Emerald Senior Care

Type of visit: Case Management - Other

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Tihesha Smith conducted an unannounced case management visit to this facility. LPA Smith was greeted by staff and disclosed the purpose of the visit. The administrator was contacted and arrived later. On September 17, 2026, LPA Smith delivered both an unsubstantiated report and a substantiated report. The substantiated allegation was: Licensee is operating over capacity. A citation was issued for the deficiency related to over capacity. Due to equipment issues, LPA Smith was unable to issue the civil penalty. Therefore, the civil penalty for the deficiency, 87204(a), originally cited on 09/17/26, was manually issued. No hazards observed at time of visit. Exit interview conducted/copy of report deliveredthe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Sep 28, 2026

Allegation investigated: Licensee is operating over capacity

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Tihesha Smith conducted an unannounced complaint visit to the facility to deliver findings. LPA Smith was greeted by staff and disclosed the purpose of the visit. Licensee Is Operating Over Capacity On 8/21/26, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Smith conducted a tour of the facility. During the tour, LPA Smith observed seven (7) residents present in the home with one (1) caregiver on duty. During an interview, the administrator stated that the facility has an approved capacity of six (6) residents. A review of the facility fire clearance confirmed that the facility is cleared for a total capacity of six (6) residents. Based on observation, record review and administrator admission the facility was operating over its approved capacity at the time of the visit there is sufficient information to support the allegation. Therefore, the allegation is deemed substantiated at this time. Deficiency cited on 9099D No hazards observed at time of visit Exit interview conducted/copy of report delivered Substantiated (cont from 9099A) The administrator further indicated that an admission agreement for R1 had not been signed and/or was not available for review at the time of the visit. LPA Smith requested to review all resident records, including LIC 9020 Client register, to verify which residents were admitted to the facility and which residents were admitted to the adjacent facility, Imperial Senior Care Inc. The requested records were not available for review at the time of the visit and administrators revealed R1 is resident from next door Imperial Senior Care Inc and had not been admitted to Emerald Senior Care, Inc . Based on the information obtained during the investigation, there is not sufficient information to support the allegation. Therefore, the allegation is deemed unsubstantiated at this time. No hazards observed at time of visit Exit interview conducted copy of report delivered.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Sep 17, 2026 · control 31-AS-20260821123643

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type A · Section cited: CCR 87204(a) · Plan of correction due date: Sep 18, 2026

A licensee shall not operate a facility beyond the conditions and limitations specified on the license, including specification of the maximum number of persons who may receive services at any one time. This requirement was not met based on observation/administrator admission 7 residents were in the home on 08/21/26. This poses a risk to residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Sep 17, 2026

Plan of correction: Administrator to remove additional resident and provide admissions agreements for all residents admitted to facility, and provide LIC 9020, cleient register/ LIC 500 Personal. POC due date:09/18/26 LPA Smith toured the facility and observed only 6 residents in facility, therefore /over capacity is cleared. However administrator must provide additional documents aboved

Allegation investigated: Staff did not seek medical treatment for resident's injury in a timely manner Staff did not address a significant change in the resident's weight

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Michael Cava conducted an unannounced subsequent complaint investigation visit regarding the above allegations. LPA met with administrators, Hayk Margaryan and Hovhannes Papazyan, who were both advised the reason for the visit. The initial visit to this complaint was made on 02/10/26. That visit consisted of interviews with the administrator, staff and residents. LPA also conducted a physical plant inspection and record review. Today, investigation consisted of a physical plant inspection (held between 8:45am and 9:45am, interviews with both administrator and one staff (between 9:45am to 11:00am), Interviews with five (5) residents (between 11:00am to 12:00pm). LPA also reviewed and requested copies of the following documents: Resident 1's (R1) Admission Agreement, Physician Report, Needs & Services, Photo ID. On 4/22/26 LPA delivered findings. Regarding allegation: Staff did not seek medical treatment for resident's injury in a timely manner, it was reported that R1 fell out of bed, hit their head on the floor and sustained a concussion. There were no Unsubstantiated dates or time provided to when this incident had occurred. There also wasn't any witnesses identified to confirm R1's fall. LPA interviewed one of R1's relatives (Relative #1), who confirmed the fall, but could not provide date, time and witnesses. Relative #1 also does not know if R1 sustained a concussion as this incident was heard threw third person. Relative #1 was not there to observe this incident, nor places fault or neglect with facility. LPA interviewed another one of R1's Relative, (Relative #2), who was also aware of R1's fall, and was notified of this incident. Relative #2 stated no concussion was sustained, and did not express any concerns regarding this allegation. Relative #2 stated administrator offered to send R1 to the hospital, but R1 declined. Interviews made with both administrator and staff reveal that R1 fell out of their recliner on or around 12/26/25, but no injury was sustained. Paramedics were called, and R1 was assessed with no serious injuries. R1 also declined to go to the hospital. Interview with R1 confirms a fall, but R1 could not recall time and date. R1 stated no injuries were sustained, and confirmed administrator called paramedics, but declined hospitalization. Interviews with four (4) residents do not corroborate with the allegation. Based on the information obtained through interviews and observation, there was insufficient evidence to prove that Staff did not seek medical treatment for resident's injury in a timely manner. Therefore, the allegation is deemed Unsubstantiated at this time. Regarding allegation: Staff did not address a significant change in the resident's weight, it was reported that R1 used to weigh 170 lbs. When last checked R1 now weighs 158 lbs. Both Relative #1 and #2 were interviewed, but could not explain the weight loss. Relative #2 states R1's weight can fluctuate as R1 can have a poor appetite at times. Relative #2 stated there doesn't appear to be a significant change in weight as in speaking with R1's primary, adults weighing average in R1's age range and height is between 150lbs to 185lbs. Relative #2 also stated it can be an adjustment with R1's medications. Interview with both administrator deny the allegation of not addressing R1's significant weight change. Both stated R1's weight can fluctuate due to loss of appetite or medication adjustment. They do notify R1's physician, who gave them the same reasons. They were both advised R1 is still within normal weight range for their age. Interview with R1 deny neglect. R1 stated they experience moods with a poor appetite. Review of R1's records show a fluctuation with weight. R1's weight on their ID is 160lbs, while on their physician report, it lists R1 at 185lbs. Interviews with four (4) residents also do not corroborate with the allegation. Based on the information obtained through interviews and record review, there was insufficient evidence to prove that Staff did not address a significant change in the resident's weight. Therefore, the allegation is deemed Unsubstantiated at this time.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 22, 2026 · control 31-AS-20260203211352

Allegation investigated: Staff unlawfully evicted resident.

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Michael Cava conducted a complaint visit to the facility to investigate the above allegation. It was reported that Resident 1 (R1) was moved to another facility unlawfully, on or around 08/17/25. When asked why, R1 gave no specific reason why other than having too much belongings that prompted the move. Today's investigation consisted of interviews with the administrator, staff, and residents. LPA also conducted a physical plant inspection and reviewed facility records. Prior to making this investigation, LPA checked facility file to see if an eviction notice was submitted, but didn't find one on file. Interviews with the administrator and staff deny the allegation. According to the administrator, R1 has a Power of Attorney (POA), who made the decision to move R1 to another facility. R1 was advised of this move and agreed to it. Interviews with five (5) of five residents was inconsistent and do not corroborate with the allegation. In addition to interviews with staff and residents, LPA made contact with R1's POA, who Unfounded confirmed that the decision to move R1 to another facility was theirs. Based on the information obtained, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the resident was unlawfully evicted. Therefore, the allegation is deemed Unfounded. This agency has investigated the complaint alleging, Staff unlawfully evicted resident. We have found that the complaint was UNFOUNDED, meaning that the allegation was false, could not have happened and/or is without reasonable basis. We have therefore dismissed the complaint. Exit interview held. A copy of the report issued.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 21, 2025 · control 31-AS-20250819123103

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

In conjunction to investigating complaint control #31-AS-20250819123103, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Michael Cava conducted an Annual Required visit and inspection of the facility. LPA met with the administrator, Hayk Margaryan, and explained the reason for the visit. Today's annual consisted of a physical plant inspection, a review of staff, resident and medication records, and interviews with staff and residents. The facility is a one story building, licensed to serve residents 60 years and above. Required postings were observed in the entry area. The smoke alarms are interconnected and dual with the carbon monoxide detector which functions properly. The fire extinguisher is located in the kitchen. It was purchased on 08/10/25. Kitchen: The kitchen appliances and fixtures were functional. LPA found a sufficient amount of perishable and non-perishable food at the facility; properly stored. Knives were stored in drawer in the kitchen, observed locked in a case. No cleaning supplies or hazardous items observed accessible in the kitchen. Bedrooms: There are five (5) bedrooms designated for residents' use. Bedrooms #1, #2, #3, and #4 are private. Bedroom #5 is shared. All bedrooms were checked and were properly furnished with appropriate beddings and linens with sufficient lighting. Bathrooms: There are two (2) bathrooms designated for residents' use. Both bathrooms were properly supplied and had functional fixtures. Hot water temperature was measured at 114 degrees Fahrenheit. No cleaning supplies or hazardous items were stored in the bathrooms. Common Areas: These included the living room and dining area. Furniture was observed to be maintained and in good repair. Floors were mopped and clean. Hallways were clear of obstruction. The dining room has a table large enough to seat six (6) residents. The auditory alarms on all exit doors were on and functional at the time of the visit. Surrounding Grounds: Front and backyards observed and had sufficient space to hold outdoor activities. The backyard has furniture appropriate for outdoor use. There is no swimming pool or any other bodies of water. Laundry Room: The laundry area is located by the kitchen. Cleaning supplies and detergents are maintained in the laundry area, which is kept locked at all times. Resident and staff records are kept in a locked cabinet within this area as well. Staff Office/Work Station: There is a passageway by the kitchen and laundry area, that leads to a converted garage, which is used as staff office. This area is inaccessible to the residents in care. Resident Files: LPA conducted a file review of resident records to insure compliance of licensing forms. Staff Files: LPA also conducted a file review of staff records to insure forms and training are up to date and compliance with licensing forms. Medications: Medications and Medication Records were review for proper storage and documentation. Pursuant to Title 22 Division 6 of the CA Code of Regulations, there were no deficiencies observed during the visit. Exit Interview Conducted, and a Copy of the Report Issued.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 21, 2025

Allegation investigated: Staff over medicated resident.

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Michael Cava conducted a complaint visit to the facility to investigate the above allegation. It was reported that Resident 1 (R1) was given a double dose of their medication, because according to facility staff, it would help them to sleep better. LPA met with both administrators, Hayk Margaryan and Hovhannes Papazyan, and advised them of the complaint. Today's investigation consisted of interviews, a physical plant inspection and record review. Interviews with both administrators deny the allegation. Both administrators stated R1's physician increased the dosage of their medication by two for anxiety and insomnia. LPA conducted a record review, and observed a physician's order to increase their Lorazepam from one tablet orally per day to two tablets orally per day. Order date made was 08/24/24. Interviews with six (6) of six residents also deny the allegation. These residents did not express any complaints regarding their medications. Based on the information obtained, there wasn't enough evidence to prove staff overmedicated a resident. Therefore, the allegation is deemed Unusubsantiated at this time. Unsubstantiatedthe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Sep 18, 2024 · control 31-AS-20240909115151

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

In conjunction with complaint control #31-AS-20240909115151, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Michael Cava conducted an Annual Required visit and inspection of the facility. LPA met with both administrators, Hovhannes Papazyan and Hayk Margaryan and explained the reason for the visit. Today's annual consisted of a physical plant inspection, a review of staff, resident and medication records, and interviews with staff and residents. The facility is a one story building, licensed to serve residents 60 years and above. Required postings were observed in the entry area. The smoke alarms are interconnected and dual with the carbon monoxide detector which functions properly. The fire extinguisher is located in the kitchen. It was purchased on 08/12/24. Kitchen: The kitchen appliances and fixtures were functional. LPA found a sufficient amount of perishable and non-perishable food at the facility; properly stored. Knives were stored in drawer in the kitchen, observed locked in a case. No cleaning supplies or hazardous items observed accessible in the kitchen. Bedrooms: There are five (5) bedrooms designated for residents' use. Bedrooms #1 to #4 are private. Bedrooms #5 is shared. All bedrooms utilized by residents were were properly furnished with appropriate beddings and linens with sufficient lighting. Bathrooms: There are two (2) bathrooms designated for residents' use. Both bathrooms were properly supplied and had functional fixtures. Hot water temperature was measured at 110 degrees Fahrenheit. No cleaning supplies or hazardous items were stored in the bathrooms. Common Areas: These included the living room and dining area. The living room is furnished with two couches, television and table. The fireplace is properly screened. The dining room has a table large enough to seat six (6) residents. The auditory alarms on all exit doors were on and functional at the time of the visit. Surrounding Grounds: Entry/exits were free of obstruction. There was furniture appropriate for outdoor use. The outdoor area was free of hazards. Laundry Room: The laundry area is located by the kitchen. Cleaning supplies and detergents are maintained in the laundry area, which is kept locked at all times. Resident and staff records are kept in a locked cabinet within this area as well. Staff Office/Work Station: There is a passageway by the kitchen and laundry area, that leads to a converted garage, which is used as staff office. This area is inaccessible to the residents in care. Resident Files: LPA conducted a file review of resident records to insure compliance of licensing forms. Staff Files: LPA also conducted a file review of staff records to insure forms and training are up to date and compliance with licensing forms. Medications: Medications and Medication Records were review for proper storage and documentation. Pursuant to Title 22 Division 6 of the CA Code of Regulations, there were no deficiencies observed during the visit. Exit Interview Conducted, and a Copy of the Report Issued.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Sep 18, 2024

Allegation investigated: Staff are not allowing resident to leave the facility

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Gary Tan conducted an unannounced initial complaint visit at this facility to investigate the above allegation. LPA met with LPA conducted physical plant tour at 9:15 AM, requested copies of facility documents relevant to the investigation at 9:33 AM and interviewed residents and staff between 10:30 AM to 11:40 AM. It was alleged that Resident #1 (R1) was not allowed to leave the facility with R1's Power of Attorney (POA) by the facility staff. LPA's record review today at 10:00 AM revealed that R1 was admitted at this facility on 05/23/23 and had revoked R1's POA on 01/27/2024. Further review also revealed that R1 was able to follow instruction and able to communicate own needs and does not have dementia diagnosis. LPA's interview with R1 revealed that R1 was aware that R1 revoked own POA and did not want to leave the facility. Based on the information gathered during this visit, the allegation is deemed unsubstantiated at this time. Exit interview conducted. Copy of this report issued. Unsubstantiatedthe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 29, 2024 · control 31-AS-20240320145409

Allegation investigated: Staff do not assist resident with obtaining therapy services Staff do not provide adequate food service to resident Staff are not allowing resident to move out of the facility Staff prevent resident from having visitors

Licensing Program Analyst, LPA Michael Cava conducted a complaint visit to the facility to investigate the above allegations. LPA met with the administrator, Hovhannes Papazyan, and advised him of the complaint. Today's investigation consisted of a physical plant inspection to insure the health and safety of the residents, which was made approximately 9:15am to 10:00am, interviews with the administrator, staff and residents, held at approximately 10:00am to 12:00pm, and record review, held between 12:00pm to 1:00pm. Staff do not assist resident with obtaining therapy services: In regards to the allegation, it was reported that the licensee has failed to assist Resident 1 (R1) with obtaining physical therapy (PT) for their legs. According to the administrator, PT was never ordered by R1's primary physician or R1's hospice services. Interview with R1 was made, and R1 deny that they require PT. Interview with the hospice agency also do not corroborate with the alegation of R1 not getting PT. The hospice nurse stated, PT was never ordered by their agency, nor R1's primary physician. PT is not part of Unsubstantiated R1's hospice care plan. Based on the information obtained, there was insufficient evidence to prove that Staff do not assist resident with obtaining therapy services. Therefore the allegation is deemed Unsubstantiated at this time. Staff do not provide adequate food service to resident: In regards to the allegation, it was reported that R1 is not being fed regular food, but always given Ensure. R1 does have problems swallowing at times, but does not require a special diet. Interview with R1 deny the allegation. R1 states they are provided a variety of food, aside from Ensure. Interviews with the other five residents also deny the allegation of not being provided an adequate food service. Administrator stated R1 is given regular food, chopped at times, to satisfy instructions from R1's physician's report. Ensure is only given as an alternative, if R1 only prefers to have it. LPA was also able to witness food preparation at the time of the visit, and observed R1's food being prepared, chopped and blended to fit their need. Based on the information obtained, there was insufficient evidence to prove that staff do not provide adequate food service to R1. Therefore, the allegation is deemed Unsubstantiated at this time. Staff are not allowing resident to move out of the facility: In regards to the allegation, it was reported that staff member are refusing to let R1 out. Interviews with the administrator deny the allegation, stating, R1 was asked if they want to move out. LPA interviewed R1, who stated they like living here, and prefer to live here. R1 further stated they are responsible for themselves at this time. Based on the information obtained there was insufficient evidence to corroborate the allegation of staff not allowing R1 to move out of the facility. Therefore, the allegation is deemed Unsubstantiated at this time. Staff prevent resident from having visitors: Regarding the allegation, interviews were made and all individuals interviewed deny the allegation. According to the administrator, visiting hours are 10am-7pm every day, or the guest can call ahead of time, and accommodations outside of visiting hours will be made. Interviews with R1 deny the allegation, stating they get visitation rights. Interviews with the other five residents do not corroborate with the allegation. Based on the information obtained, there was insufficient evidence to prove staff prevented R1 from having visitors. Therefore, the allegation is deemed Unsubstantiated at this time.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jan 30, 2024 · control 31-AS-20240125085213

Type of visit: Case Management - Incident

In conjunction with a Case Management (CM) for the previous facility number, #197609862 (see LIC 809 dated 01/09/24-closed/change of ownership, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Michael Cava conducted a Case Management (CM) visit for an incident that occurred the same day (01/09/24) at the current facility license number (197610318). During the CM visit, Resident 1 (R1) had a fall. As a result, R1 was experiencing and complaining of pain. Family member and hospice nurse was present. According to the hospice nurse, hospice protocol for the facility is to notify the hospice agency first, if incident is non-emergency and non-life threatening. Nurse made their assessment, and incident is not considered life threatening and/or non-emergency. Nurse stated, non-emergency medic was called and they are awaiting their arrival for further assistance. LPA questioned the administrator on why 911 was not notified. Administrator stated, the last time emergency paramedics were called, paramedics were upset at him, asking him why he did not adhere to R1's hospice care plan, and advised them to refer to R1's hospice care plan for non-immediate emergency. Per administrator, this is only R1's second fall since being admitted. R1 has no history of falls. LPA advised administrator to submit an Incident Report (IR) to the Licensing Agency to satisfy their reporting requirements. No citations issued at this time as facility appears to adhere to R1's hospice plan, and to provide R1 with the assistance they need.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jan 9, 2024