Large community · Licensed for 99 · El Cajon
Casa El Cajon
306 Shady Ln, El Cajon, CA 92021Licensed since 1993
Overview
No openings reported
- Approved by the state: WheelchairState licensing record · October 26, 2026
- Licensed for 99: a large care communityThe state license record
Ask this home
Free for families. A home gets your number only if you say yes.
Care and support
- Wheelchair
Not on file: dementia, hospice and bedridden approvals.
Approved by the state · State licensing record · October 26, 2026. An approval may cover specific rooms or residents; it does not establish an opening.
Read the state’s own wording
FACILITY SERVES ELDERLY CLIENTS AGES 60 YEARS AND OVER, 22 OF WHOM MAYBE NON-AMBULATORY IN ROOMS 114 - 116, 118, 120, 122, 124, 126, 128 AND129 ONLY.
935 - ELDERLY
CDSS record, verbatim · October 26, 2026
Care services
These are the home’s own statements about its day-to-day practice — they are not part of the state licensing record, and the state has not approved or reviewed them.
Diabetes care
Reported on AssistedLiving.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Incontinence care
Reported on AssistedLiving.com · seen September 9, 2026.
As needs change
We’ll ask for you. Not on file for Casa El Cajon: two-person transfers or a lift, who is awake overnight, help with medicines, staying through hospice and care if memory loss develops. When we check availability, we ask about these too.
Check availabilityWhat it costs here
Covelight estimate
$4,200a month to start
Likely $3,300–$5,350
From 12 nearby homes that publish rates · this home’s rate is not on file
Monthly cost breakdownWith a studio and basic help · room, care and fees$4,200likely a month
Memory care is not priced here: a dementia-care designation is not on file for this home. Ask the home.
Starting monthly rate$4,200likely $3,300–$5,350
Covelight’s estimate starts from the rates 12 communities with 50 or more beds within 10 miles publish, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices. In testing, the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 homes. This home’s own rate is not on file.
Basic help with daily careUsually includedup to $600
Basic help is usually part of the starting rate. Homes that price care by level start around $600 a month (44 California homes publish a care-level range, seen in September 2026).
One-time move-in fee$2,500one time · likely $0–$4,000
Homes that list a one-time entry or community fee charge a median of $2,500 (133 California listings; middle half $1,000–$4,000). Many homes list none — ask.
- Likely monthly totalLikely $3,300–$5,500
- $4,200
- First monthWith a one-time move-in fee · likely $4,000–$8,700
- $6,700
How people payPrivate pay, Medi-Cal waiver, SSI/SSP, veterans, insurance
- MedicareDoes not pay for room and board in a care home. It can still cover hospice or home-health visits inside one.
- Private payMost residents pay from savings, a home sale or family help. Ask for the rate and what it includes in writing.
- Medi-Cal Assisted Living WaiverThis home is not on the DHCS participation list dated October 1, 2026. Ask the program about current options. The waiver pays for care services, not room and board.
- SSI/SSPCalifornia’s 2026 standard is $1,626.07 a month; $1,444.07 of it goes to the home and $182 stays with the resident. Whether this home accepts it is not on file — ask.
- VeteransVA Aid & Attendance can add to a veteran’s or surviving spouse’s pension. Ask whether residents here have used it.
- Long-term care insuranceMost policies pay for licensed care homes. Ask what paperwork the home provides for claims.
Rates at nearby homes12 nearby homes publish starting rates of $2,195 to $6,760
12 homes like this within 10 miles publish starting rates mostly between $2,550–$6,200.
- Lantern CrestSantee · 2.7 mi · Large community$4,850Listed on Seniorly · independent living studio · seen September 9, 2026
- La Vida RealEl Cajon · 3.4 mi · Large community$6,760Listed on its own website · assisted living, plan a-1 alcove / one bathroom · seen October 27, 2026
- Westmont of La MesaLa Mesa · 3.9 mi · Large community$5,750Listed on Seniorly · seen September 9, 2026
- Grossmont Gardens Senior LivingLa Mesa · 5.2 mi · Large community$2,195Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- The MonteraLa Mesa · 5.3 mi · Large community$4,813Listed on A Place for Mom · seen September 9, 2026
- Sungarden TerraceLemon Grove · 7.0 mi · Large community$5,500Listed on its own website · assisted living starting price · seen October 5, 2026
- Monte Vista Village Senior LivingLemon Grove · 7.6 mi · Large community$2,400Listed on Seniorly · seen September 9, 2026
- Atria CollwoodSan Diego · 8.7 mi · Large community$2,578Listed on Seniorly · assisted living studio · seen September 9, 2026
- Westmont at San Miguel RanchChula Vista · 9.5 mi · Large community$3,295Listed on Seniorly · seen September 9, 2026
- Activcare at Rolling Hills RanchChula Vista · 9.7 mi · Large community$5,650Listed on Seniorly · memory care shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026. We don’t have this home’s dementia-care disclosure. California requires a home that advertises dementia care to describe that care in writing when you ask.
- Cloisters of the ValleySan Diego · 9.7 mi · Large community$5,550Listed on Seniorly · seen September 9, 2026
- Nazareth HouseSan Diego · 9.8 mi · Large community$4,000Listed on Seniorly · seen September 9, 2026
How this estimate worksWithin 25% for 7 in 10 homes in testing
Covelight’s estimate starts from the rates 12 communities with 50 or more beds within 10 miles publish, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices. In testing, the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 homes. This home’s own rate is not on file.
- Only prices a home put out itself count: its own website, a listing it supplied, or a price Seniorly says the home confirmed. Prices a listing site shows without saying where they came from are left out.
- Nearby homes are the nearest of the same size that publish a rate, widening from 3 to 40 miles until at least 8 do. The estimate starts from what they charge, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices.
- Room, care-level, second-person and move-in lines come from what California homes publish on listing sites. Memory care uses Covelight’s researched premium over assisted living.
- Totals add each line’s figure and combine the lines’ ranges as separate charges, because a home is rarely at the top, or the bottom, of every line at once.
- We tested this estimate on 1,546 California homes that publish their own starting rate. It was within 10% of the real rate for 3 in 10 homes and within 25% for 7 in 10; the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 (September 12, 2026).
- It cannot see this home’s specials, how it assesses care, or which rooms are open.
Avoid surprises on the billWhat changes the price, and what to ask
- The care level
Some homes charge one all-inclusive rate. Others add levels or points as needs grow. Ask how the level is set, who decides, and what the next level costs.
- What is billed separately
Medication management, incontinence supplies, transportation and a second person in the room are often extra. Ask for the list in writing.
- Move-in costs
A one-time move-in fee or deposit is common. Ask what it covers and whether any of it comes back if the stay is short.
- Increases
California requires at least 90 days’ written notice, with reasons, before a rate rises (Health & Safety Code §1569.655). A change in the resident’s care level is the section’s own exception and can be billed sooner.
An estimate for planning, not a quote. A home sets the price after hearing about the care needed.
Daily life
Rooms, meals, activities and house rules, in the home’s own words. Open any detail to see where it came from.
Rooms & the spaces they will use (1)Common areas
Common areasIndoor Common Areas
Reported on AssistedLiving.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Meals, preferences & familiar food (1)Meals provided
Meals provided
Reported on AssistedLiving.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Activities & the rhythm of a day (2)Activity types offered · Religious services off site
Activity types offeredActivities On-site
Reported on AssistedLiving.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Religious services off site
Reported on AssistedLiving.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Visiting & staying involved (1)Transportation costs extra
Transportation costs extraReported no
Reported on AssistedLiving.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Where it is
306 Shady Ln, El Cajon, CA 92021Address from the public record · October 26, 2026. Confirm the entrance with the home before visiting.
Opening the neighborhood map…
- Grossmont HospitalHospital · General acute care, on the state’s list4.1 mi
Straight-line distances; check the drive or the walk. Hospital: the nearest general acute care hospital on the state’s list (CDPH, September 16, 2026).
Open directionsThe state record
California inspects every licensed home and publishes what it found. A citation does not make a home unsafe, and an empty file does not make a home good.
CDSS public record, read October 26, 2026 · License #370804788 · See the state’s own record
The last 36 months — 23 of 34 documents
Complaint outcomes in these 36 months, in the state’s words: 13 “Unsubstantiated” and 1 “Unfounded”.
20265 state visits · 6 documents
Jul 10, 2026Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Staff yell at resident. Staff are not providing a safe environment for resident.
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Liliana Silveira conducted an unannounced complaint investigation visit and delivered findings. LPA Silveira explained the purpose of the visit and was granted entry into the facility by Interim Administrator Eveline Denton. The Department’s investigation consisted of LPA observations, interviews and a records review. On July 2, 2026, it was alleged that staff are not providing a safe residence for Resident #1 (R1) and that staff are yelling at R1. The Department conducted a facility visit on July 10, 2026. During the visit, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) heard R1 tell a staff that there was feces in the hallway that needed to be cleaned up. The LPA did not observe any feces and asked the staff if there was feces anywhere and the staff stated, “no, R1 imagined it.” (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE, LIC 809C) Unsubstantiated (CONITNUED FROM PAGE 1, LIC 809) The Department conducted a records review. A medical report for R1, dated 05/19/2018, revealed that R1 is diagnosed with schizophrenia. The LPA interviewed R1 and it was revealed that R1 is not a credible witness. R1 was not able to form coherent sentences and some responses were illogical, such as R1 calling the facility a morgue. Interviews with two (2) care staff revealed that since December 2025, R1 has been changing. R1 is physically weaker, making false claims and acting more paranoid. The interviews with the two (2) staff also revealed that they have not observed other staff mistreating R1. Interviews with three residents (3) revealed that they have not experienced mistreatment from staff. There is insufficient evidence to support these allegations. No citations were issued during today’s visit. The preponderance of evidence standard has not been met, therefore, the above-mentioned allegations are unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Eveline and a copy of this report, along with Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC 9058 03/22) were provided to Eveline via email. Signature below confirms receipt of all documents.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 10, 2026 · control 08-AS-20260702122439
Apr 28, 2026Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Facility elevator was in disrepair Facility wrongfully charged service fees to resident
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Angelica Boyles conducted an unannounced visit to the facility to deliver investigative findings regarding the above mentioned allegation. LPA identified herself, explained the purpose of the visit and nature of the complaint to Eveline Denton, Med Tech. On February 16, 2024 the Department received this complaint which alleged facility elevator was in disrepair and facility wrongfully charged service fees to Resident #1 (R1) [See LIC811 Confidential Name List for a description of select person identifiers used in this report.] The Department’s investigation included a facility tour, record reviews, as well as interviews with residents, staff and outside sources. (Continued on LIC9099-C) Unsubstantiated (Continued from LIC9099) Regarding the allegation that facility elevator was in disrepair, interviews with facility staff reported that the elevator became inoperable after a severe rain fall. Records reviewed revealed that the facility had the elevator initially assessed for maintenance on January 29, 2024 and had subsequent visits for maintenance. On June 21, 2024, the State Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health conducted an inspection for the conveyance permit and the facility was granted the permit to operate the elevator again. Regarding the allegation that facility wrongfully charged service fees to R1, an interview done with R1 reported not being charged any extra fees and paying the same amount of rent every month. Interviews with staff stated they had never charged additional fees to R1. The Department has investigated the above mentioned allegations. Based upon the information obtained during this investigation, it is determined that the preponderance of evidence was not met to support or corroborate these allegations and therefore deemed unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Eveline Denton, Med Tech, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee’s Rights (LIC9058 01/16) were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 28, 2026 · control 08-AS-20240216091808
Apr 9, 2026Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Staff do not ensure residents are provided a comfortable environment
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Angelica Boyles conducted an unannounced visit to the facility to deliver investigative findings regarding the above mentioned allegation. LPA identified herself, explained the purpose of the visit and nature of the complaint to staff Maresulyn Ocenar. On March 2, 2026 the Department received this complaint which alleged staff do not ensure residents are provided a comfortable environment. The Department’s investigation included a facility tour as well as interviews with residents, staff, and outside sources. (Continued on LIC9099-C) Unsubstantiated (Continued from LIC9099) LPA interviewed Outside Source #1 (OS1) who frequents the facility often. OS1 reported that the facility is always clean. OS1 did not report concerns about the cleanliness or sanitization of the facility. Additionally, OS1 reported that they have observed staff prompt residents to wash their hands, use hand sanitizer, and provide other general hygienic reminders. OS1 reported that they have observed the facility to maintain a comfortable environment for residents. Interviews with residents reported that they observe staff clean the dining room after mealtimes and clean other areas of the facility every day. Residents reported feeling like the facility provides a comfortable and accommodating environment. Interviews with staff reported cleaning the dining room after meals and wiping commonly touched surfaces with disinfectants at least once a day. LPA observations during facility visits did not raise concerns regarding staff providing a comfortable or clean environment for residents. The Department has investigated the allegations that staff do not ensure residents are provided a comfortable environment. Based upon the information obtained during this investigation, it is determined that the preponderance of evidence was not met to support or corroborate these allegations and therefore deemed unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Maresulyn Ocenar, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee’s Rights (LIC9058 01/16) were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 9, 2026 · control 08-AS-20260302082547
Apr 9, 2026Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Lack of supervision, resulting in resident on resident harrassment
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Angelica Boyles conducted an unannounced visit to the facility to deliver investigative findings regarding the above mentioned allegation. LPA identified herself, explained the purpose of the visit and nature of the complaint to staff Maresulyn Ocenar. On February 2, 2026 the Department received this complaint which alleged lack of supervision resulted in resident on resident harassment. The Department’s investigation included a facility tour, record reviews, as well as interviews with residents and staff. (Continued on LIC9099-C) Unsubstantiated (Continued from LIC9099) The allegation stated that Resident #1 (R1) was harassed by Resident #2 (R2) at the end of a group activity at the facility when everyone was lined up to leave. [See LIC811 Confidential Name List for a description of select person identifiers used in this report.] LPA interviewed R1, who reported the incident occurred during the group activity while everyone was sat in a circle. Records reviewed revealed that R1 has a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, and per staff interviews has a history of making accusations against other residents and staff. LPA interviewed R2 who denied doing anything to harass R1. A review of R2’s Needs and Service Plan stated that they “express self appropriately” and their Physician’s Report noted that they do not display aggressive or inappropriate behavior. LPA interviewed other residents who were reportedly present during the group activity. These residents reported not observing any harassment take place and also stated that facility staff were present throughout the activity. Interview with staff who were present during the duration of the group activity reported not observing any harassment and did not report R1 or R2 acting in any way outside of their baseline. The Department has investigated the allegation that lack of supervision resulted in resident on resident harassment. Based upon the information obtained during this investigation, it is determined that the preponderance of evidence was not met to support or corroborate these allegations and therefore deemed unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Maresulyn Ocenar, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee’s Rights (LIC9058 01/16) were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 9, 2026 · control 08-AS-20260202113311
Mar 26, 2026Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Resident was sexually assaulted by facility staff
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Angelica Boyles conducted an unannounced visit to the facility to deliver investigative findings regarding the above mentioned allegation. LPA identified herself, explained the purpose of the visit and nature of the complaint to Eveline Denton, Medical Representative. On October 29, 2025 the Department received this complaint which alleged Resident #1 (R1) was sexually assaulted by Staff #1 (S1) [See LIC811 Confidential Name List for a description of select person identifiers used in this report]. The Department’s investigation included a facility tour, record reviews, as well as interviews with residents, staff, and outside sources. (Continued on LIC9099-C) Unsubstantiated (Continued from LIC9099) According to R1’s most recent Physician’s Report, R1’s primary diagnoses is schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. During an interview with the Department R1’s responses were incoherent and R1 was unable to stay on topic regarding the allegation. An interview with an outside source familiar with R1 reported they have frequent symptoms of auditory and visual hallucinations and delusions. Interviews with facility staff corroborated R1’s history of auditory and visual hallucinations. Additionally, an interview with S1 denied the allegation. During LPA unannounced visits LPA observed S1 to be treating residents with dignity and respect. The Department has investigated the allegation that R1 was sexually assaulted by S1. Based upon the information obtained during this investigation, it is determined that the preponderance of evidence was not met to support or corroborate these allegations and therefore deemed unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Eveline Denton, Medical Representative, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee’s Rights (LIC9058 01/16) were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 26, 2026 · control 08-AS-20251029092537
Jan 26, 2026Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Staff did not prevent a resident from engaging in self harming behavior. Staff did not seek medical attention for resident in a timely manner.
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Angelica Boyles conducted an unannounced visit to the facility to deliver investigative findings regarding the above mentioned allegations. LPA identified herself, explained the purpose of the visit and nature of the complaint to staff Eveline Denton. On December 26, 2025 the Department received this complaint which alleged staff did not prevent a resident from engaging in self harming behavior and staff did not seek medical attention for resident in a timely manner. The Department’s investigation included record reviews, as well as interviews with residents, staff and an outside source. (Continued on LIC9099-C) Unsubstantiated (Continued from LIC9099) Regarding the allegation that staff did not prevent a resident from engaging in self harming behavior, specifically that Resident #1 (R1) [See LIC811 Confidential Name List for a description of select person identifiers used in this report.] was engaging in self harming behavior due to not eating. In an interview with R1, it was reported that on the day they were hospitalized, they did not eat breakfast or lunch because they did not want to. R1 reported that staff did encourage them to eat their meals. Additionally, R1's records indicate they are able to communicate their needs appropriately and has the capacity for self care. Regarding the allegation that staff did not seek medical attention for R1 in a timely manner, per interview with staff, R1 initially declined to have ambulance services called to transport them to the hospital. Per staff interview, there were no symptoms that caused concern for immediate medical attention. Staff observed R1 to appear more “lethargic” than normal. After declining an ambulance service, facility staff then reached out to R1’s family to discuss their concern of R1’s symptoms of not appearing at baseline which ultimately led to R1 agreeing to call ambulance services a couple hours later. Interview with R1 and records reviewed corroborated this timeline of events. Additionally, an interview with an Outside Source (OS1) familiar with the facility reported that they have no concern when it comes to facility staff calling appropriate emergency services when needed. The Department has investigated the above mentioned allegations. Based upon the information obtained during this investigation, it is determined that the preponderance of evidence was not met to support or corroborate these allegations and therefore deemed unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Eveline Denton, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee’s Rights (LIC9058 01/16) were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jan 26, 2026 · control 08-AS-20251226125451
20255 state visits · 9 documents
Dec 8, 2025Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Staff retaliated against resident
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Angelica Boyles conducted an unannounced visit to the facility to deliver investigative findings regarding the above mentioned allegation. LPA identified herself, explained the purpose of the visit and nature of the complaint to Administrator Rebecca Rayo. On February 26, 2024 the Department received this complaint which alleged staff retaliated against Resident #1 (R1). [See LIC811 Confidential Name List for a description of select person identifiers used in this report.] The Department’s investigation included a facility tour, record reviews, as well as interviews with residents, staff and outside sources. (Continued on LIC9099-C) Unsubstantiated (Continued from LIC9099) Interviews with residents did not disclose any evidence to support this allegation. During staff interviews, it was consistently stated that they had not witnessed any staff retaliating against R1 or any other resident living at the facility. Further, interviews with two outside sources familiar with the facility and residents in care did not report any concerns regarding residents being retaliated against. The Department has investigated the above-mentioned allegation. Based upon the information obtained during this investigation, it is determined that the preponderance of evidence was not met to support or corroborate this allegation and therefore deemed unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator Rebecca Rayo, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee’s Rights (LIC9058 01/16) were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 8, 2025 · control 08-AS-20240226164443
Dec 8, 2025Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file
Type of visit: Required - 1 Year
Licensing Program Analysts (LPA) Angelica Boyles, made an unannounced visit to conduct the required One Year Inspection to ensure substantial compliance with Title 22 regulations. LPA identified herself, stated the purpose of the visit, and was granted entry into the facility by Administrator Rebecca Rayo. This facility is licensed to serve ninety-nine residents sixty and above; of which twenty-two may be non-ambulatory. LPA and Administrator toured the interior and exterior of the facility and inspected rooms at random. The facility was clean, sanitary, and in good repair. Pathways were free of obstruction and slip hazards. resident's bedrooms contained the required furnishings. Doors, windows, screens, toilets, and showers were in working order. Extra linens and hygiene supplies were present. The facility had sufficient space and equipment to facilitate dining, laundry, visitation, meetings, and client activities. The facility is operating in accordance with their fire clearance. The smoke and carbon monoxide alarms were present in the building. Emergency lighting, and facility telephone were all working. First aid kits were complete and readily accessible. Required licensing postings were observed in visible areas of the facility. No pools or bodies of water exist on the premises. Per Administrator, no firearms or ammunition are kept at the facility. [CONTINUED ON LIC 809-C] [CONTINUED FROM LIC 809] The facility has a 2 day supply of perishable food and a 7 day supply of nonperishable food items. The food supply is replenished frequently by outside vendors. Food was observed to be properly labeled. The food service area was observed to be clean and sanitary. Food menus and activities schedule were posted. Centrally stored medications were properly stored and locked in medication carts inside a locked medication room. LPA reviewed staff and resident records. Records reviewed contained the required documentation. Administrator’s certification is current. LPA reviewed the theft and loss policy and procedures. LPA conducted a review of In-service training procedures. LPA interviewed staff and was assured transportation procedures as well as outside medical and dental assistance procedure are compliant. No deficiencies were observed or cited during today's visit. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator Rayo to whom copies of this report, Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22), was provided at the conclusion of the visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 8, 2025
Sep 26, 2025Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Staff neglect/lack of supervision led to resident falling and sustaining a fractured right shoulder. Facility did not perform a reappraisal to confirm resident needed a higher level of care.
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Sarah Hurt conducted a telephone call on 09/26/2025 to deliver Complaint findings. LPA spoke with facility Admininstrator Rebecca Rayo and expalined the purpose of the phone call. Regarding the allegation staff neglect/ lack of supervision led to resident falling and sustaining a fractured right shoulder. On 03/30/2024, Resident 1 sustained an unwitnessed fall while walking and was transported to Grossmont Hospital. Resident 1 reported they lost their balance and fell on their right shoulder, denying head trauma or loss of consciousness. Resident 1 was discharged the same day with a non-surgical fracture and pain management instructions. On 03/31/2024 facility noted Resident 1 was lethargic, unable to ambulate, or perform basic tasks. Administrator transported Resident 1 back to the hospital, where the social worker determined he required a higher level of care. Unsubstantiated Resident 1 was later transferred to a skilled nursing facility for short-term rehabilitation before returning to the facility with Home Health services. Although Resident 1 did sustain an injury, evidence shows facility staff responded appropriately by seeking medical treatment and monitoring his condition. There is insufficient evidence to prove neglect or lack of supervision directly caused the fall or injury. Based on interviews conducted and records reviewed, the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged did or did not occur. Regarding the allegation facility did not perform a reappraisal to confirm resident needed a higher level of care. On 03/31/2024, Facility Administrators observed Resident 1’s change in condition and immediately arranged for his return to the hospital, informing staff he could not return to the facility unless independent. Resident 1 was placed at skilled nursing for physical therapy and later cleared by a physician to return to the facility with Home Health support. The facility Administrator identified Resident 1’s increased care needs, initiated transfer to a higher level of care, and coordinated follow-up. Upon re-evaluation, Resident 1 was determined to again meet the criteria for independent living with Home Health assistance. Based on interviews conducted and records reviewed, the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged did or did not occur. No deficiencies cited Per title 22 regulations. Exit interview was conducted with facility Administrator Rebecca Rayo. A copy of this report along with appeal rights were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Sep 26, 2025 · control 08-AS-20240403084231
Aug 19, 2025Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Lack of supervision resulting in drug use
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Angelica Boyles conducted an unannounced visit to the facility to deliver findings regarding the above mentioned allegation. LPA identified herself, explained the purpose of the visit and nature of the complaint to Administrator Becky Rayo. On May 27, 2025 the Department received this complaint which alleged lack of supervision resulted in drug use. The Department’s investigation included facility tours and interviews with residents, staff, and outside sources. (Continued on LIC9099-C) Unsubstantiated (Continued from LIC9099) The Reporting Party (RP) alleged that her brother, Resident #1 (R1) was given drugs while in his room. [See LIC811 Confidential Name List for a description of select person identifiers used in this report]. LPA interview with RP revealed that RP did not witness this alleged incident. LPA interview with the Administrator reported that drug and alcohol use is not permitted on the property, but there are designated smoking areas outside the property. The facility is not a locked facility, and per the admissions agreement, residents are allowed to come and go freely but they must sign in and out of the logbook. Interviews with other staff corroborated that clients are allowed to smoke outside in designated areas and if residents are caught smoking inside their rooms, they are reminded of the admissions agreement. Staff interviews also mention how illegal substances are not allowed on the facility grounds. Interviews with residents reported being aware that if housekeeping finds any evidence of smoking or other drugs in their room, the Administrator is notified and appropriate action is taken. Residents did not report observing any use of illegal substances inside or outside the facility property. LPA interview with outside sources familiar with the facility corroborated no concern regarding lack of supervision or drug use at the facility. Further, during unannounced facility visits LPA did not observe any prohibited drug use. The Department has investigated the lack of supervision resulting in drug use. Based upon the information obtained during this investigation, it is determined that the preponderance of evidence was not met to support or corroborate these allegations and therefore deemed unsubstantiated. And exit interview was conducted with Administrator Becky Rayo, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee’s Rights (LIC9058 01/16) were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 19, 2025 · control 08-AS-20250527140804
Aug 19, 2025Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Staff had an inappropriate conversation with another adult while in the presence of a resident in care
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Angelica Boyles conducted an unannounced visit to the facility to deliver findings regarding the above mentioned allegation. LPA identified herself, explained the purpose of the visit and nature of the complaint to Administrator Becky Rayo. On June 5, 2025 the Department received this complaint which alleged staff had an inappropriate conversation with another adult while in the presence of Resident #1 (R1) [See LIC811 Confidential Name List for a description of select person identifiers used in this report]. Specifically, that staff threatened to evict R1. The Department’s investigation included interviews with residents, staff and outside sources. (Continued on LIC9099-C) Unsubstantiated (Continued from LIC9099) Per LPA interview with R1, R1 did not report ever being threatened with eviction by any staff. R1 reported to LPA never making any comments regarding being threatened with eviction to the Reporting Party. Interviews with other residents revealed that there have been no witnesses to staff threatening to evict residents. Further, LPA interview with outside sources familiar with the facility corroborated no concern regarding staff threatening to evict residents. The Department has investigated the allegation that staff had an inappropriate conversation with another adult while in the presence of a resident in care. Based upon the information obtained during this investigation, it is determined that the preponderance of evidence was not met to support or corroborate these allegations and therefore deemed unsubstantiated. And exit interview was conducted with Administrator Becky Rayo, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee’s Rights (LIC9058 01/16) were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 19, 2025 · control 08-AS-20250605094913
Aug 19, 2025Facility evaluation reportCase Management - IncidentReport on file
Type of visit: Case Management - Incident
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Angelica Boyles conducted an unannounced Case Management - Incident visit. LPA was welcomed by and identified herself to Administrator Becky Rayo and discussed the purpose of the visit. Today's visit was in response to an LIC624 Incident Report, which licensee self submitted to the CCLD San Diego Regional Office (received on 8/18/2025). According to the LIC624: on 8/16/2025, Resident #1 (R1) signed out to leave the facility's logbook at 1:40PM and did not return. [See LIC 811 Confidential Names List for a description of R1.] The facility is not a locked facility, and per the admissions agreement, residents are allowed to come and go freely but they must sign in and out of the logbook. As of today’s visit, R1 has not yet returned to the facility. LPA performed a facility tour and welfare check on the other remaining residents in care, finding no immediate health or safety concerns. LPA also reviewed pertinent records and interviewed relevant staff. According to R1’s latest LIC602 Physician’s Report (dated 7/21/2025): R1’s primary diagnoses is schizophrenia and hypertension. Their physician determined that R1 was able to safely leave the facility unassisted. (Continued on LIC809C) (Continued from LIC809) According to the facility’s Absentee Notification Plan: The Administrator of the facility or his/her designee, will inform the resident's authorized representative, if any, when the resident is missing from the facility. In addition, the Administrator or designee will notify local law enforcement when there is a reason for concern, or within 24 hours. For residents with a Dementia diagnosis, facility will notify law enforcement within 30 minutes after facility and neighborhood search. The policy will be updated on all Needs and Service Plan. Records and interviews revealed: R1 had lived at the facility since 7/22/2025 and this is R1's first time leaving the facility and not returning. Facility staff called law enforcement and notified R1’s responsible person and case manager. Facility staff conducted a search of the surrounding area when R1 was not present for dinner. At about 8PM, after unsuccessful searching, the Administrator filed a missing person’s report with law enforcement and telephoned R1’s responsible person and case manager to notify them. CCLD concluded: Facility staff provided needed supervision to R1 leading up to the incident. Licensee had a written Absentee Notification Plan as part of R1’s record of care, and staff followed this plan. No deficiencies were cited for the above incident. No deficiencies were observed or cited during today's visit. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator Becky Rayo, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided during the visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 19, 2025
Jun 16, 2025Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Facility is in disrepair. Illegal eviction.
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Debbie Correia conducted an unannounced visit to conclude a complaint investigation. LPA was granted entry after identifying herself to Medical Receptionist Eveline Denton. LPA discussed the purpose of the visit, and the basic elements of the allegations mentioned above with MR Denton. The Department's investigation included resident, staff, and outside source interviews, a facility, and a resident records reviews. It was alleged the facility was in disrepair. More specifically, it was alleged that water from recent rain falls had soak up through the foundation, and through the tile flooring and would create puddles in Resident's1 (R1's) room. A review of R1’s records revealed they were admitted to the facility on May 17, 2019, with a primary diagnosis of anxiety, depression, osteoarthritis, hypertension, and high cholesterol. R1’s records also revealed they were independent and only required medication management, and they were happy and easy going. Unsubstantiated An interview conducted with Staff1 (S1), the facility maintenance, revealed they never heard of water being soaked through foundation and tile flooring and never received a work order for this matter. S1 revealed a crack in the wall adjoining to R1’s room. Additionally, S1 accompanied LPA on a facility tour, including an inspection of R1’s room and LPA observed no issues. An interview with facility Staff2 (S2), the Administrator, corroborated they had never received a complaint regarding puddling in rooms after rain. Interviews with residents in care revealed no issues with the facility’s physical plant. It was also alleged facility staff served a resident an unlawful eviction. An interview with Outside Source1 (OS1) revealed R1 was very unhappy, claimed staff were rude and R1 would complain about everything and wanted to move out. OS1 and R1 worked together to find adequate placement for R1 as they would continuously express, they wanted to move out, and would have outbursts of behaviors, disrupting other residents in care. S2 revealed, also corroborated by OS1, that R1 was delinquent on their monthly payments. Interviews conducted with residents in care revealed they had no issues with facility staff or the facility in general. Based on interviews Due to lack of corroborating evidence, the finding regarding the above allegations were established to be unsubstantiated. This finding means there was not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the alleged violations occurred. LPA conducted an exit interview with MR Denton and was provided a copy of the Complaint Investigation Report (LIC9099) and Licensee Rights (LIC9058 01-2016) the conclusion of the visit and signature below acknowledges receipt of the documentsthe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jun 16, 2025 · control 08-AS-20250127120814
May 22, 2025Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Staff threatened to evict resident.
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Angelica Boyles conducted an unannounced subsequent visit to the facility to deliver investigative findings regarding the above mentioned allegation. LPA identified herself, explained the purpose of the visit and nature of the complaint to Licensee Lillian Franklin. On March 3, 2025 the Department received this complaint which alleged staff threatened to evict Resident #1 (R1) [See LIC811 Confidential Name List for a description of select person identifiers used in this report] . The Department’s investigation included a facility tour, in addition to interviews with residents, staff and outside sources. (Continued on LIC9099-C) Unsubstantiated (Continued from LIC9099) Per LPA interview with R1, R1 did not report ever being threatened with eviction by any staff. R1 reported to LPA never making any comments regarding being threatened with eviction to the Reporting Party. Interviews with other residents revealed that there have been no witnesses to staff threatening to evict residents. Further, LPA interview with an outside source familiar with the facility and frequently visits corroborated no concern regarding staff threatening to evict residents. The Department has investigated the allegations that staff threatened to evict R1. Based upon the information obtained during this investigation, it is determined that the preponderance of evidence was not met to support or corroborate these allegations and therefore deemed unsubstantiated. And exit interview was conducted with Licensee Lillian Franklin, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee’s Rights (LIC9058 01/16) were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 22, 2025 · control 08-AS-20250303162344
May 22, 2025Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Facility staff are not allowing resident to attend Adult Day Program Facility staff are not assisting resident with medical appointments Facility staff are not answering communications from resident’s representative appropriately
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Angelica Boyles conducted an unannounced visit to the facility to deliver investigative findings regarding the above mentioned allegation. LPA identified herself, explained the purpose of the visit and nature of the complaint to Licensee Lillian Franklin. On February 10, 2025 the Department received the complaints which alleged facility staff are not allowing resident to attend Adult Day Program, facility staff are not assisting resident with medical appointments, and facility staff are not answering communications from resident’s representative appropriately. The Department’s investigation included a facility tour, record reviews, as well as interviews with residents, staff and outside sources. (Continued on LIC9099-C). Unsubstantiated (Continued from LIC9099) Regarding the allegation that facility staff not allowing resident to attend Adult Day Program, R1 did not report being prohibited from going to Day Program. LPA interview with two facility staff reported that they do not prevent residents from going to Day Program. In fact, staff reported having to encourage residents to attend program and if residents do not attend it is because they do not want to. Additional interviews with residents corroborate being encouraged to attend day program. Regarding the allegation that facility staff are not assisting resident with medical appointments, R1 reported staff does help with arranging medical appointments and stated that Staff #1 (S1) assisted with a medical appointment later in the week. Interview with S1 corroborated this statement and reported assisting most residents with medical appointments because they can easily arrange transportation for residents. Regarding the allegation that facility staff are not answering communications from resident’s representative appropriately, facility staff reported that there may be occasions when they are unable to answer the phone due to tending to higher priorities. However, staff reported that they will always return voicemails left. According to an outside source familiar with the facility and frequently visits reported not being aware of any concerns involving resident representatives not being communicated with. The Department has investigated the above mentioned allegations. Based upon the information obtained during this investigation, it is determined that the preponderance of evidence was not met to support or corroborate these allegations and therefore deemed unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Licensee Lillian Franklin, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee’s Rights (LIC9058 01/16) were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 22, 2025 · control 08-AS-20250210110911
20247 state visits · 7 documents
Dec 20, 2024Facility evaluation reportCase Management - IncidentReport on file
Type of visit: Case Management - Incident
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Ryan Fulton conducted an unannounced Case Management - Incident visit. LPA was welcomed by, identified himself to, and discussed the purpose of the visit with Administrator Beccy Rayo. Today's visit was in response to an LIC624 Incident Report, which licensee self-submitted to the CCLD San Diego Regional Office (received on 12/19/2024). According to the LIC624: on 12/18/2024, Client #1 (C1) eloped from the facility (left without staff supervision). [See LIC 811 Confidential Names List for a description of C1.] C1 has not returned to the facility at of present time. During today’s visit, LPA performed a facility tour / welfare check, collected records, and interviewed pertinent individuals. According to C1’s latest LIC602 Physician’s Report (dated 11/11/2024), their doctor determined that C1 was able to safely leave the facility unassisted. Interviews and records showed that Licensee had a written Absentee Notification Plan as part of C1’s record of care, and that staff followed this plan. No deficiencies were cited for this incident. No deficiencies were observed or cited during today's visit. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator Beccy Rayo, to whom a copy of this report, the LIC811 Confidential Names List, and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided during the visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 20, 2024
Dec 12, 2024Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file
Type of visit: Required - 1 Year
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Ryan Fulton conducted an unannounced Required Annual Inspection. The facility file was reviewed prior to the visit. LPA was welcomed by and discussed the purpose of the visit to Administrator Beccy Reyes Rayo. The facility's license shows a maximum capacity of ninty-nine (99) residents. During today’s inspection there were ninty-five (95) residents in care. LPA and Administrator Beccy Reyes Rayo toured the interior and exterior of the facility and inspected each room. The facility was clean, sanitary, and in good repair. Pathways were free of obstruction and slip hazards. resident's bedrooms contained the required furnishings. Doors, windows, screens, toilets, and showers were in working order. Extra linens and hygiene supplies were present, as well as Personal Protective Equipment. The facility had sufficient space and equipment to facilitate dining, laundry, visitation, meetings, and client activities. There was at least 2 days of perishable food, and at least 7 days non-perishable food present, all of which are safely stored. Cooking/dining equipment and utensils were present. Toxic chemicals/poisons were locked and inaccessible to residents. Medications were labeled, as required, and stored in locked areas. The facility’s ambient internal temperature was compliant. Hot water temperature at taps accessible to residents were all compliant: Kitchen sink was not accessible to residents; bathroom #1 sink was 114.5 F bathroom #2 sink was 116.3 F. bathroom #3 sink was 120.0 F bathroom #4 sink was 120.0 F bathroom #5 sink was 120.0 F. No pools or bodies of water exist on the premises. Per licensee, no firearms or ammunition are kept at the facility. Carbon monoxide/Smoke detectors, emergency lighting, and facility telephone were all in working order. Fire extinguisher(s) were serviced within the last 12 months. First aid kit(s) were complete and readily accessible. Required licensing postings were observed in visible areas of the facility. No deficiencies were cited during the inspection. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator Beccy Reyes Rayo to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 12, 2024
Nov 25, 2024Complaint investigation reportUnfounded
Allegation investigated: Licensee did not safeguard resident's money.
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Correia conducted an unannounced follow-up visit to a complaint investigation and delivered the finding to the above-mentioned allegation. LPA Correia identified herself, was granted entry, and explained the purpose of the visit to Administrator Rayo. The Department’s investigation consisted of staff, resident, and outside source interviews. The investigation also included facility, resident, and outside source records reviews. It was alleged that facility staff did not safeguard Resident’s (R1) cash resources. A resident records review revealed R1 was admitted to the facility on July 13, 2020, with a primary diagnosis of Schizophrenia. A review of R1’s resident records dated the day of admission revealed R1 was able to manage their own cash resources in small amounts, an additional records review dated 2 days later, July 15, 2020, revealed R1 was not able to manage their own cash resources. However, a review of facility records revealed per contractual agreement that the facility does not safeguard cash resources. [Continued on LIC 9099C] Unfounded [Continuation from LIC 9099] An initial interview conducted with R1 revealed they believed their roommate had stolen their money, subsequently a follow up interview with R1 disclosed they had lent money to several other residents and was never paid back. R1 also disclosed they had donated money to attending organizations. Interviews conducted with staff and other residents revealed no knowledge or experience of thefts that occurred while working or residing at the facility. An interview conducted with the Administrator confirmed the facility does not safeguard cash resources for any of the residents. An interview conducted with an Outside Source (OS1) revealed no knowledge of the alleged theft, and an additional review of Outside Source records (OS2) revealed there were no leads to pursue an investigation to the allegation (see LIC 811 for confidential names). LPA conducted an exit interview with Administrator Rayo who was notified that a copy of the Complaint Investigation Report (LIC9099) and Licensee Rights (LIC9058 01-2016) will be provided at the conclusion of the visit. Based on the information collected during the investigation CCL has deemed the complaint to be unfounded meaning that the allegation was false and/or is without a reasonable basis. Therefore, the Department has dismissed the complaint.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Nov 25, 2024 · control 08-AS-20210806114056
Jul 15, 2024Facility evaluation reportCase Management - OtherReport on file
Type of visit: Case Management - Other
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Liliana Silveira conducted an unannounced Case Management - Incident visit. LPA was welcomed by, identified herself to, and discussed the purpose of the visit with Administrator Rebecca Rayo. Today's visit was in response to a LIC 624A Death Report, which licensee self-submitted to the CCLD San Diego Regional Office (received on 07/11/2024, updated report received on 07/12/24). According to the LIC624A: on 07/01/2024, Resident #1 (R1) was sent to the hospital due to a behavioral episode. R1 passed away at the hospital on 07/05/24 and the cause of death is unknown. During today’s visit, LPA performed a facility tour/welfare check, collected records, and interviewed the Administrator. No deficiencies were observed or cited during today's visit. An exit interview was conducted with Rebecca, to whom a copy of this report, the LIC811 Confidential Names List, and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided during the visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 15, 2024
Jun 19, 2024Facility evaluation reportCase Management - OtherReport on file
Type of visit: Case Management - Other
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Liliana Silveira conducted an unannounced Case Management - Incident visit. LPA was welcomed by, identified herself to, and discussed the purpose of the visit with Administrator Rebecca Rayo. Today's visit was in response to an LIC624 Incident Report, which licensee self-submitted to the CCLD San Diego Regional Office (received on 06/18/2024). According to the LIC624: on 06/18/2024, Resident #1 (R1) eloped from the facility (didn't take their morning medications and didn't sign out). [See LIC 811 Confidential Names List for a description of R1.] R1 returned to the facility unharmed on the same day, 06/18/2024. During today’s visit, LPA performed a facility tour/welfare check, reviewed records, and interviewed the Administrator. According to R1’s latest LIC602 Physician’s Report (dated 06/27/23), their doctor determined that R1 was able to safely leave the facility unassisted. The resident returned and agreed to go the hospital for re-assessment. No deficiencies were observed or cited during today's visit. An exit interview was conducted with Rebecca, to whom a copy of this report, the LIC811 Confidential Names List, and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided during the visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jun 19, 2024
Mar 5, 2024Facility evaluation reportCase Management - IncidentReport on file
Type of visit: Case Management - Incident
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Liliana Silveira conducted an unannounced Case Management - Incident visit. LPA was welcomed by, identified herself to, and discussed the purpose of the visit with Med Receptionist Eveline Denton. Today's visit was in response to an LIC624 Incident Report, which licensee self-submitted to the CCLD San Diego Regional Office (received on 03/04/2024). According to the LIC624: on 02/29/24, Resident #1 (R1) left the facility and did not return. [See LIC 811 Confidential Names List for a description of R1.] As of today’s (03/05/24) licensing visit, R1 has not yet returned to the facility. LPA performed a facility tour and welfare check on the other remaining clients in care, finding no immediate safety concerns. LPA also reviewed pertinent records and interviewed relevant staff and residents. According to R1’s latest LIC602 Physician’s Report (dated 08/31/22): R1’s primary diagnosis is schizophrenia. Their doctor determined that R1 was able to safely leave the facility unassisted. Interview with staff and residents did not reveal any information regarding changes in condition or issues with medication management. The facility Administrator filed a missing person's report with the local police department immediately. CCLD concluded: The Administrator followed appropriate CCLD regulatory protocols and reported the incident to the appropriate agencies and authorities. No deficiencies were cited for the above incident. No deficiencies were observed or cited during today's visit. An exit interview was conducted with Eveline, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided during the visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 5, 2024
Jan 25, 2024Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file
Type of visit: Required - 1 Year
Licensing Program Analysts (LPA) Amy Rodgers, made an unannounced visit to conduct the required One-Year Inspection to ensure substantial compliance with Title 22 regulations. LPA Rodgers was granted entry into the facility by Administrator Rebecca Rayo, after identifying herself and stating the purpose of the inspection. This facility serves ninety-nine, residents 60 and above; of which twenty-two may be non-ambulatory. A tour of the facility was conducted which included a sample of resident units, the dining area, common gathering areas, and food storage areas. There are no water features on site. Each resident had clean and sufficient bed linens. All residents’ rooms were equipped with the required furnishings. Overhead as well bedside lighting was present in the bedrooms. Residents’ bathrooms were observed to be sanitary and operational. Showers were equipped with grab bars and non-slip mats. Hot water temperature in residents’ bathrooms were compliant. The facility is operating in accordance with their fire clearance. The smoke and carbon monoxide alarms were present in the building. Emergency lighting, and facility telephone were all working. First aid kit(s) were complete and readily accessible in the medical rooms. Required licensing postings were observed in visible areas of the facility. PPE supplies are onsite. Indoor passageways were free from obstructions. [CONTINUED ON LIC 809-C] [CONTINUED FROM LIC 809] Facility has a two-day supply of perishable food and a seven-day supply of nonperishable food items. Some food supplies were kept in in an outdoor locked storage area. Food supply are replenished frequently by outside vendors. Food was observed to be properly labeled. The food service area was observed to be neat and clean. Food menus and activities schedule were posted. Centrally stored medications were properly stored and locked in medication carts inside a locked medication room. Medications were labeled and kept in compliance with label instructions. Staff records review verified that all staff records were complete and compliant. Resident records were reviewed and confirmed compliant. Administrator’s certification is current. LPA reviewed the theft and loss policy and procedures. LPA conducted a review of In-service training procedures. LPA interviewed Administrator Rayo as well as staff and was assured transportation procedures as well as outside medical and dental assistance procedure are compliant. There are two large common rooms used for dining and activities. At the time of visit, LPA observed a few residents participating in a small group activity. LPA observed that residents were being treated with dignity by staff, and there were sufficient staff on duty to meet resident’s needs. No deficiencies were issued at the time of visit. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator Rayo to whom copies of this report, Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22), was provided at the conclusion of the visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jan 25, 2024
20231 state visit · 1 document
Nov 13, 2023Facility evaluation reportCase Management - IncidentDeficiency page: Type B
Type of visit: Case Management - Incident
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Dang Nguyen conducted an unannounced Case Management - Incident visit. LPA was welcomed by, identified himself to, and discussed the purpose of the visit with Administrator Rebecca “Becky” Rayo. Today's visit was in response to an LIC624 Incident Report, which licensee self-submitted to the CCLD San Diego Regional Office (received on 11/07/2023). According to the LIC624, during the late evening of 11/06/2023, Resident #1 (R1) left the facility without informing staff or signing themselves out on the facility's logbook. [See LIC 811 Confidential Names List for a description of C1.] During today’s visit, LPA performed a brief facility tour and interviewed R1 (who had since returned to the facility), finding they were unharmed. LPA also collected copies of pertinent care records, and interviewed relevant staff and R1's roommate. According to R1’s latest LIC602 Physician’s Report (dated 06/27/2023): R1 was diagnosed with “Schizophrenia, bi-polar type,” but did not have Dementia or cognitive impairment. Their doctor determined that R1 was able to follow instructions, able to communicate needs, and “able to leave the facility on [their] own and return on [their] own.” R1 was also independent in all Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), except for medication assistance. R1’s independence with personal care was also evidenced in other facility and third-party care records. R1's Facesheet also showed that they were their own Responsible Person (RP). [CONTINUED ON LIC 809-C] [CONTINUED FROM LIC 809-C] Interview of R1, their roommate, and staff, corroborated by dated and written progress notes, showed: During the 11/06/2023 incident, R1 left the facility without telling staff or signing themselves out on the logbook, as was required in the House Rules with R1 signed upon admission. Facility staff provided needed observation and timely recognized that R1 was not present during a routine room check. Staff followed the facility’s Absentee Notification Plan and timely notified law enforcement and R1’s psychiatrist. Around 24 hours later, R1 had returned to the facility on their own, unharmed. During review of the facility’s care records on R1: LPA observed that while R1 had a completed LIC9172 Functional Capabilities Assessment, the LIC603 Pre-Placement Appraisal which Licensee performed on R1 was incomplete (several missing fields). LPA also observed that R1’s LIC625 Appraisal/Needs and Services Plan was blank and not signed. Interview of the administrator confirmed that R1 was referred to the facility by their assigned psychiatrist, but the Licensee or their staff did not personally meet with R1 prior to move in, for the purpose of completing an independent, pre-admission appraisal interview. One (1) deficiency was thus cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22 (refer to the attached LIC 809-D). A Plan of Correction was jointly developed with the licensee. An exit interview was conducted with Rayo, to whom a copy of this report, the LIC 809-D, the LIC811 Confidential Names List, and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided during the visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Nov 13, 2023
From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87465(a)(1) · Plan of correction due date: Dec 13, 2023
87456 Evaluation of Suitability for Admission: “(a) Prior to accepting a resident for care and in order to evaluate his/her suitability, the facility shall…(1) Conduct an interview with the applicant…” This requirement was not met, as evidenced by: Based on records and interviews, for 1 of 98 residents (R1), Licensee did not interview the applicant to evaluate their suitability, prior to accepting them for care. This posed a potential health, safety, and personal rights risk to persons in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Nov 13, 2023
Plan of correction: Licensee agreed to finish writing R1’s LIC603 Pre-Placement Appraisal and LIC625 Appraisal/Needs and Services Plan, and to E-mail signed copies of both to LPA, by the POC due date.
Earlier years2020 to 2023 · 11 documents
20235 state visits · 6 documents
Sep 19, 2023Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Staff do not provide adequate food services to residents. Staff do not maintain a comfortable temperature for residents. Staff do not ensure a comfortable environment for residents. Staff do not treat residents with dignity or respect.
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Debbie Correia conducted an unannounced visit to conclude a complaint investigation. LPA was granted entry after identifying herself. LPA discussed the purpose of the visit and the basic elements of the allegations mentioned above with Administrator Rayo. The Department's investigation included resident, staff, and outside source interviews, a facility tour, and facility and resident records reviews. It was alleged staff did not provide adequate food services to residents. A facility tour revealed the facility has a commercial kitchen, a sufficient supply of perishable and non-perishable food. LPA observed a log of temperature checks for proper refrigeration, and all expiration dates checked on food items were all in compliance. An interview with facility staff revealed the facility also has vending machines for clients to use at their discretion until 10:00 PM. LPA also conducted a review of the facility menu and secured a copy. Staff interviews and facility records revealed residents are provided with 3 meals and 3 snacks a day, and also have the option of the vending machines on the premises until 10:00 PM. Resident interviews revealed no issues with the facility meals. Unsubstantiated It was also alleged facility staff did not maintain a comfortable temperature for residents. During the facility tour, accompanied by the lead Maintenance Staff (S1) and Administrator Rayo (S2), there were 3 thermometers observed, which were all were set at 76 degrees, meeting Title 22 mandate. An interview with S2 revealed the facility had a total of 16 thermometers throughout the facility. Interviews with residents had no complaints regarding the facility temperature. It was alleged staff did not ensure a comfortable environment for residents. During the LPA tour, the great or common areas had large leather sofas and flat screen TV’s available for resident access. The facility tour also revealed the facility had planned activities, a pool table, and a large dining hall. LPA observed and secured photos of resident rooms, each room, either shared or private, was large and roomy, equipped with the mandated furnishings, and each room had a private bathroom. Interviews conducted with residents in care revealed no complaints regarding the comfort level of the facility. Lastly, it was alleged that facility staff did not treat clients with respect and dignity. There were no corroborating interviews conducted with residents, and outside sources regarding staff mistreating residents in care. Resident interviews revealed feeling staff were caring and friendly. Due to lack of corroborating evidence, the finding regarding the above allegations were established to be unsubstantiated. This finding means although the allegations may have happened or could be valid there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the alleged violations occurred. LPA conducted an exit interview with Administrator Rayo and was provided a copy of the Complaint Investigation Report (LIC9099) and Licensee Rights (LIC9058 01-2016) and signature on this report acknowledges receipt of the documents.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Sep 19, 2023 · control 08-AS-20230831135504
Jun 23, 2023Facility evaluation reportCase Management - OtherDeficiency pages: Type B
Type of visit: Case Management - Other
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Dang Nguyen conducted an unannounced Case Management - Other visit. LPA was welcomed by, identified himself to, and discussed the purpose of the visit with Administrator Rebecca “Becky” Rayo. Today's visit was in response to a 30-day written eviction notice, which Licensee served to Resident #1 (R1) on 04/24/2023. [See LIC 811 Confidential Names List for a description of R1]. Licensee also sent a copy of this eviction notice to the CCLD San Diego Regional Office (RO) (received 04/25/2023). During today’s visit, LPA performed a brief facility tour, reviewed pertinent care and administrative records, and interviewed relevant staff. As of the date of CCLD’s visit, R1 was no longer a resident of the facility. Per interviews and records reviewed: R1 had lived at the facility since 2004. During April 2023, there was an occasion where R1 slapped Resident #2 (R2), as witnessed by staff. R2 did not have any injuries. The facility timely notified R1’s psychiatrist, who helped facilitate R1 being taken by law enforcement to a local hospital on a Welfare and Institutions Code 5150 psychiatric hold. After R1 was admitted and while they were still at the hospital, licensee served R1 with a written eviction notice. R1 never came back to the facility. Even prior to the above incident, R1 had episodes of medication refusal, throwing items, and/or speaking aggressively towards other residents in care. [CONTINUED ON LIC 809-C] [CONTINUED FROM LIC 809] After reviewing the facility’s “House Rules,” which R1 signed upon move in, LPA concluded that licensee had basis to issue a 30-day written eviction notice to R1. However, the written notice which licensee served to R1, in practice, did not fully satisfy regulatory requirements. Three (3) deficiencies were cited per California Code of Regulations were issued, and one (1) Technical Violation (TV) was issued. Plans of Correction were jointly developed with the licensee. An exit interview was conducted with Rayo, to whom a copy of this report, the LIC809-D pages, the LIC9102-TV, the LIC811 Confidential Names List, and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided during the visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jun 23, 2023
From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87224(d) · Plan of correction due date: Jul 23, 2023
87224 Eviction Procedures: “(d) The licensee shall set forth in the notice to quit the reasons relied upon for the eviction with specific facts to permit determination of the date, place, witnesses, and circumstances concerning those reasons.” This requirement was not met, as evidenced by: Based on record review: For 1 of 90 residents (R1), licensee did not set forth in the notice to quit the reasons relied upon for the eviction with the specifics facts to permit determination of the date, place, witnesses, and circumstances concerning those reasons, which posed a potential personal rights risk to persons in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jun 23, 2023
Plan of correction: Licensee agreed to amend its general template (which it relies on to draft written eviction letters) to include a field/reminder for staff to describe the specific date(s), place(s), witness(es), and circumstance(s) that are relied upon to justify the eviction. Licensee agreed to then submit a copy of its updated template to LPA by the POC due date.
From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR87224(d)(1)(A) · Plan of correction due date: Jul 23, 2023
87224 Eviction Procedures: “(d)(1) The notice to quit shall include the following information: (A) The effective date of the eviction.” This requirement was not met, as evidenced by: Based on record review: For 1 of 90 residents (R1), licensee’s notice to quit did not include did not include the effective date of the eviction, which posed a potential personal rights risk to persons in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jun 23, 2023
Plan of correction: Licensee agreed to amend its general template (which it relies on to draft written eviction letters) to include a field/reminder for staff to describe the effective date of the eviction (i.e. the date that the notice period expires). Licensee agreed to then submit a copy of its updated template to LPA by the POC due date.
From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87224(d)(1)(C) · Plan of correction due date: Jul 23, 2023
87224 Eviction Procedures: “(d)(1) The notice to quit shall include the following information: (C) A statement informing residents of their right to file a complaint with the licensing agency…including the name, address and telephone number of the licensing office with whom the licensee normally conducts business, and the State Long Term Care Ombudsman office.” This requirement was not met, as evidenced by: Based on record review: For 1 of 90 residents (R1), licensee’s notice to quit did not include did not include a statement informing the resident of their right to file a complaint with the licensing agency…including the name, address and telephone number of the licensing office with whom the licensee normally conducts business, and the Long Term Care Ombudsman office, which posed a potential personal rights risk to persons in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jun 23, 2023
Plan of correction: Licensee agreed to amend its general template (which it relies on to draft written eviction letters) to include: 1) a statement informing the resident of their right to file a complaint with the licensing agency, 2) the name, address, and telephone number of the San Diego CCLD Regional Office, and 3) the name, address, and telephone number of the San Diego County Long Term Care Ombudsman office. Licensee agreed to then submit a copy of its updated template to LPA by the POC due date.
Apr 28, 2023Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: -Resident was not treated with dignity and respect. -Staff denied resident visit because of visitor's vaccination status. -Facility did not report unusual incidents involving residents as required.
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Liliana Silveira conducted a complaint investigation visit to deliver findings for the above-mentioned allegation. LPA Silveira met with Administrator Rebecca Rayo and shared the findings. The Department’s investigation consisted of observations, interviews, and records review. On 03/22/23 it was alleged that Resident #1 (R1) was not treated with dignity and respect, mainly, that the resident was forced to cut their hair and was not addressed by their nickname. Interviews with staff, residents and outside sources revealed that the facility provides a free, voluntary haircutting service. Interviews with residents revealed that residents themselves request the haircutting services when needed. Residents expressed that they have never been forced to get a haircut and have never seen anyone being forced to get a haircut and expressed appreciation for the free haircut services. Interviews with staff and outside sources also revealed that R1 had requested the haircutting service. Interviews with staff and outside sources also revealed that R1 was referred to throughout the interviews using R1s nickname. (continued on LIC 9099-C) Unsubstantiated It was also alleged that staff denied a resident a visit because of visitor’s vaccination status, specifically during the month of May 2021. A records review, as well as interviews with outside sources, staff and residents revealed that during May 2021 the facility was following CCLD COVID-19 Mitigation protocols, as required by CCLD and the State of California Department of Social Services. These protocols required that visitors be vaccinated to be allowed entrance into the facility. Interviews with outside sources and staff also revealed that R1 and other residents were able to see unvaccinated visitors at the entrance of the building or outside in the front of the building. It was also alleged that the facility did not report unusual incidents involving R1 from 2022 to January 2023. A records review revealed that unusual incident reports were sent by facility staff to CCLD for the incidents that occurred during that time frame. Due to lack of corroborating evidence, the findings regarding the above allegations were established to be unsubstantiated. This finding means that although the allegations may have happened or could be valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the alleged violations occurred. LPA Silveira conducted an exit interview with Rebecca. At the time of the exit interview Rebecca was provided with a copy of the Complaint Investigation Report (LIC9099) and Licensee Rights (LIC9058 01-2016) and signature on this report acknowledges receipt of the rights.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 28, 2023 · control 08-AS-20230322154130
Jan 31, 2023Complaint investigation reportSubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Unlawful Eviction
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Liliana Silveira conducted a complaint investigation visit to deliver findings for the above-mentioned allegation. LPA Silveira met with Administrator Rebecca Rayo and shared the findings. The Department’s investigation consisted of interviews and records review. On 01/05/23 it was alleged that there was an unlawful eviction of a resident. Interviews with the Administrator and outside sources, as well as a records review, revealed that an eviction notice was provided to the resident and the resident’s responsible parties, however, the eviction notice was missing information required by Title 22 Regulations. The eviction notice did not list resources to assist resident in identifying alternative housing options as well as a statement informing residents of their right to file a complaint with CCLD. (continued on LIC 9099-C) Substantiated Therefore, there is sufficient evidence to determine an unlawful eviction. The preponderance of the evidence standard has been met, therefore, the above-mentioned allegation is substantiated. The violation is cited in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 22, and is recorded on the attached 9099-D (Deficiency) Page. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator Rebecca Rayo, and a copy of this report along with Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC 9058 01/16) was provided to Rebecca at the facility. Due to lack of corroborating evidence, the findings regarding the above allegation were established to be unsubstantiated. This finding means that although the allegation may have happened or could be valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. LPA Silveira conducted an exit interview with Rebecca. At the time of the exit interview Rebecca was provided with a copy of the Complaint Investigation Report (LIC9099) and Licensee Rights (LIC9058 01-2016) and signature on this report acknowledges receipt of the rights.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jan 31, 2023 · control 08-AS-20230105112516
From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87224(d)(1)(B)(C) · Plan of correction due date: Feb 10, 2023
87224(d)(1)The notice to quit shall include the following information:(B) resources available to assist in identifying alternative housing and care options...(C) statement informing residents of their right to file a complaint with the licensing agency as specified in Section 87468. This requirement was not met as evidenced by: The 30 day eviction notice did not include alternative housing and care options nor a statement informing residents of their right to file a complaint with the licensing agency.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jan 31, 2023
Plan of correction: Licensee created a new 30 day eviction notice on 01/27/23 which includes alternative housing and care options as well as a statement informing residents of their right to file a complaint with the licensing agency. 30 day eviction notice was faxed to CCLD and Responsible parties on 01/27/23.
Jan 28, 2023Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: -Facility did not allow unvaccinated visitors. -Resident missed a medical appointment while in care.
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Liliana Silveira conducted a complaint investigation visit to deliver findings for the above-mentioned allegation. LPA Silveira met with Caregiver Ma. Resalyn Ocenar and shared the findings. The Department’s investigation consisted of interviews and observations. On 12/24/21, it was alleged that the facility did not allow unvaccinated visitors. On 01/03/22 during an initial visit, LPA observed that the facility was following COVID-19 protocols required by Community Care Licensing Division (CCLD). All visitors were required to show proof of vaccination or a COVID-19 negative test upon entrance. An interview with the Administrator and outside sources revealed that unvaccinated visitors who arrived to the facility were asked to remain in the front area until residents were able to come to them. Interviews with residents and outside sources also revealed that there were no concerns reported about visitors not having access to residents. (CONTINUED ON LIC 9099-C) Unsubstantiated (continued from LIC 9099) It was also alleged that a resident missed a medical appointment while in care. No information was provided regarding the identity of the resident or date when the medical appointment was missed. Interviews with residents and outside sources revealed that there have been no issues with residents getting assistance for medical care. Interviews with the Administrator and outside sources also revealed that a facility bus provided transportation to appointments and general doctors conducted in house visits weekly. Residents also received assistance from the facility or from special programs to coordinate transportation to medical appointments. There was not enough evidence to support this allegation. Due to lack of corroborating evidence, the findings regarding the above allegation were established to be unsubstantiated. This finding means that although the allegation may have happened or could be valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. LPA Silveira conducted an exit interview with Ma. Resalyn. At the time of the exit interview Ma. Resalyn was provided with a copy of the Complaint Investigation Report (LIC9099) and Licensee Rights (LIC9058 01-2016) and signature on this report acknowledges receipt of the rights.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jan 28, 2023 · control 08-AS-20211224104219
Jan 28, 2023Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Facility elevator is in disrepair.
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Liliana Silveira conducted a complaint investigation visit to deliver findings for the above-mentioned allegation. LPA Silveira met with Ma. Resulyn and shared the findings. The Department’s investigation consisted of interviews and records review. On 12/02/22, it was alleged that the facility elevator was in disrepair. Interviews with the Administrator and Licensees revealed that the elevator broke down on or around 11/12/22. A records review revealed that a company was contacted and came out to fix the elevator on 11/18/22. It was discovered that the disrepair was due to the elevator having water and oil underneath and a hazardous waste company would have to be contacted. Records review also revealed that the Licensees searched for a hazardous waste company to complete the job, and obtained a work order quote on 01/16/23 to clean out the hazardous waste. (continued on LIC 9099-C) Unsubstantiated (continued from LIC 9099) Interviews with residents and outside agencies determined that there are no current concerns regarding residents having to use the stairs in the meantime. All residents who live on the second floor are mobile. The facility is following Title 22 regulations and working towards repairing the elevator. Due to lack of corroborating evidence, the findings regarding the above allegation were established to be unsubstantiated. This finding means that although the allegation may have happened or could be valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. LPA Silveira conducted an exit interview with Ma. Resulyn. At the time of the exit interview Ma. Resulyn was provided with a copy of the Complaint Investigation Report (LIC9099) and Licensee Rights (LIC9058 01-2016) and signature on this report acknowledges receipt of the rights.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jan 28, 2023 · control 08-AS-20221202083415
20221 state visit · 1 document
Jan 3, 2022Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file
Type of visit: Required - 1 Year
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Liliana Silveira conducted an unannounced annual required licensing inspection. LPA was granted entry by Administrator Rebecca Rayo. LPA was granted entry after identifying themselves and disclosing the purpose of their visit. An overall tour of the facility was conducted inside and out. The inspection included, but was not limited to, verifying compliance with statutes, regulations and other written requirements that are most relevant to protecting the health of residents in care and staff, including in the area of infection control practices. LPA reviewed the facility’s Plan for Epidemic Outbreak Specific to COVID-19 Mitigation Plan Report (LIC 808) with Rebecca Rayo including the following sections: Person in Care, Staff, Visitors, Facilities without COVID-19, Residents, Facility has Plans for Infection Control and Physical Distancing. LPA assessed the strategies that the facility is employing for the prevention, containment and mitigation of COVID-19, implementation of infection control guidance, staff retention and essential health and safety. LPA observed one central entry point for universal entry screening; routine symptom screening initiated at entry for staff, residents and visitors; a sign-in policy enacted for all visitors; signs posted at facility entrance with the facility’s visitor policy and signs throughout the facility to promote hand hygiene, cough/sneeze etiquette and physical distancing; face coverings worn by staff and residents; hand sanitizer/hand washing stations readily available; a designated visitation area; emergency agencies’ contact information posted in a location visible to staff and residents; and an adequate supply of PPE. The facility is in compliance with and has implemented infection control practices as outlined in its LIC 808. No deficiencies were observed during today's visit. An exit interview was conducted with Rebecca Rayo and a copy of this report along with the Licensee Rights (LIC 9058 FAS 01/16) was provided to Rebecca via email; an email read receipt confirms receipt of these rights.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jan 3, 2022
20213 state visits · 3 documents
Nov 23, 2021Facility evaluation reportCase Management - IncidentReport on file
Type of visit: Case Management - Incident
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Correia conducted an unannounced Case Management visit. LPA Correia met Medical Technician (Med-Tech) Lynn Ocenar at the front door, identified herself, and was granted entry into the facility. Med-Tech Ocenar notified Licensee Rayo, of the visit, who arrived at the facility and met with LPA Correia who disclosed the purpose of the visit. During today’s visit, LPA conducted a brief tour of the facility, obtained copies of resident records, and conducted staff interviews. The visit was initiated due to a self reported incident involving client #1, that occurred on November 17, 2021. The incident was reported to Community Care Licensing (CCL) via form LIC 624 – Unusual Incident/Injury Report, which was received in our office on November 19, 2021. Further Investigation is needed before determining findings. An exit interview was conducted with Licensee Rayo and a copy of this report, and Licensee Rights (LIC 9058 01/16) was provided via email. LPA requested an email read reply response from Licensee Rayo to confirm receipt of these rights.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Nov 23, 2021
Oct 26, 2021Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Facility is not providing a walker for resident
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA), Tiffany Holmes conducted a visit to deliver findings on the above allegation. LPA identified herself, spoke with Eveline Denton, Medical Receptionist and disclosed the purpose of the visit.The investigation included interviews and a review of records. It was alleged that the facility is not providing a walker for resident. On or about February 24,2021, Resident 1 (R1) was walking alone outside with their cane and almost fell. A neighbor observed and reproted to facility that R1 should be walking with a walker. Based on R1’s physician report dated May 2 2018, R1 was ambulatory and can manage their care needs in the areas of toileting, bathing, grooming, and dressing. The report also indicated that R1 can leave the facility unassisted. The physicians report also does not state that R1 uses or needs any assistive devices. Based on interviews conducted and a review of documents, there is insufficient evidence to prove Facility is not providing a walker for resident therefore, the complaint investigation finding is found to be unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Eveline Denton, Medical Receptionist, and the Licensee’s Rights (LIC9058 01/16) along with a copy of this report was emailed to the facility's email address. A reply email or return receipt from the administrator will confirm receipt of documents. Unsubstantiatedthe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Oct 26, 2021 · control 08-AS-20210224140815
The state marks this report as 2 pages; the online copy we transcribed has 1. You can request the full file from the county licensing office.
Sep 10, 2021Facility evaluation reportCase Management - IncidentReport on file
Type of visit: Case Management - Incident
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA), Alexandre Vo, conducted a case management visit regarding a death reported to the San Diego Regional Office on September 9, 2021. LPA was allowed entry into the facility after identifying himself and stating the purpose of the visit. On September 1, 2021, resident #1 (R1, see list of confidential names) had a medical accident and was sent to the hospital after staff attempted life-saving measures. On September 8, 2021, facility was notified by Telecare, Case Manager, that resident expired at a local hospital. LPA briefly interviewed staff to establish a timeline and collected pertinent records. At this time, additional information is required to complete the investigation. No deficiencies were cited during this visit. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report and Licensee's Rights (9058 01/16) were provided to the Administrator, whose signature on this form confirms receipt of these documents.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Sep 10, 2021
20201 state visit · 1 document
Nov 10, 2020Facility evaluation reportCase Management - OtherReport on file
Type of visit: Case Management - Other
Regional Manager (RM), Icela Estrada; Licensing Program Manager (LPM), Simon Jacob, County of San Diego Nurse Contractor Elizar Perez; California Department Public Health (CDPH), Health Facility Evaluator Nurse (HFEN), Jacqueline Ruegg with the HAI Program, conducted an on-site visit. RM, LPM and team identified themselves and discussed the purpose of the visit with Administrator, Rebecca Rayo. The Department conducted an on-site visit to provide technical assistance and to evaluate the facility's disinfection, testing surveillance, and screening protocols as well as the use of personal protective equipment. During today's visit, the team interviewed Administrator Rebecca Rayo and the team conducted a walk-though of the facility. A debriefing was conducted with Ms. Rayo at the conclusion of the visit. During today's visit, no deficiencies were issued. An exit interview was conducted with Ms. Rayo and a copy of this report, along with Licensee Rights (LIC 9058 01/16), were provided to the Administrator via electronic mail. An electronic receipt of confirmation was requested to be sent by the Administrator upon receipt of the documents.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Nov 10, 2020
87 of 99 beds were occupied at the July 10, 2026 state visit — a count on that day, not an opening.
License holder
Lillian Franklin, licensed since 1993.
The state’s totals for this licenseSince 1993, as the state’s facility page counts them
- State visits on file
- 34
- Total complaints
- 20
- Substantiated allegations
- 1
- Type A citations
- 0
- Type B citations
- 1
These are the state’s own totals for this license since 1993, per CDSS records. The state counts them apart from the documents above, and they can differ from what those documents show; the documents say what each visit found. One complaint can contain several allegations.
Compare with homes the same size
| This home | Typical | |
|---|---|---|
| Type A citations | 0 | 0 |
| Type B citations | 1 | 1 |
| Substantiated allegations | 1 | 2 |
| Total complaints | 20 | 6 |
“Typical” is the statewide median for licensed homes this size. It does not adjust for years licensed, and older licenses have had more visits and reports. The median is across the 1,354 licensed larger communities (16+ beds) in the state record. The figures compared are the state’s totals, not the documents.
What the state’s words mean
CDSS citation definitions (PDF) ↗ · CDSS complaint outcomes ↗
An “unsubstantiated” complaint is not a finding of wrongdoing — it means the state investigated and could not confirm the allegation. Outcome words are the state’s own; we never grade, score, or color a record, and we publish no reviews — the state’s dated documents stand in their place.
Frequently asked questions
A citation does not make a home unsafe, and an empty file does not make a home good.
Quick answers about Casa El Cajon
Is Casa El Cajon licensed?
The state lists this license as “Licensed,” per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
How many residents is Casa El Cajon licensed for?
99 residents — a large community, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
Has Casa El Cajon been cited?
0 Type A and 1 Type B citation since 1993, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026. Those records count 34 state visits over the same years.
Is Casa El Cajon still open?
This license was on the CDSS roster as of November 11, 2026.
What does Casa El Cajon cost?
$4,200 a month to start is a Covelight estimate, likely $3,300–$5,350. This home’s own rate is not on file. Ask: “What is the all-in monthly rate, and what would push it higher?”
Covelight’s estimate starts from the rates 12 communities with 50 or more beds within 10 miles publish, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices. In testing, the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 homes. This home’s own rate is not on file.
Among 72 other homes of a similar licensed size across San Diego County that publish a starting rate, the middle half runs $3,606 to $5,761 a month, and the middle figure is $4,498 (n = 72 other homes publishing a starting rate).
Each of those is a home’s own published figure, gathered on its own date between September and October 2026 — not an average of ours, and not a survey. Similar size means small and mid-size homes counted together, and large communities counted on their own, because they are different markets.
A home outside the band is not overcharging or underpricing: a starting rate covers different things in different homes, which is the first thing to ask about.
The price is made in the phone call. Nothing here is a quote, an offer or a discount.
A starting rate is the room and the base care. California homes commonly bill care levels, medication management, supplies, transport and a second person in the room as extras. Many also charge a one-time fee at move-in. Ask for that list in writing before anything is signed.
Only prices a home put out itself count here: its own website, a listing it supplied, or a price a listing site says the home confirmed. Prices a site shows without saying where they came from are left out.
Does Casa El Cajon take Medi-Cal?
On Medi-Cal’s Assisted Living Waiver: this home is not on the DHCS participation list dated October 1, 2026. Ask the program about current options. The waiver pays for care services, not room and board.
Who holds the license?
The license is held by Lillian Franklin, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
Is there a hospital nearby?
Grossmont Hospital is 4.1 miles away in a straight line, per the CDPH licensed-hospital list dated September 16, 2026. See licensed care homes near it.
Can Casa El Cajon keep a resident on hospice?
Not on file — the state’s record does not list hospice care on this license. Ask: “Can a resident stay here on hospice, and under what conditions?”
Casa El Cajon license and inspection record
- Name on the license: “CASA EL CAJON”, per the CDSS roster as of May 25, 2025.
- License #370804788. The state lists this license as “Licensed,” per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
- Licensed for 99 residents — a large community, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
- Licensed to Lillian Franklin, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
- First licensed in 1993, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
- 34 state inspection visits since 1993, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
- 0 Type A and 1 Type B citation on file since 1993, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026. The same records count 34 state visits in that period.
- 20 complaints and 1 substantiated allegation on file since 1993, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026. One complaint can carry several allegations.
- The most recent state visit on file is July 22, 2026, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
California writes these definitions for every licensed home, not for this one. CDSS citation definitions (PDF) ↗
Nearby
Other homes nearby
Licensed homes near this one in San Diego County, most information on file first. Every listed home appears on the same terms.
- Map
Estimated starting rate
$3,950 a month to start
Covelight estimate · likely $3,050–$5,000On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Dementia: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Map
Estimated starting rate
$5,550 a month to start
Covelight estimate · likely $4,550–$6,800On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Bedridden: on the state record
- Map
Estimated starting rate
$5,300 a month to start
Covelight estimate · likely $4,350–$6,500On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Map
Starting rate
$3,000 a month to start
Listed by the home on Seniorly · September 9, 2026On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Dementia: on the state record
- Map
Estimated starting rate
$3,500 a month to start
Covelight estimate · likely $2,700–$4,450On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Bedridden: on the state record
- Map
Estimated starting rate
$5,350 a month to start
Covelight estimate · likely $4,400–$6,600On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
Street maps © Protomaps · © OpenStreetMap
Explore San Diego County