed the C to his/her bedroom and video recorded the C on his/her personal cell phone which resulted in the C escalating and precipitated an interaction where P1 pulled the C’s hair. Applicable Law Under Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.04, subdivision 3, paragraph (a), clause (6), a person’s protection-related rights include the right to be treated with courtesy and respect.
Your Response You submitted a letter in which you indicated the license holder met the statutory requirement to protect each person’s right to be treated with courtesy and respect because the staff person had completed all required trainings. You indicated the staff person’s conduct was inconsistent with their training and that the program responded immediately with an internal review and retraining. Reconsideration Determination Under Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.04, subdivision 1, clause (4), the license holder must ensure the exercise and protection of the person’s rights in the services provided by the license holder, and those rights include the right to be treated with courtesy and respect. You did not dispute that the C was not treated with courtesy and respect, and the statute requires that the license holder ensure the protection of the person’s rights. There is sufficient evidence to support the citation, and it is affirmed. Disposition The Commissioner has reviewed the relevant laws and all the information you submitted in response to the Correction Order. The record supports the citations and they are affirmed. This is a final agency decision. The Commissioner appreciates your response and encourages you to continue to work cooperatively with your DHS licensor regarding questions about corrective action ordered in the correction order. Sincerely,
Frances Simon Standing, Attorney Legal Counsel’s Office Office of Inspector General cc: Pari I. McGarraugh, Attorney
|
