|
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: 1072286-H_CRS (Home and Community-Based Services-Community Residential Setting) Investigator(s): Anna Parkin 651-431-6225 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) used a vulnerable adult’s (VA) debit card on three occasions without the VA’s permission. Date of Incident(s): December 27, 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 for this investigation was obtained remotely, including documentation from the facility and law enforcement records; and through three interviews conducted with a supervisory staff person (the P), the SP, and the VA’s guardian (G). The VA was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury. According to the VA’s Risk Assessment Detail, the VA struggled with managing his/her own finances. Staff persons assisted the VA with money management and purchases as needed. The G helped manage the VA’s finances. Consistent information was provided that the facility stored the VA’s bank card in a money bag inside a locked drawer in the staff office at the facility. If the VA wanted to purchase something, staff persons used the VA’s bank card and returned it back in the money bag along with a receipt. The bank account and card were in the G’s name (who was the same gender as the SP) and the G monitored the VA’s bank account. The G, the P, and the SP provided the following information: · On December 29, 2026, at 4:37 p.m., the G texted the P that s/he looked at the VA’s online bank statement and saw three charges from the same store that occurred on December 27 and posted online on December 29, 2025. The three charges were $45.43, $28.15, and $18.68 ($92.26 total) at a gas station in Superior, Wisconsin. · The P “immediately” texted all staff persons asking staff persons if anyone brought the VA to a gas station in Superior that day. Staff persons responded denying bringing the VA to Superior. The P texted the SP, who was working, to look inside the VA’s money bag and see if the VA’s bank card was there. The SP texted saying that a few days prior, the SP brought the VA shopping for Christmas gifts for the VA’s family. When the SP and the VA returned to the facility, the SP forgot to put the VA’s bank card back in his/her money bag. On December 28, 2025, the SP realized s/he did not put the VA’s bank card back inside the VA’s money bag. · The P asked the SP if s/he used the VA’s bank card instead of his/her own during that time. The SP asked the amounts of the transactions and the P provided them. The SP stated it sounded like the amount s/he spent on two purchases of cigarettes and gas for his/herself and that the SP had a bank card that looked similar to the VA’s bank card. The SP checked his/her own bank statements to see if the purchases were on his/her bank account and the SP did not see any. The SP offered to “immediately” reimburse the VA the money and to notify the G of the situation. The SP was not aware s/he used the VA’s bank card for his/her purchases until the P notified him/her. · The P and the SP each stated staff persons were trained to hold onto the VA’s bank card when out shopping. Once staff persons returned to the facility, they put the bank card and receipt into the money bag. The P and the SP each stated that the SP using the VA’s bank card was an “honest mistake.” The P did not have previous concerns with the SP. · The G asked the VA who took him/her shopping and the VA responded with the SP’s name. The G was surprised to find out it was the SP and felt it was “accidental” that s/he used the VA’s bank card. The SP reimbursed the G for the purchases. The VA’s bank account information showed on December 29, 2025, three purchases posted in the amounts of $28.15, $18.68, and $45.43 at a gas station. Facility documentation showed that staff persons, including the SP, were trained on the VA’s plans and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act prior to the incident. Conclusion: Although it was concerning that on December 27, 2025, the SP used the VA’s bank card for three purchases at a gas station totaling $92.26; given that the G, the P, and the SP all said it was accidental, that there were not previous concerns with the SP using the VA’s funds, and the SP reimbursed the G once s/he was aware of the purchases, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the SP willfully used the VA’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). Action Taken by Facility: The facility completed an internal review and determined that policies and procedures were adequate but not followed. The P was provided with additional financial training, the facility purchased money bags for client funds while outside the facility, and the SP received a final written corrective action plan. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further action taken at this time.
|
