|
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: 1096289-H_CRS (Home and Community-Based Services-Community Residential Setting) Investigator(s): Lindsay Arth/Lisa Shock 651-431-6537 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) took $544 from the vulnerable adult (VA). Date of Incident(s): Multiple dates between April and October 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 four interviews conducted with a facility supervisory staff person (P1), the SP, the VA’s guardian (G) and the VA. The VA was diagnosed with traumatic brain injury, schizoaffective disorder, cognitive delay, bipolar disorder and borderline intellectual functioning. The VA enjoyed playing games, gambling and going to the mall. The VA’s Individual Abuse Prevention Plan said that the VA made impulsive decisions and spent his/her money on items that did not fit the VA’s needs. The VA did not budget his/her money. The G was the VA’s rep payee and in charge of dispersing the VA his/her money. The VA had a debit card to make purchases for his/her personal needs, but the VA had $4 to $6 a week to spend freely. The VA would not know if someone misused his/her funds and would not report misuse if s/he thought s/he was going to get in trouble. The facility kept the VA’s funds in a secure locked box and staff persons were to note and sign the daily log when the VA received money. Staff persons assisted the VA with completing purchases exceeding $15.00 and obtaining receipts for purchases. Staff persons were to count all petty cash at the beginning of each shift. P1 and facility documentation including the G’s Zelle records provided the following information: · On October 28, 2025, P1 was notified by an office staff person that the SP requested assistance with auditing financial books for the facility and clients. P1 then spoke to the SP who said that beginning in April 2025, the G sent the VA money each month via the SP’s personal Zelle® account. [Note: Zelle® is an application used to send and receive money from one person’s bank account directly to another person’s bank account.] In the past, the VA had a debit card but lost it and the G did not want to replace it. Each month the G sent money through Zelle for the VA and then each month, the SP took the money out of his/her account and put it in the VA’s petty cash account. · The G provided his/her Zelle records dated April to October 2025, to P1 who reviewed them. The records showed that SP was given: $104 in April, $166 in May, $84 in June, $220 in July, $70 in August, $182 in September and $56 in October, which totaled $882. The G told the SP to give the VA $4 to $5 a day. The facility Disbursement Record showed that the VA was given $88 in April, $120 in May, $104 in June, $80 in July, and $74 in August, which totaled $466. There was no record from the facility of money dispersed to the VA for September or October. [Note: There was a difference of $416 between the amount the G sent for the VA and what was documented as dispersed to the VA.] · Staff were to document the date, time, and amount of money the VA was given. Then document where the VA spent his/her money and get a receipt. This policy was not followed because there were several dates when the VA’s money disbursement was not documented. P1 stated that s/he did not believe the SP took the VA’s money but that the SP did not follow facility policy which included not comingling funds, documenting the disbursement of funds, and obtaining a receipt for purchases. · P1 did not have any concerns with the SP regarding the management of funds for the other clients residing in the facility. The G said that the VA had difficulty managing his/her funds and the G was looking for a different way of managing the VA’s money. In April 2025, the G decided to Zelle money of differing amounts to the SP every one to two weeks. The G’s expectation was that the SP would then take the money out of the SP’s personal account and put it in the VA’s lock box or the SP would give the VA $4-$5 dollars a day. The G approved to give the VA $4, $5 or $6 a day depending on the VA’s needs. The G did not believe the VA was missing money or that the SP took the VA’s money because the VA would tell the G if s/he did not get his/her money every day. Between April and September 2025, the G sent the SP $926 via Zelle for the VA. The VA said she got $4-$5 dollars a day from staff persons and enjoyed spending it on pop, candy, clothes, or gifts. The VA did not recall a time when s/he did not get his/her money and said that s/he would tell someone if s/he did not get it. The SP provided the following information: · Previously the VA had a debit card for her/his weekly allowance but because the VA spent all the money in one day and then was upset the rest of the week because s/he had no more money and twice staff lost the VA’s debit card, the G tried to figure a new way for the VA to get his/her money without going over a daily allowance. On April 18, 2025, the G and the SP talked and they decided that the G would send the VA’s money to the SP via Zelle and the SP would then disperse the VA $4-$5 a day depending on the direction given by the G. · The SP said that initially when s/he gave the VA his/her money, it was tracked on a calendar, but the SP said that s/he did not always do that and it “fell off” in September and October 2025. On October 28, 2025, the SP called P1 asking for help to “put the [financial] books together” for an upcoming audit. At that time, the SP told P1 about the G sending the VA money to the SP via Zelle and how the SP was dispersing the VA his/her funds so the SP was unsure of what documentation was needed for the audit. At that time, P1 told the SP that the G could no longer send the VA’s money to the SP via Zelle and the SP gave all the VA’s remaining money to the VA which the SP stated was less than $20. · The VA was aware of his/her personal needs money and would tell the G if s/he did not get his/her money. · The SP denied using the VA’s money for his/her personal use but stated that s/he did not follow facility policy which included no comingling of funds between individuals served, the company or employees. The SP did not follow this policy when s/he had received Zelle transfers from the G for the VA into his/her own personal account. Law Enforcement investigated and spoke with P1, the G, and the SP and each said that the VA was not missing money. Law enforcement took no further action. The facility Management of an Individual’s Monetary Resources policy said that there will be no co-mingling of funds between individuals served, the company or employees. If an individual receives cash from their petty cash account, the person will sign a voucher confirming they received the cash. Facility documentation showed that the SP and P1 each received training regarding the facility’s policies and procedures, including the Management of an Individuals Monetary Resources, and the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act prior to the incident. Relevant Rules and/or Statutes: Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.04, subdivision 13, paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) states: · The license holder must ensure that persons served by the program retain the use and availability of personal funds or property unless restrictions are justified in the person’s individual plan; · The license holder must ensure separation of funds of persons served by the program from funds of the license holder, the program, or program staff; and · Whenever the license holder assists a person served by the program with the safekeeping of funds or other property, the license holder must immediately document receipt and disbursement of the person's funds or other property at the time of receipt or disbursement, including the person's signature, or the signature of the conservator or payee. Conclusion: Information obtained showed that from April through October 2025, the G sent the VA’s monthly personal needs money ($882) to the SP’s bank account via Zelle and then the SP dispersed the money to the VA ($466), which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.04, subdivision 13, paragraphs (a) and (b). The SP was to give the VA $4-$5 dollars a day for spending and was to track the money and keep receipts for any transaction the VA made. The SP acknowledged not consistently tracking the VA’s disbursements and/or expenditures which was a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.04, subdivision 13, paragraph (c). The SP stated that when P1 told the SP that the G could no longer send the VA’s money to the SP via Zelle, the SP gave all the VA’s remaining money to the VA which the SP stated was less than $20, leaving approximately $396 unaccounted for. Information from the VA, P1, the SP, and the G was consistent that if the VA did not receive his/her daily money the VA would tell the G or P1. However, there was no information that supported that the VA did not get his/her daily money so P1 and the G did not believe that the SP used the VA’s money for the SP’s personal use. Prior to this incident there were no concerns regarding the SP’s work at the facility. Given that the VA stated s/he did not recall a time when s/he did not get his/her money and said that s/he would tell someone if s/he did not get it; that there was no time the VA told the G and/or P1 that s/he did not get his/her money; and that the SP acknowledged not consistently tracking the VA’s disbursements and/or expenditures, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the missing $396 was a result of the SP’s mismanagement of the VA’s funds or whether the SP used the VA’s $396 for his/her personal use. 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 its policies and procedures were adequate but not followed. All staff were re-trained on the financial expectations for the individuals that reside at the facility. The SP no longer worked at the facility. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: On February 10, 2026, the facility was issued a Correction Order for the violations outlined in this report.
|
