|
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: 1116108-H_CRS (Home and Community-Based Services-Community Residential Setting) Investigator(s): Scott Brandt Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) made inappropriate comments to a vulnerable adult (VA), such as saying that the VA was “pathetic,” the VA’s family was “stupid,” and that the VA’s family did not love the VA. Date of Incident(s): June 8, 2026 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 2, paragraph (b), clause (2): Conduct which is not an accident or therapeutic conduct which produces or could reasonably be expected to produce physical pain or injury or emotional distress including, but not limited to: the use of repeated or malicious oral, written or gestured language toward a vulnerable adult or the treatment of a vulnerable adult which would be considered by a reasonable person to be disparaging, derogatory, humiliating, harassing, or threatening. Summary of Findings: Pertinent information was obtained during a site visit conducted on June 29, 2026, from documentation at the facility, and through six interviews conducted with the VA, the SP, two facility managers (P1 and P2), a facility staff person (P3), and the VA’s guardian (G). The VA’s Support Plan showed that the VA was “helpful” and a “caring individual who brings humor and kindness into [his/her] interactions.” The VA enjoyed gaming, playing basketball and baseball, and going bowling. The VA’s Face Sheet showed that the VA was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyper disorder, and “borderline intellectual functioning.” P1 provided the following information: · On June 9, 2026, P1 received a phone call from P3, who worked with the SP the previous day. P3 told P1 that on June 8, 2026, the SP kept going in and out of the VA’s bedroom and made comments such as that the VA’s family was “stupid,” that the VA was “entitled,” that the VA “smelled,” and that the VA’s family did not love the VA. P3 told P1 that when P3 tried to intervene, the SP yelled at P3, but P3 did not tell P1 what the SP said. · Prior to the incident, P1 did not have concerns related to the SP’s conduct when working with the VA or other clients and did not hear the SP previously make comments like those. P1 was not aware of any lasting effects the VA may have had regarding the alleged comments by the SP to the VA. The VA provided limited information but stated that the SP “threatened” one of the VA’s family members. The VA was unable to provide information regarding what the SP said or when that happened. P3 provided the following information: · When P3 worked with the SP on June 8, 2026, the SP told P3 about an incident that happened the previous day, June 7, 2026. During that incident, the VA talked about the SP’s family member in an inappropriate manner. When that happened, the SP walked away from the VA and nothing further happened that night. However, the SP told P3 that on June 8, 2026, the SP “wasn’t able to get over” the VA’s comments from the previous evening. After the conversation, P3 talked to the VA and told him/her that s/he should apologize to the SP, but the VA declined to apologize. · As the day proceeded, the SP repeatedly went into the VA’s bedroom, and made comments to the VA, including that the VA’s family did not love the VA. P3 said that the SP made other comments to the VA, but P3 could not remember what those comments were. · At some point, the VA apologized to the SP, but the SP wanted more of a “specific” apology from the VA. The VA told P3 that s/he was “scared’ of the SP. · P3 was not aware of a time that the SP swore at the VA or other clients. P2 stated that although s/he did not have significant concerns with the SP’s interactions with the VA or other clients, there were previous times in which the SP would ask a client to take a shower and when the client said that they had showered, the SP would say that the client was lying. P2 verbally coached the SP on those types of comments, but P2 did not specifically remember when that happened. After the discussion, P2 believed that the SP’s interactions improved. P2 was not aware of a time that the VA swore when working at the facility. The G stated that although s/he did not hear it, the VA told the G that the SP swore, saying things such as, “I don’t fucking care,” and “I don’t give a shit.” The VA also told the P that the SP told the VA that s/he was “irritating.” The G denied that the SP threatened the G. The SP provided the following information: · Prior to the incident, the SP described his/her relationship with the VA as “friendly” and that they did not have any issues working together. · Although the SP did not remember the date, the VA began making an inappropriate comment about the SP’s family member but did not finish his/her sentence. When that happened, the SP told the VA that if the VA was going to talk to the SP that way, the SP “would prefer not to speak” to the VA and then the SP walked away from the VA. The VA responded by making comments to the SP such as the SP was “fucking useless,” and “I fucking hate you.” When the VA made those comments to the SP, the SP did not respond. · When the SP worked the following day, the SP was “upset” about the VA’s comment the previous day but was not “angry.” The SP asked the VA if s/he wanted to talk about the VA’s comments from the previous day. When the SP told the VA that s/he should not speak to others that way, the VA “agreed.” After that, the VA and the SP continued the day without incident. · The SP denied going into and out of the VA’s bedroom, making inappropriate comments to the VA, and telling the VA that his/her family did not love the VA. The SP denied yelling at P3. The facility’s training records showed that all staff interviewed for this investigation were trained on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act and the VA’s care plans prior to June 28, 2026. Conclusion: Information showed that on June 7, 2026, the VA made a comment to the SP about the SP’s family member. The SP walked away and there was no further incident. The next day, the SP worked and was still upset about the comment the VA made. P3 told P1 that the SP made comments to the VA including that the VA’s family was “stupid,” that the VA was “entitled,” that the VA “smelled,” and that the VA’s family did not love the VA. P3 told this investigator that the SP repeatedly went into the VA’s bedroom and made comments to the VA, including that the VA’s family did not love the VA. P3 said that the SP made other comments to the VA, but P3 could not remember what those comments were. The VA stated that the SP “threatened” the VA’s family member but did not provide details regarding what the SP said or when that occurred. The G stated that the SP did not threaten him/her. The SP acknowledged that s/he was “upset” about the VA’s comment but was not “angry” and that when the SP and the VA talked about the incident, the VA “agreed” that s/he should not have made those comments. The SP denied going in and out of the VA’s bedroom, making inappropriate comments to the VA, and telling the VA that his/her family did not love the VA. Although the SP had reason to minimize his/her actions for fear of repercussions and stated s/he was upset about the VA’s comments, given that conflicting information was provided regarding what the SP said, that the SP denied the allegations, that there was no further information to confirm or dispute either account, and that there was no information that the SP engaged in similar behavior on other occasions, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the SP engaged in conduct that was repeated and would be reasonable expected to produce emotional distress. It was not determined whether emotional abuse occurred (conduct which is not an accident or therapeutic conduct which produces or could reasonably be expected to produce physical pain or injury or emotional distress including, but not limited to: the use of repeated or malicious oral, written or gestured language toward a vulnerable adult or the treatment of a vulnerable adult which would be considered by a reasonable person to be disparaging, derogatory, humiliating, harassing, or threatening). Action Taken by Facility: The facility completed an internal review and determined that although its policies and procedures were adequate, the SP did not follow the procedures when s/he “engaged in inappropriate verbal interactions.” The SP was no longer employed by the facility. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further action taken.
|
