|
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: 1117536-H_CRS (Home and Community-Based Services-Community Residential Setting) Investigator(s): Heidi Murphy 651-431-6544 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) used two vulnerable adults’ (VA1 and VA2) funds to purchase items that were not used for VA1 and VA2. The SP did not provide receipts or verify what was purchased. Date of Incident(s): November 13 and December 7, 2025 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 December 22, 2025; from documentation at the facility and law enforcement records; and through six interviews conducted with two facility staff persons (SP and P1), one facility supervisory staff person (P2), VA2’s guardians (G1 and G2), VA1, and VA2. VA1 was not subject to guardianship. VA1’s diagnoses included major depressive disorder and diabetic polyneuropathy. VA1 enjoyed painting and going for walks. VA1’s plans stated VA1 did not need assistance with cash resources or management of his/her checking account, savings account, or gift cards. VA1 was at risk for financial exploitation and “struggles to independently manage financial matters.” VA2’s diagnoses included fetal alcohol syndrome, reactive attachment disorder, borderline intellectual functioning, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and static encephalopathy. VA2 enjoyed doing crafts and caring for his/her cat. VA2’s plans stated VA2 needed assistance with cash resources and management of his/her checking account and gift cards. VA2’s Funds and Property Authorization regarding cash stated that staff persons kept a log of all transactions and kept all receipts. Staff persons counted the cash and updated the log each time a purchase was made. For gift cards staff persons called and checked the balance on the card and updated the log each time a purchase was made. VA2’s plans stated VA2 was at risk for financial exploitation and was “unable to independently manage financial matters.” LE records showed the following: · On December 8, 2025, P2 went through VA1’s finances and saw that the SP documented that on December 7, 2025, $46.11 was spent on VA1’s debit card but the receipt attached to the ledger was for $19.85 and dated December 6, 2025. VA1 told P2 that VA1 had not gone shopping on December 7, 2025. The SP later provided a receipt dated December 8, 2025, for a $44.11 purchase made with cash. VA1 said staff persons made purchases at the dollar store or grocery store for him/her with VA1’s debit card, generally for small purchases like snacks. The SP said s/he could not locate the original receipt, so s/he went back to the store and purchased the same items with his/her own money to get a receipt. · LE obtained a copy of the original receipt for $46.11 from the December 7, 2025, purchase on VA1’s debit card from the store and compared it to the receipt the SP submitted for $44.11. The receipt the SP submitted had all the same items except was missing two $1 items. VA1 confirmed some of the items on the receipt were things VA1 used or consumed. LE located some of the items in VA1’s possession. The only item that was not accounted for was a box of hair dye. VA1 said s/he previously dyed his/her hair but did not recall the last time. VA1 confirmed that a staff person had helped the VA dye his/her hair, but the VA did not recall which staff person. LE investigated other potential suspicious transactions on VA1’s bank account regarding streaming services and movie/television show purchases and concluded there was no fraudulent activity. · On December 8, 2025, P2 went through VA2’s finances and discovered a $150 gift card was purchased with cash and the gift card had a balance of $0.84. There were no receipts to verify the gift card purchases. The SP told P2 s/he purchased clothing online for VA2 but did not provide receipts. Nothing was noted in the financial ledger for the deposit or withdrawal of the $150 to purchase the gift card. The SP stated VA2 had received money from G1 to purchase clothing. On December 22, 2025, P2 said the SP provided a list/receipt for the clothing that the SP purchased for VA2. VA2 confirmed s/he received the items on the receipt. It appeared the funds in question were used for VA2. · The SP provided LE with a Walmart receipt for four shirts and five pairs of pants that totaled $139.16. The items were delivered to the SP at the facility. There was a receipt for the $140 gift card purchase plus a $5.95 activation fee for a total of $145.95. The gift card was paid with $150 cash and $4.05 was given back in cash as change. There was a balance of $0.84 on the gift card. P1 and P2 provided the following information: · On December 5, 2025, the SP mentioned that s/he was going to take VA1’s card to make a purchase for VA1. P2 told the SP not to use VA1’s debit card without VA1 being present. The facility had a policy against taking client funds out of the facility without a client accompanying staff persons. · On December 8, 2025, P1 and P2 saw that the SP documented a $46.11 purchase at the Dollar General on December 7, 2025, on VA1’s financial ledger. The attached receipt was from a purchase on December 6, 2025, for $19.85 and the card used as payment did not match VA1’s card number. P2 questioned the SP and the SP said s/he did not have his/her glasses on when the receipt was attached and would get the correct receipt. · P2 returned to the facility “days later” and the SP had put a new ledger in VA1’s financial binder. The new ledger showed a Dollar General purchase on December 8, 2025, for $44.11 and the receipt showed the purchase was paid for with cash. P2 asked the SP about the difference in amounts and the SP “did not ever respond.” P2 had no other concerns regarding purchases on VA1’s ledger. · VA1 received his/her bank statements and was in control of his/her finances. Bank statements were mailed to VA1 and some went unopened for months. VA1 agreed to let the facility keep his/her debit card locked up for safekeeping. Staff persons assisted VA1 with online shopping. When staff persons assisted clients with making a purchase and a receipt was not available, staff persons wrote out a receipt from the facility receipt book to document the purchase. · The SP “had a history” of taking VA1’s debit card and shopping for snacks for VA1, without VA1 being present. Clients were “supposed to go with” staff persons and approve transaction made with the client’s funds. Clients needed to be present and be involved in online purchases made by staff persons with client funds. · VA1 had an unopened bank statement from November 2025 and P1 asked VA1 to open it to compare the ledger to the bank statement. Several large purchases to Roku, Amazon Prime, and Hulu were seen on VA1’s bank statement. The VA1 “had no idea” about the purchases. The facility was unable to determine what the purchases on VA1’s bank statement were for. · P1 and P2 noticed that VA2 had a gift card in VA2’s binder with a $0 balance. The SP said the gift card was used to purchase items online, however, there were no receipts and there was no documentation of the gift card in the ledger. · G1 said a $150 check was sent to VA2 to purchase clothes. The SP took VA2 and cashed the check, purchased a gift card, and made an online clothing purchase. There was no receipt to document the clothing purchase. · G1 said s/he had given the SP permission to use the money from the check to purchase a gift card and help VA2 purchase some clothing. The SP later provided a receipt for the clothing purchase, which totaled $139.16. A receipt showed the $150 cash was used to purchase a $140 gift card that had a $5.95 activation fee. The remaining $4.05 was given in change as cash. The remaining cash was put in VA2’s cash in his/her financial binder. · P2 believed VA2’s money was accounted for, and the appropriate documentation was received. VA1 provided the following information: · It was “normal” for VA1 to ask staff persons to buy VA1 items at a store using VA1’s debit card without VA1 being present. VA1 remembered the SP buying snacks, soda, and miscellaneous hygiene items for VA1 but did not recall the date. · Staff persons ordered items online for VA1 and VA1 was present during the ordering process. VA1 remembered being assisted by the SP and another staff person but did not recall that staff person’s name. · VA1 did not like going in and out of stores anymore and found it “hard” due to physical limitations. · VA1’s debit card was kept in a “lock box” that staff persons had access to. VA1 did not remember the last time s/he saw his/her debit card. VA1 had not looked at his/her bank statements for “quite a while.” VA1 “never questioned” if his/her money was spent appropriately. · VA1 stated his/her memory “is not very good.” VA2 provided the following information: · G1 sent VA2 a check for $150 to purchase clothing. The SP and another staff person assisted VA2 with picking out clothes on the Walmart website. The SP suggested purchasing a gift card to purchase the clothing and G1 agreed. The SP and VA2 took the check to VA2’s bank, cashed it, and brought the cash to Dollar General to purchase the gift card. · The SP suggested online shopping instead of going to the store. The clothing was ordered under the SP’s name and was shipped to the facility. VA2 was present when the SP placed the order. · VA2 opened the packages when they arrived at the facility. VA2 received several pairs of pants, sweatshirts, and shirts. The SP told VA2 the total was around $139.16. VA2 received all items that were ordered and stated no other items were ordered other than the clothing for VA2. G1 and G2 said the SP contacted G1 and said VA2 needed new clothes. The SP asked G1 if s/he could put some of VA2’s money on a gift card and shop online and G1 approved. It was “normal” for the facility to reach out when VA2 needed new clothes. G1 wrote out a check for $150 on October 22, 2025, and it was cashed on November 13, 2025. G1 stated VA2 would tell G1 if the money was not spent on VA2. The SP provided the following information: · On December 7, 2025, VA1 gave the SP permission to use his/her debit card at the dollar store to buy hygiene items for VA1. The SP said the VA1’s wheelchair did not fit down the aisles at the store and due to the inclement weather, the SP went to the store without VA1. · Staff persons were supposed to get the house manager’s permission to use clients’ debit cards. The SP did not get permission because there was not a house manager at the time due to recent staff changes. A previous supervisor used to let the SP take VA1’s card to make purchases without VA1 being present “all the time.” · The SP purchased items for VA1 and found a receipt in his/her vehicle, which the SP believed was from the purchase, and attached it to the client ledger and documented the $46.11 purchase. On December 8, 2025, after the SP was asked about the different amounts on the receipt and ledger s/he found out that the receipt s/he submitted was for $19.85 and dated December 6, 2025. Later that day, the SP returned to the store but was unable to get a copy of the receipt due to it being the next day. The SP repurchased the items with his/her own cash, totaling $44.11, to obtain a receipt to submit. The receipt was turned in and the SP kept the items as they were purchased with the SP’s money. The SP completed a new ledger and logged $44.11 to match the receipt total. The SP said the original items that were purchased all went to VA1 and the SP denied keeping any of those items that were paid for with VA1’s debit card. · When staff persons forgot to get receipts, they would “write a receipt.” The SP thought s/he would get “yelled at again” if the SP admitted s/he forgot the receipt. · The SP worked with VA1 at another facility previously and had a good relationship with VA1. The SP would never take anyone’s card without permission. · The SP assisted VA2 with purchasing clothing online. G1 was aware the SP was assisting VA2 and provided the money for that purchase. The items that were purchased for VA2 arrived in multiple shipments. The SP waited until all the items arrived before the SP submitted the receipt. Financial/facility records showed the following: · On December 7, 2025, the SP recorded a $46.11 purchase in VA1’s financial ledger and the attached receipt was for $19.85 and dated December 6, 2025. The card number on the receipt did not match VA1’s debit card number. · On December 8, 2025, the SP created a new ledger for VA1 and documented $44.11 purchase and attached a corresponding receipt made with cash. · LE obtained a copy of the receipt from the purchase on December 7, 2025, in the amount of $46.11. · A receipt from November 13, 2025, showed $150 cash was used to purchase a $140 gift card for VA2. The receipt also showed a $5.95 activation fee and that $4.05 was given back in cash. · A Walmart receipt from November 13, 2025, showed clothing that was purchased for VA2, which totaled $139.16. The card number that was used matched the gift card that was purchased for VA2. The SP, P1, and P2 were trained on VA1’s and VA2’s plans and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act. Conclusion: Regarding VA1 Information showed that on December 7, 2025, the SP took VA1’s debit card, with VA1’s permission, and purchased $46.11 worth of items from the dollar store. The SP attached an incorrect receipt to the ledger for the purchase. The SP said s/he was asked about the difference between the receipt and ledger so s/he went to the dollar store and attempted to obtain a copy of the original receipt but was unable to get a copy. The SP used his/her own cash and repurchased all the items to obtain a receipt to submit for VA1’s ledger. The SP submitted the new receipt for $44.11, which was missing two of the items originally purchased. LE confirmed that VA1 used the items on the receipt or had them in his/her possession, with the exception of a box of hair dye. VA1 said s/he dyed his/her hair in the past with assistance from staff persons. The concerns about streaming service purchases on VA1’s debit card were investigated by LE and determined to be purchases made by VA1. The SP denied keeping any of the items purchased with VA1’s debit card. Although the SP did not follow facility policy regarding obtaining manager approval to use any client funds for purchases and provided incorrect receipts for the purchases, given the SP had VA1’s permission to make purchases, that the SP submitted an incorrect receipt and tried to repurchase all the items to obtain an accurate receipt, that the SP denied keeping any of the items, and that LE confirmed that the items purchased were given to VA1, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether in the absence of legal authority the SP willfully used, withheld, or disposed of VA1’s funds. 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). Regarding VA2 Information was consistent that in October 2025, G1 was contacted by the SP, who requested permission to use some of VA2’s money to purchase clothes for VA2. G1 approved and sent a check for $150. The check was cashed, and a gift card was purchased. The SP assisted VA2 with ordering clothing online. The facility did not have any receipts to confirm the clothing purchase. The clothing came in multiple shipments and the SP said s/he waited until the last item was delivered to turn over a receipt to the facility. VA2 said s/he received all the items from the order. Documentation showed the $150 was used to purchase clothing for VA2 and for the service fee for purchasing the gift card. The remaining cash was put in VA2’s petty cash. Although the SP did not promptly document the purchase of the gift card or submit the receipt for the clothing purchase for VA2, given that it was confirmed that the $150 was spent on clothing for VA2 and the SP submitted the appropriate documentation after all clothing items had been delivered, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether in the absence of legal authority the SP willfully used, withheld, or disposed of VA1’s funds. It was determined that financial exploitation did not occur (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 completed an internal review and determined policies and procedures were adequate but not followed. Staff persons were retrained on documentation of client fund usage, retention of receipts, and proper purchasing methods. The SP received corrective action which included a review of existing financial logs and documentation practices to ensure all future transactions are properly recorded and verified. The SP no longer worked at the facility. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further action.
|
