Brookdale Oceanside

Allegation investigated: Neglect/ Lack of supervision resulted in resident sustaining a bruise Facility was disrepair

On September 8, 2026, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Marisela Garcia-Centeno conducted an unannounced visit to initiate an investigation regarding the above allegations. LPA met with Executive Director Mike McCoy and discussed the purpose of the visit. The Department's investigation included a facility tour, review of facility records, and interviews with relevant parties. Allegation: Neglect/lack of supervision resulted in R1 sustaining a bruise. On September 8, 2026, Community Care Licensing (CCL) received a complaint alleging that neglect and lack of supervision resulted in R1 sustaining a bruise. (continue at LIC9099C) Unsubstantiated (continue from LIC9099) During an interview, an outside source (OS) stated that a bruise had been observed on R1's lower back several months prior. The specific date the bruise was observed was not provided during the investigation. OS also reported observing a raised lesion on R1's lower back and stated that the concern had been reported to facility staff. During interviews, staff stated that an outside source had recently reported a raised area on R1's back and requested that R1 be evaluated by a physician. Staff stated that R1's Power of Attorney (POA) had requested that R1 not be released to the outside source and that R1's physician had recently been changed. Staff stated that R1 was assessed by direct care staff and the facility's Registered Nurse (RN). Staff reported that the raised area described by the outside source was determined to be a raised mole. During the facility visit, R1 was observed without visible signs of injury to the back or other visible areas of the body. During an interview, R1 stated that R1 was fine and denied experiencing pain. R1 also stated that R1 did not recall falling or injuring the back. Staff reported that R1 sustained a fall on August 26, 2026. The incident was reported to CCL in accordance with Title 22 requirements. Staff stated that R1 sustained a slight bruise to the back as a result of the fall and did not sustain a major injury. R1's Service Plan was updated following the incident to address R1's identified care and supervision needs. Staff reported that R1 uses a wheelchair for mobility and also uses a walker. The investigation did not yield corroborating evidence to establish that R1's reported bruise was the result of staff neglect or lack of supervision. Therefore, the allegation is unsubstantiated. Allegation: Facility was in disrepair. It was reported that the facility was in disrepair. Specifically, it was alleged that a leak had been observed in a hallway, with a bucket placed underneath the leak to collect water dripping from the air-conditioning (AC) vents. The outside source expressed concern regarding possible mold. (continue at LIC9099C) (continue from LIC9099C) During the September 8, 2026 facility tour, no active leaks were observed. The facility was observed to be clean, organized, and free of offensive odors. Hallways were observed to be free of clutter. During interviews, staff stated that the facility had experienced leaks associated with the Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system and that pumps had been replaced to address the issue. Staff reported that approximately 17 pumps had recently been replaced since the facility's new ownership. Staff also stated that ceiling tiles are replaced when water damage occurs. Staff reported that the facility is more than 57 years old and that additional HVAC pumps may need to be replaced as needed. The investigation did not yield corroborating evidence to establish that the facility was in disrepair at the time of the investigation. No active leaks or other conditions indicating that the facility was in disrepair were observed during the facility tour. Therefore, the allegation is unsubstantiated. Based on the investigation, including facility observations, record review, and interviews, the evidence was insufficient to substantiate either allegation. Therefore, the allegations of neglect/lack of supervision resulting in R1 sustaining a bruise and facility being in disrepair are deemed unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Mike McCoy. A copy of this report and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC 9058 03/22) were provided to the Executive Director at the conclusion of the visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Sep 9, 2026 · control 08-AS-20260902151420

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Rebecca Borunda conducted an unannounced Required 1-Year visit. The facility file was reviewed prior to the visit. LPA was greeted by, identified herself to, and explained the purpose of the visit with Executive Director Candi Laird. During today's visit, LPA reviewed facility records and observed residents in care. Due to time constraints, the annual inspection could not be completed and a return visit on a subsequent day is needed. No deficiencies were cited on today's date. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Candi Laird, whose signature below confirms receipt of a copy of this report and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22).the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 25, 2026

Allegation investigated: Unlawful Eviction

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Rebecca Borunda conducted an unannounced complaint visit to open an investigation and deliver findings regarding the above-mentioned allegation. LPA identified herself to, was greeted by, and explained the purpose of the visit to Executive Director Candi Laird. During today's visit, LPA toured the facility, observed residents in care, reviewed and obtained copies of facility records, and interviewed residents and staff. The Department’s investigation consisted of interviews with Resident 1 (R1), staff, outside sources, review of facility records, and a tour of the facility. It was alleged that the facility issued R1 an unlawful eviction in July 2024. Review of R1’s admission paperwork revealed that R1 and their responsible party signed admission paperwork and physically moved into the facility in August 2022. Continued on LIC9099-C page... Unfounded Review of R1’s admission agreement signed in August 2022 revealed that the facility issued monthly statements listing the itemized rate and service charges, or basic rate, which were due on the 1st of every month. Interviews with an outside source, facility staff, and review of R1’s account history revealed that starting in approximately December 2023, R1 did not pay the full basic rate at the facility. Interviews with an outside source and facility management confirmed that R1 had depleted their finances and did not enough money to continue to pay the basic rate at the facility. Interviews revealed that when facility management became aware of R1’s financial issues in November 2023, facility management provided R1’s responsible party with contact information for alternative placement options and referral agencies. Additionally, multiple third party agencies assisted in trying to find alternative placement for R1. Those interviews with facility management and review of facility communication revealed that facility management also made phone calls to alternative placement options and referred any information to R1’s responsible party. Review of R1’s admission agreement signed August 2022 stated that the facility could issue an eviction notice to any residents who did not pay the basic service rate within ten days of the due date. On July 23, 2024, the facility issued a 30-day eviction notice to R1 for failure to pay from January 2024 to July 2024 and provided physical copies to R1 and their responsible party, which was confirmed via interviews. The eviction notice did state that R1 submitted partial payments in May 2024 and July 2024, however, there was still an outstanding balance as of the date of the eviction notice. Review of R1’s account history report confirmed the partial payments and outstanding balance. The eviction notice stated that if R1 was able to pay the entire outstanding balance prior to August 23, 2024, the facility would not move forward with eviction. The eviction was hand delivered to R1, which was confirmed via interviews and review of the affidavit of hand delivery document signed by R1, the facility's Executive Director, and a witness on 7/23/2024. R1’s responsible party was also mailed a copy of the eviction notice on 7/23/2024, which was confirmed via interview and signed affidavit of service by mail, signed by the Executive Director. Review of documents received by the Department revealed that the facility also submitted a copy of R1’s eviction notice to the Department on 7/24/2024 and the eviction notice did not lack any required language, resources, effective date, or any other regulatory requirements that would have made the eviction notice invalid. Continued on LIC9099-C page... Review of Exhibit E of the Admission Agreement revealed that R1’s responsible party confirmed understanding that the facility was private pay and was unable to accept or retain residents who were eligible for Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Per interviews, R1’s responsible party made attempts to have R1 enrolled in the Assisted Living Waiver Program (ALWP), however, review of the ALWP website revealed that as of 3/12/2025, the facility was not listed as an ALWP participating facility. Interviews with an outside source revealed that R1 remained at the facility after the eviction’s effective date of August 23, 2024, which was confirmed by interviews with facility staff, outside sources, as well as visually confirmed by LPA Borunda during an onsite visit on 3/18/2025. Interviews with an outside source denied any concerns regarding the care that R1 received at the facility prior to or after the eviction notice being issued. Review of court records revealed that on 2/19/2025, the facility filed for an unlawful detainer with County of San Diego Superior Court against R1 for the unpaid balance and eviction. According to facility management, the unlawful detainer is pending with Superior Court as of 3/18/2025. The Department has investigated the above-mentioned allegation and based on interviews and records review, this allegation is deemed unfounded, meaning that the allegation was false, could not have happened and/or is without a reasonable basis. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Candi Laird, whose signature below confirms receipt of a copy of this report and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22).the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 18, 2025 · control 08-AS-20250312131526

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Rebecca Borunda conducted an unannounced Required 1-Year visit. The facility file was reviewed prior to the visit. LPA was greeted by, identified herself to, and explained the purpose of the visit with Executive Director Candi Laird. During today's visit, LPA reviewed facility records and observed residents in care. Due to time constraints, the annual inspection could not be completed and a return visit on a subsequent day is needed. No deficiencies were cited on today's date. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Candi Laird, whose signature below confirms receipt of a copy of this report and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22).the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 6, 2025

Allegation investigated: False Claims

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Rebecca Ruiz conducted an unannounced complaint visit to deliver findings regarding the above-mentioned allegation. LPA identified herself to, was greeted by, and explained the purpose of the visit to Executive Director Candi Laird. The Department’s investigation consisted of interviews with staff and outside sources, records review, and a tour of the facility. It was alleged that the licensee engaged in false claims, specifically claiming that Resident 1 (R1) had passed away, however, R1 was alive. Interviews with staff and review of R1’s assessment records dated 2023 revealed that R1 had a diagnosis of major cognitive impairment, was confused and disoriented, and was unable to follow instructions or make their needs known. Continued on LIC9099-C page... Unfounded Interviews with staff revealed that R1 resided in the facility’s memory care and began receiving hospice services on 10/26/2023. Interviews with staff revealed that R1 was discharged from the facility on 1/19/2024 and transferred to a facility that provided a higher level of care. Interviews with staff and outside sources stated that R1 passed away on 1/27/2024 while at the higher level of care facility, which was confirmed by the facility’s death report. Review of R1’s county issued certificate of death also confirmed R1’s date of death and location at time of death. Interviews with outside sources corroborated the timeline provided by the facility. Interviews with staff and outside sources and review of R1’s certificate of death did not reveal any evidence that the licensee, facility management, or facility staff made any false allegations regarding R1’s status or death. The Department has investigated the above-mentioned allegation and based on interviews and records review, it was determined that the complaint allegation is Unfounded, meaning that the allegation is false, could not have happened and/or is without a reasonable basis. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Candi Laird, whose signature below confirms receipt of a copy of this report and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22).the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Oct 14, 2024 · control 08-AS-20240910161144

Allegation investigated: Neglect to resident resulting in serious bodily injury

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Rebecca Ruiz conducted an unannounced complaint visit to deliver findings regarding the above-mentioned allegation. LPA identified herself to, was greeted by, and explained the purpose of the visit to Business Office Manager Sam Elizondo. The Department’s investigation consisted of interviews with residents, staff, and outside sources, records review, and a tour of the facility. It was alleged that neglect resulted in Resident 1 (R1) sustaining a fracture in January 2022. Review of R1’s physician’s reports dated November 2020 and August 2021 and R1’s needs and service plan dated February 2021 revealed that R1 did not have any memory impairment, was able to follow directions, was not confused or disoriented, and did not require assistance with transferring or ambulation. Additionally, R1 was receiving hospice services starting in August 2021 and R1 able to ambulate around the facility independently with the use of an electric wheelchair. Continued on LIC9099-C page... Unsubstantiated Interviews with staff, R1, and outside sources revealed that R1 had been complaining about shoulder pain starting approximately in December 2021 and was receiving pain medication on an as needed basis. Communication logs revealed that R1’s physician ordered an X-ray for R1’s arm in January 2022, which discovered a fracture on R1’s arm. R1 made statements during interviews that R1 believed that the fracture was due to a childhood injury that R1 further aggravated during R1’s career. R1 denied having fallen at the facility, being mistreated by staff, being dropped during a transfer, or experiencing any incidents that might have caused the fracture. R1 made statements during interviews that R1 would have voiced any concerns or complaints regarding the treatment R1 received from facility staff and that R1 did not have any complaints or concerns regarding the facility staff. Interviews with staff and outside sources corroborated R1’s statements and denied being made aware of any complaints R1 had made about care provided by facility staff. Interviews with staff and outside sources revealed that R1 would transfer into a recliner by placing their arms behind their body and then dropping into the chair. R1’s physician and hospice staff stated that the way R1 transferred could have caused the fracture and that R1 had been cautioned against transferring in that manner. Additionally, staff and outside providers denied that R1 could have sustained the injury as the result of a fall due to R1’s inability to get up from the floor independently. Interviews with staff also revealed that prior to the discovery of R1’s fracture, R1 was independent of transferring needs but following the fracture, R1 required between two and three staff and the use of a gait belt to properly transfer. The Department has investigated the above-mentioned allegation and based on interviews and records review, the preponderance of the evidence has not been met, therefore, this allegation is deemed unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Business Office Manager Sam Elizondo, whose signature below confirms receipt of a copy of this report and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22).the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 20, 2024 · control 08-AS-20220125151917

Type of visit: Case Management - Incident

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Rebecca Ruiz conducted an unannounced case management visit. LPA was greeted by, identified herself to, and explained the purpose of the visit to Executive Director Candi Laird. This visit was initiated due to an incident report that was self reported by the facility to the Department on 4/12/2024. The incident report narrative described that sometime in April 2024, Resident 1 (R1) had reported to an outside source that an altercation between R1 and an unknown individual had occurred. The described altercation did not result in any injuries. The facility became aware of the alleged altercation when the outside source reported R1's statement to the facility management. The facility followed required reporting requirements to the Department and Long Term Care Ombudsman. During today’s visit, LPA toured the facility, observed residents in care, conducted a health and safety check, and reviewed and obtained copies of facility records. No immediate health or safety concerns were observed during the facility tour. No deficiencies were cited during today’s visit. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Candi Laird, whose signature below confirms receipt of a copy of this report and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22).the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 15, 2024

Type of visit: Case Management - Incident

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Amy Rodgers conducted an unannounced Case Management - Incident visit. LPA was welcomed by, identified herself to, and discussed the purpose of the visit with Executive Director Candi Laird. Today's visit was in response to an LIC624 Incident Report concerning Resident #1 (R1), which Licensee self-submitted to the CCLD San Diego Regional Office (they were received on 03/18/2024) [See LIC 811 Confidential Names List for a description of R1.] Per the reports: On 03/14/2024, Licensee’s staff arranged for R1 to be taken to a local emergency room due to change in their condition. R1 was admitted to hospital and then later moved to a Skilled Nursing Facility. During today’s visit, LPA performed a brief facility tour and welfare check on the remaining residents, finding no safety concerns. LPA also collected copies of and reviewed pertinent records and interviewed some of the relevant staff. No deficiencies were observed or cited during today’s visit. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Candi Laird, 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, Mar 20, 2024

Type of visit: Case Management - Incident

LPA Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Amy Rodgers conducted an unannounced Case Management – Incident visit. LPA was welcomed by, identified herself, and discussed the purpose of the visit with Executive Director Candi Laird. Today's visit was in response to an LIC624 Incident Report, which licensee self-submitted to the CCLD San Diego Regional Office (received on 03/13/2024). According to the LIC624: during the morning of 03/12/2024, an error by Staff #1 (S1) led to Resident #1 (R1) receiving doses of multiple medications which were not prescribed to them. These medications were instead prescribed to Resident #2 (R2). [See LIC 811 Confidential Names List for a description of select person identifiers used in this report]. During today’s visit, LPA performed a brief facility tour and welfare check on R1, verifying that they were safe. LPA collected copies of and reviewed pertinent care records, training records, and physician correspondence. LPA also interviewed relevant staff. Staff interviews aligned to show: On the morning of 03/12/2024, S1 was a newer Medication Technician and recently underwent medication pass training with a nurse manager. At breakfast time, Staff #1 approached R1 and asked R1 to verify his identity, R1 agreed to the wrong identity. R1 then ingested medications which were not prescribed to them. Staff quickly recognized the error and timely notified R1’s primary care physician (PCP). Staff measured R1’s blood pressure multiple times, finding it was consistently within a safe range. Staff continued to closely observe R1 for 72 hours and R1 had no adverse reactions. [Continued on 809-C] [Continued from 809] Personnel records showed that Licensee provided one-on-one remedial medication pass training to S1 following the incident. No citations were issued at the time of visit however one (1) Technical Violation (TV) was issued.. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Candi Laird, to whom a copy of this report, 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, Mar 20, 2024

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Amy Rodgers, made an unannounced visit to conduct the required One-Year Inspection. LPA Rodgers were granted entry into the facility by Health and Wellness Director Valorie Adams, after identifying herself and stating the purpose of the inspection. The facility serves 186 elderly residents, age 60 and above, all whom may be non-ambulatory. This facility is approved for delayed egress and locked perimeter. Later, Executive Director Candi Laird joined the tour. LPA was accompanied by Valorie Adams for a tour of the facility which was conducted inside and out and included a sample of resident units, the dining area and recreation rooms. Exterior and interior passageways were free from obstructions. Signal system is present and was operational. Resident and facility room temperatures were within a comfortable range. Each resident had clean and sufficient bed linens, towels, and washcloths. All residents’ rooms were equipped with required furnishings. Lighting was present in the bedrooms. Residents’ bathrooms were observed to be sanitary and operational. Toilets and showers were equipped with grab bars. Food menus and activities schedule were posted. Chemicals and cleaning supplies were stored in a locked closet. The medication carts were locked and medications were labeled and kept in compliance with label instructions. LPA interview confirmed the licensee provides assistance in meeting medical and dental needs. [Continued on 809-C] [Continued from 809] LPA interviewed multiple staff and clients. LPA reviewed multiple staff and client records/files. The interviews did not raise any significant licensing concerns. The reviewed files contained all required documents. LPA also conducted a review of In-service training procedures. There are large designated activity rooms throughout facility as well as gathering areas throughout the facility. At the time of visit, LPA observed that residents were being treated with dignity by staff, and there were sufficient staff on duty to meet resident’s needs. A final exit interview and a copy of this report, Licensee/Appeal Rights - LIC 9058 (rev. 01/16), were provided to , Executive Director Candi Laird. whose signature on this form acknowledges receipt of these documents.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 27, 2024

Allegation investigated: Licensee did not take measures to keep the faciliity free from pests

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Rebecca Ruiz conducted an unannounced complaint visit to open an investigation and deliver findings regarding the above mentioned allegation. LPA was greeted by, identified herself to, and explained the purpose of the visit and the basic elements of the complaint with Business Office Manager Raquel Tarango. During today’s visit, LPA toured the facility, observed residents in care, reviewed and obtained copies of facility records, and interviewed residents and staff. The Department's investigation consisted of interviews with residents and staff, records review, and a tour of the facility. It was alleged that the Licensee did not take measures to keep the facility free from pests. Interviews with staff revealed that the facility contracted with an outside company to conduct monthly pest control visits at the facility and facility staff were prohibited from using any chemicals or pesticides by the pest control company. Continued on LIC9099-C page... Unsubstantiated Interviews with staff and residents revealed that some residents had complained about small flying insects in their rooms during their weekly housekeeping visits. Staff stated that they would report to the front desk or the maintenance director whenever a resident complained about insects or the staff observed insects. Interviews and records review revealed that the front desk staff were responsible for generating a work order and logging the issue in a binder at the front desk for the contracted pest control company to address during their monthly visit. Interviews revealed that the contracted pest control company would review the binder at the front desk and address each logged concern. Records review revealed that the pest control company was present at the facility once a month and left a receipt detailing the work conducted with the maintenance director. Interviews with staff revealed that staff would attempt to address any issues with insects during weekly housekeeping visits by using cleaning products in the areas where insects were observed. Interviews with staff revealed that insects were a concern around this time of year and denied any residents who had consistent issues with insects in their room. Interviews with residents were inconsistent regarding the presence of insects in the facility and resident rooms. During the visit on 10/6/2023, LPA Ruiz observed multiple resident rooms, hallways, and common areas of the facility. LPA observed a few small flying insects in Resident 1’s (R1) room located around drink bottles and cups. Interviews with R1 revealed that the insects were attracted to open food containers and drinks which R1 admitted to leaving food containers out in the past. R1 stated that they did not wash drink cups or bottles with soap after they contained sugary drinks and only rinsed them out. R1 stated that they often ate meals in their room and returned any remaining food to the dining room after they completed their meal. R1 stated that the issue with insects had improved. The Department has investigated the above-mentioned allegation and based on interviews and records review, the preponderance of the evidence has not been met, therefore, this allegation is deemed unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Business Office Manager Raquel Tarango, whose signature below confirms receipt of a copy of this report and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC9058 01/16).the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Oct 6, 2023 · control 08-AS-20231002135512