Large community · Licensed for 120 · Long Beach
Hacienda Grande Senior Assisted Living
1740 Grand Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90804Licensed since 2006
Overview
No openings reported
- Approved by the state: Wheelchair · HospiceState licensing record · October 26, 2026
- Languages spoken: EnglishReported on Caring.com · September 9, 2026
- Ways to pay: Medi-Cal ALW acceptedDHCS participant list · October 1, 2026
Ask this home
Free for families. A home gets your number only if you say yes.
Care and support
- Wheelchairup to 60 residents
- Hospiceup to 10 residents
Not on file: dementia 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 IS LICENSED TO SERVE 60 AMBULATORY AND 60 NON-AMBULATORY RESIDENTS AGE 60 AND ABOVE. HOSPICE WAIVER APPROVED FOR 10 RESIDENTS.
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.
Assisted living
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Therapies availablePhysical therapy
Reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Diabetes care
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Incontinence care
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Respite / short-term stays
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Dental care available at the home
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Works with hospice
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Works with residents’ own health care providers
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
24-hour supervision claimed
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Hiring checksEach caregiver is screened before employment.
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Secured building entry
Reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Families may hire a private-duty caregiver or companion to come in
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Visitor sign-in
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Emergency call system
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Smoke and carbon monoxide detectors
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Fire sprinklers
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
As needs change
Medicines
Level of medication service: reminders only
Caring.com · September 9, 2026
Staying through hospice
Hospice waiver on file · covers up to 10 — care may continue at the end of life
State licensing record · October 26, 2026
We’ll ask for you. Not on file for Hacienda Grande Senior Assisted Living: two-person transfers or a lift, who is awake overnight and care if memory loss develops. When we check availability, we ask about these too.
Check availabilityWhat it costs here
Covelight estimate
$3,250a month to start
Likely $2,550–$4,150
From 9 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$3,250likely 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$3,250likely $2,550–$4,150
Covelight’s estimate starts from the rates 9 communities with 50 or more beds within 5 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 $2,550–$4,350
- $3,250
- First monthWith a one-time move-in fee · likely $3,150–$7,600
- $5,750
How people payOn the Medi-Cal waiver list · private pay, 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 appears on the DHCS participation list, October 1, 2026. Confirm eligibility and current participation with the program. The waiver pays for care services, not room and board. On the waiver, a resident on SSI/SSP pays the home $1,444.07 a month for 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 homes9 nearby homes publish starting rates of $1,832 to $5,286
9 homes like this within 5 miles publish starting rates mostly between $2,150–$4,700.
- Crofton Manor InnLong Beach · 1.6 mi · Large community$2,200Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Villa Redondo Care HomeLong Beach · 1.6 mi · Large community$2,900Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Glen Park at Long BeachLong Beach · 2.2 mi · Large community$5,286Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Regency Palms Long BeachLong Beach · 2.7 mi · Large community$4,170Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Vista Del Mar Senior LivingLong Beach · 3.5 mi · Large community$2,795Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Palmcrest Grand ResidenceLong Beach · 3.6 mi · Large community$2,800Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Brittany HouseLong Beach · 3.7 mi · Large community$3,500Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Ivy Park at Seal BeachSeal Beach · 4.5 mi · Large community$4,495Listed on its own website · private studio & companion suites available floor plans · seen October 27, 2026
- Katella Senior Living CommunityLos Alamitos · 4.9 mi · Large community$1,832Listed on its own website · studio · seen October 5, 2026
How this estimate worksWithin 25% for 7 in 10 homes in testing
Covelight’s estimate starts from the rates 9 communities with 50 or more beds within 5 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 (19)Private rooms · Elevator · Shared / companion rooms
Private rooms
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Elevator
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Shared / companion rooms
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Outdoor spaceOutside patios · Garden · Outdoor Common Areas
Outside patios — reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Garden — reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Outdoor Common Areas — reported on AssistedLiving.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Private bathroom
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Common areasMusic room · Library · TV room · Arts and crafts room · Outside patios · Dining room with a fireplace · and 3 more
Music room · Library · TV room · Arts and crafts room · Outside patios · Dining room with a fireplace · Several outside patios — reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Communal dining room — reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Indoor Common Areas — reported on AssistedLiving.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Room typesStudio apartments · Private rooms · Semi-private rooms · Studio · Semi-Private
Studio apartments · Private rooms · Semi-private rooms — reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Studio — reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Semi-Private — reported on AssistedLiving.com · seen September 9, 2026.
LaundryDone by staff
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Roll-in / accessible shower
Reported on AssistedLiving.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Housekeeping frequencyDaily
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Grab bars and rails
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
AmenitiesService elevator · Beautician
Service elevator — reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Beautician — reported on AssistedLiving.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Air conditioning in the room
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Housekeeping
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Emergency call system in the room
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Salon or barber
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Policy on moving rooms after admissionModifications to the structure of the room, paint or wallpaper will need to be approved by the Administrator.
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Telephone in the room
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Bath tubs
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Meals, preferences & familiar food (3)Meals provided · Vegetarian or vegan options · Places to eat on site
Meals provided
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Vegetarian or vegan optionsVegetarian
Reported on AssistedLiving.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Places to eat on siteDining room
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Activities & the rhythm of a day (6)Activity types offered · Exercise or fitness program · Trips outside the home
Activity types offeredCommunity participation · Social interaction · Special holiday events · Birthday parties · Arts & crafts · On-site recreational and social activities · and 2 more
Community participation · Social interaction — reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Special holiday events · Birthday parties · Arts & crafts · On-site recreational and social activities · Exercise classes — reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Activities On-site — reported on AssistedLiving.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Exercise or fitness programPhysical Fitness · Exercise classes
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Trips outside the home
Reported on AssistedLiving.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Religious services at the home
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Religious services off site
Reported on AssistedLiving.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Activities coordinator on staff
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Faith, culture & language (2)Religious observance supported · Languages spoken by caregivers
Religious observance supportedReligious services
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Languages spoken by caregiversEnglish
Reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Pets, routines & independence (4)Residents may bring a pet · Visiting hours · Children and grandchildren welcome as visitors
Residents may bring a petReported no
Reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Visiting hoursPosted hours
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Children and grandchildren welcome as visitors
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Visiting hoursMonday through Sunday, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.; special arrangements with the Administrator can be made for visits before or after hours.
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Visiting & staying involved (10)Transport to medical appointments · Tour scheduling link · Neighborhood or area named
Transport to medical appointments
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
- Open on the website
Tour scheduling link
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Neighborhood or area namedSignal Hill
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
- Open on the website
URL of the photo gallery page
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Transport for shopping and errands
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
- Open on the website
Contact form
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
SettingResidential neighborhood
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Transportation costs extraReported no
Reported on AssistedLiving.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Transport for group outings
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Transportation
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
About the home (2)Brand or trade name · Family-owned claim
Brand or trade nameHacienda Grande
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Family-owned claim
Reported on haciendagrandealf.com · seen October 5, 2026.
Where it is
1740 Grand Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90804Address from the public record · October 26, 2026. Confirm the entrance with the home before visiting.
Opening the neighborhood map…
- St. Mary Medical CenterHospital · General acute care, on the state’s list2.3 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 #198205024 · See the state’s own record
The last 36 months — 20 of 32 documents
Complaint outcomes in these 36 months, in the state’s words: 1 “Substantiated” and 12 “Unsubstantiated”.
20267 state visits · 9 documents
Aug 14, 2026Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Licensee did not surrender resident’s cash resources to their responsible party upon discharge
On August 14, 2026, the Department of Social Services (DSS) staff conducted an initial unannounced complaint visit at the facility to investigate the above allegation and to deliver the findings. The department was greeted by Rodrigo Ramos, and the purpose of the visit was explained. The investigation consisted of the following On August 14, 2026, the Department obtained the following pertinent documents: R1’s Admission Agreement (dated 4/14/26), Payment invoice to POA (dated 7/1/26), copy of check payable to R1’s Power of Attorney (POA) and copy of proof mailing of the payment. On August 14, 2026, the Department interviewed Chief Executive Officer (A1) Page 1 of Unsubstantiated The investigation revealed the following Allegation: Licensee did not surrender resident’s cash resources to their responsible party upon discharge The detail of complaint alleges on July 1, 2026, R1 was not going to return to the facility due to requiring a higher level of care. The Power of Attorney (POA) asked Licensee for the cash resources the facility was safeguarding, and as of the date of complaint, the funds still has not been released On August 14, 2026, at 1:00 p.m., the Department interviewed the Chief Executive Officer (A1) regarding the allegation that the Licensee did not surrender the resident’s cash resources to the responsible party upon discharge. A1 denied the allegation, stating that the resident’s cash resources were in the process of being returned to the Power of Attorney (POA). A1 further explained that there were no issues regarding the return of the funds. On August 14, 2026, the Department also reviewed and evaluated the following documents: a payment invoice (dated 7/1/26) and a copy of the check payable to the POA (dated 8/14/26). These documents confirm that the funds are being returned, and the payment matter has been resolved. Based on the information gathered, there is insufficient evidence to support the allegation mentioned above; Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. Exit interview conducted with Rodrigo Ramos. There were no deficiencies cited during today's visit. Copy of report provided. Page 2 of 2the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 14, 2026 · control 11-AS-20260807135218
Jul 23, 2026Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file
Type of visit: Required - 1 Year
On 07/23/26 Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Mario Leon conducted an unannounced annual required visit using the CARE Inspection Tool. California Department of Social Services (CDSS) met with Lorenzona Medina - Administrator as the purpose of the visit was explained.The facility is licensed to serve 60 ambulatory and 60 non-ambulatory residents ages 60 and above. The facility has an approved hospice waiver for 10 residents. Annual fees are current and liability insurance is valid through 04/09/27. The facility is two-story commercial building consists of (60) resident bedrooms, (60) resident bathrooms, (6) common bathrooms, dining room, commercial kitchen, med-room, library, washer and dryer/storage area, a shaded sitting area, and administrative offices. Commercial Kitchen was inspected and observed to be clean and operational. A 2-day supply perishable and 7-day supply of non-perishable foods are present in the facility kitchen. Toxins and knifes were stored and inaccessible to residents. Four (4) Resident bedrooms were checked; mattresses and box springs were in good condition, adequate lighting, plenty of dresser and closet space was observed. Bathroom toilets and water faucets worked properly, shower was free of mold/mildew, and there are sufficient toiletries accessible to residents. The water temperature was measured between 133.3 - 139.6°F (degrees Fahrenheit) which is outside of title 22 regulation. Please see LIC809-D. Exits and walkways are free of debris/hazards, there are no weapons nor bodies of water on the premises. LPA’s conducted a records review of 4 staff records, 4 resident records, and 4 medication reviews. Medications were centrally stored and properly locked, first aid kit was checked, fully stocked, and located in the medication room. Report continues, please see LIC809-C. The last disaster drill was conducted on 05/05/26, fire extinguishers fully charged, carbon monoxide and smoke detectors are operational. LBFD conducted a yearly fire inspection, last conducted on 01/27/26, facility is in compliance. There has been one deficiency cited during today's visit. Please see LIC809-D. An exit interview was held with Lorenzona Medina - Administrator, and a copy of facilities' appeal rights, one deficiency and a copy of this report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 23, 2026
May 7, 2026Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Staff did not meet the resident's diapering care needs in a timely manner. Staff did not clean the resident's room in a timely manner. Residents are not provided meals that consist of an appropriate variety of foods.
On 05/07/26 at 9:00 am Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Villegas conducted an initial complaint visit regarding the allegation(s) above. LPA met with Adminisrator Lorenzona Medina (staff #1 S1) as the purpose of today’s visit was explained. The investigation consisted of the following: On 05/07/26 LPA Villegas obtained copies of the staff and resident rosters, facility menus for April 2026-May 2026, housekeeping schedule, and a list of incontinence care residents. On 05/07/26 LPA also obtained copies of the following documents for Resident #1-3 (R1-R3) Emergency ID forms, pre-appraisals, admission agreements, Physicians reports, needs and service plan dated: On 05/07/26 from 10:00 am- 11:30am LPA conducted Interviews with R1-R7, and from 11:30am-12pm LPA observed lunch service. On 05/07/26 from 1pm- 2pm LPA conducted interviews with staff #1-5 (S1-S5). On 05/07/26 LPA conducted a review od documents obtained. The investigation revealed the following: Unsubstantiated Allegation: Staff did not meet the resident's diapering care needs in a timely manner. It is alleged that facility staff are refusing to change residents diapers as residents can wait up to 4 hours for assistance. On 05/07/26 LPA conducted Interviews with R1-R7 regarding the allegation above. 2 of the 7 residents interviewed denied the allegation above and reported staff have not refused to assist with incontinence care. 5 of the 7 residents interviewed reported that they do not require assistance with incontinence care as they can do it themselves. On 05/07/26 LPA conducted interviews with S1-S5 regarding the allegation above. 4 of the 5 staff interviewed denied the allegation above and reported that residents are provided with incontinence care assistance 2-3 times per shift or as needed. Additionally staff report that rounds/checks are conducted every 2 hours. 1 of the 5 staff interviewed reported having no knowledge of the allegation above as they do not provide direct care to residents. On 05/07/26 LPA conducted a review on documents obtained for R1. Per physicians report dated: 02/27/26, R1 requires diapers and needs assistance with toileting needs. Per R1's appraisal dated: 03/06/25 R1 requires assistance with continence, bowel, and bladder control. Per R1's individual service plan dated: 03/11/26 R1 is occasionally incontinent to both bladder and bowel but usually declines wearing pull ups. Allegation: Staff did not clean the resident's room in a timely manner. it is alleged that facility staff complain about the incontinence smell and do not to assist. On 05/07/26 LPA conducted Interviews with R1-R7 regarding the allegation above. 5 out of the 7 residents interviewed denied the allegation above and reported that their bedrooms are cleaned daily. 1 of the 7 residents interviewed reported being unaware of how often their bedroom is cleaned, 1 of the 7 residents interviewed reported that their bedroom is cleaned once a week. On 05/07/26 LPA conducted interviews with S1-S5 regarding the allegation above. 4 of the 5 staff interviewed denied the allegation above and reported that resident bedrooms are cleaned every day, 1 of the 5 staff interviewed added that 5 bedrooms are deep cleaned daily. 1 of the 5 staff interviewed reported having no knowledge of the allegation above as they do not provide direct care to residents. On 05/07/26 LPA conducted a review of housekeeping schedule, per schedule there are 3-4 staff each day from 6am-4pm who oversee facility cleaning which includes resident bedrooms. Allegation: Residents are not provided meals that consist of an appropriate variety of foods. It is alleged that facility is mostly serving Filipino foods which is causing resident in care to have diarrhea often. On 05/07/26 LPA conducted Interviews with R1-R7 regarding the allegation above. 6 out of the 7 residents interviewed denied the allegation above and reported that the meals provided are different everyday. 6 of the 7 residents interviewed reported that they have not gotten sick from the food they are served. On 05/07/26 LPA conducted interviews with S1-S5 regarding the allegation above. 5 of the 5 staff interviewed denied the allegation above and reported that the food served is different every day. On 05/07/26 LPA conducted a review of facility menus dated: 03/30/26- 05/10/26, LPA observed that meals are rotated and are different every day. On 05/07/26 LPA observed lunch service, LPA observed meals served to match the meal listed on the menu. Furthermore LPA observed R1 walk into the dinning room and opted out of lunch service. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated. Exit interview conducted, and a copy of this report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 7, 2026 · control 11-AS-20260427155940
May 7, 2026Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Staff did not meet the resident's diapering care needs in a timely manner. Staff did not clean the resident's room in a timely manner. Residents are not provided meals that consist of an appropriate variety of foods.
On 05/07/26 at 9:00 am Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Villegas conducted an initial complaint visit regarding the allegation(s) above. LPA met with Adminisrator Lorenzona Medina (staff #1 S1) as the purpose of today’s visit was explained. The investigation consisted of the following: On 05/07/26 LPA Villegas obtained copies of the staff and resident rosters, facility menus for April 2026-May 2026, housekeeping schedule, and a list of incontinence care residents. On 05/07/26 LPA also obtained copies of the following documents for Resident #1-3 (R1-R3) Emergency ID forms, pre-appraisals, admission agreements, Physicians reports, needs and service plan dated: On 05/07/26 from 10:00 am- 11:30am LPA conducted Interviews with R1-R7, and from 11:30am-12pm LPA observed lunch service. On 05/07/26 from 1pm- 2pm LPA conducted interviews with staff #1-5 (S1-S5). On 05/07/26 LPA conducted a review od documents obtained. The investigation revealed the following: Unsubstantiated Allegation: Staff did not meet the resident's diapering care needs in a timely manner. It is alleged that facility staff are refusing to change residents diapers as residents can wait up to 4 hours for assistance. On 05/07/26 LPA conducted Interviews with R1-R7 regarding the allegation above. 2 of the 7 residents interviewed denied the allegation above and reported staff have not refused to assist with incontinence care. 5 of the 7 residents interviewed reported that they do not require assistance with incontinence care as they can do it themselves. On 05/07/26 LPA conducted interviews with S1-S5 regarding the allegation above. 4 of the 5 staff interviewed denied the allegation above and reported that residents are provided with incontinence care assistance 2-3 times per shift or as needed. Additionally staff report that rounds/checks are conducted every 2 hours. 1 of the 5 staff interviewed reported having no knowledge of the allegation above as they do not provide direct care to residents. On 05/07/26 LPA conducted a review on documents obtained for R1. Per physicians report dated: 02/27/26, R1 requires diapers and needs assistance with toileting needs. Per R1's appraisal dated: 03/06/25 R1 requires assistance with continence, bowel, and bladder control. Per R1's individual service plan dated: 03/11/26 R1 is occasionally incontinent to both bladder and bowel but usually declines wearing pull ups. Allegation: Staff did not clean the resident's room in a timely manner. it is alleged that facility staff complain about the incontinence smell and do not to assist. On 05/07/26 LPA conducted Interviews with R1-R7 regarding the allegation above. 5 out of the 7 residents interviewed denied the allegation above and reported that their bedrooms are cleaned daily. 1 of the 7 residents interviewed reported being unaware of how often their bedroom is cleaned, 1 of the 7 residents interviewed reported that their bedroom is cleaned once a week. On 05/07/26 LPA conducted interviews with S1-S5 regarding the allegation above. 4 of the 5 staff interviewed denied the allegation above and reported that resident bedrooms are cleaned every day, 1 of the 5 staff interviewed added that 5 bedrooms are deep cleaned daily. 1 of the 5 staff interviewed reported having no knowledge of the allegation above as they do not provide direct care to residents. On 05/07/26 LPA conducted a review of housekeeping schedule, per schedule there are 3-4 staff each day from 6am-4pm who oversee facility cleaning which includes resident bedrooms. Allegation: Residents are not provided meals that consist of an appropriate variety of foods. It is alleged that facility is mostly serving Filipino foods which is causing resident in care to have diarrhea often. On 05/07/26 LPA conducted Interviews with R1-R7 regarding the allegation above. 6 out of the 7 residents interviewed denied the allegation above and reported that the meals provided are different everyday. 6 of the 7 residents interviewed reported that they have not gotten sick from the food they are served. On 05/07/26 LPA conducted interviews with S1-S5 regarding the allegation above. 5 of the 5 staff interviewed denied the allegation above and reported that the food served is different every day. On 05/07/26 LPA conducted a review of facility menus dated: 03/30/26- 05/10/26, LPA observed that meals are rotated and are different every day. On 05/07/26 LPA observed lunch service, LPA observed meals served to match the meal listed on the menu. Furthermore LPA observed R1 walk into the dinning room and opted out of lunch service. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated. Exit interview conducted, and a copy of this report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 7, 2026 · control 11-AS-20260427155940
Apr 15, 2026Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Staff did not safeguard resident's personal belongings. Staff did not give a resident water. Staff did not prevent a resident from eloping from the facility. Staff force residents to go to bed at an unreasonable time.
The purpose of the visit is to provide additional information not included in the report dated January 26, 2026; the findings remain the same. On April 15, 2026, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Pamela Bunker conducted a subsequent visit to gather information regarding the above allegations. LPA met with Lorenzona Medina, Administrator, and explained the purpose of the visit. LPA was granted entry to the facility. The investigation consisted of the following: On January 26,2026, the following documents were reviewed and obtained as part of the investigation: Personnel Report (dated 11/14/2024), Resident Roster (dated 01/26/2026), Admission Agreement (dated 03/28/2023), Identification and Emergency Information (dated 03/28/2023), Physician’s Report (dated 03/28/2023), Medical Assessment (dated 03/28/2023), Medication Administration Records (MARs) (dated 07/01/2025-07/31/2025), Residential Appraisal & Needs and Services Plan (dated 09/25/2024), Functional Capability Assessment (dated 03/28/2023), Preplacement Appraisal Information (dated 03/299/2023), Personal Rights (dated 03/28/2023), Consent Forms (dated 03/28/2023), Menu (dated 05/01/2025-07/312025), Unusual Incident Report (dated 02/16/2024 & 02/10/2025), In-Service Training (dated 09/24/2024, 09/26/2024,11/1/2024, 11/11/2024, 02/20/2025, and 08/18/2025). Unsubstantiated Continued LIC9099-C page 2. Sign In and Out Sheet (dated 01/2025--02/2025), and Flex Note (2/17/2025, 02/21/2025, 03/01/2025, 03/02/2025, and 03/04/2025. On 01/21/2026 & 01/26/2026, between 11:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., LPA Pamela Bunker conducted interviews with staff members #1–#4 (S1–S4) and with residents #2–#6 (R2–R6). Resident #1 (R1) was unavailable for an interview as they no longer reside at the facility. R1 transferring to a higher level of care facility. The investigation revealed the following. Allegation: Staff did not safeguard the resident’s personal belongings. LPA Bunker interviewed staff members S1–S4. All four staff (4 out of 4) stated that facility staff safeguard residents’ personal belongings. They explained that the responsible party, not facility staff, handles R1’s laundry and is responsible for putting away the resident’s clothing and personal items. The responsible party reported that a pillowcase and sweater were missing. However, all four staff members 4 out of 4 stated they searched R1’s room and located both items in the resident’s closet; therefore, nothing was missing, and there was no need to document or report an incident. The Department reviewed R1’s Safeguard for Personal Property form dated April 4, 2023. Staff S1–S4 reiterated that if any personal belongings are reported missing, they will conduct a search and replace items if necessary. All four staff members denied the allegation. LPA Bunker also interviewed residents R2–R6. All five residents (5 out of 6) stated that staff safeguard their personal belongings and reported that nothing has gone missing. 5 out of 5 residents shared that staff are always available to assist and ensure their personal items are accounted for. R2–R6 denied the allegation. Allegation: Staff did not give a resident water. LPA interviewed staff members S1-S4 (S1–S4). All four staff members (4 out of 4) stated that facility staff provide residents with plenty of water to drink and that each resident has a pitcher of water in their room. S1 and S2 stated that the resident was not hospitalized for dehydration or lack of water but was hospitalized for a urinary tract infection (UTI). S1-S4 denied the allegation. LPA interviewed residents #2-6 (R2–R6). All five residents (R2-R6) stated that they receive plenty of water to drink and have a pitcher of water in their rooms. R2–R6 denied the allegation. See continued LIC9099-C page 3. Continued LIC9099-C page 3. Allegation: Staff did not prevent a resident from eloping from the facility. LPA interviewed staff members S1-4 (S1–S4). All four staff members (4 out of 4) stated that the facility ensures adequate care and supervision to prevent residents from eloping. Staff stated they self-reported the incidents on February 10, 2024, and February 16, 2025, prior to the complaint. S1-S2 stated R1 briefly left the facility. In both cases, staff immediately located R1 and returned the resident to the facility within a short time. S1 and S2 stated that the incidents were reported to the Long Beach Police Department; however, no police reports were taken. Staff explained that routine rounds are conducted every two hours. When R1 was discovered missing, staff immediately initiated a search and located the resident a short time later on the same day. S1 and S2 stated that R1 was not considered an elopement risk and that there was no documentation in the resident’s file indicating otherwise. S1-S2 stated that caregivers noticed R1 was not in the room during their rounds. While the caregiver searched the premises, the front desk contacted 911. Staff reported that the resident exited through the front entrance in a wheelchair and was located promptly. All four staff members (4 out of 4) also confirmed that residents are closely monitored and that the facility is not a locked facility. 4 out of 4 staff members stated that they are trained and receive initial and ongoing training on elopement policies and procedures. The Department reviewed the facility’s In-Service Training records dated 09/24/2024, 09/26/2024, 11/01/2024, 11/11/2024, 02/20/2025, and 08/18/2025. S1 and S2 stated that on March 2, 2025, R1 was transferred to a higher-level care facility. They confirmed that all incidents were self-reported to the appropriate agencies, responsible parties, family members, and R1’s physician in a timely manner. According to staff, 4 out of 4 staff members stated that the facility followed Title 22 regulations and implemented necessary precautions to ensure resident safety at all times. 4 out of 4 staff members denied the allegation that staff did not prevent a resident from eloping from the facility. Residents #2–#6 (R2–R6) stated that staff provide adequate care and supervision. 5 out of 6 residents reported that staff are always available to assist and consistently check on residents throughout the day and night. 5 out of 6 residents stated that they did not witness any resident eloping from the facility. R2–R6 also reported that their daily needs are being met and that they are happy living at the facility, expressing no problems or concerns. See continued LIC9099-C page 4 Continued LIC9099-C page 4. Allegation: Staff force residents to go to bed at an unreasonable time. LPA interviewed staff members #1-4 (S1–S4). All four staff (4 out of 4) stated that residents are not forced to go to bed at an unreasonable time. 4 out of 4 staff members stated that most residents typically go to sleep around 7:00 p.m. or 8:00 p.m., after visiting hours. S1–S4 noted that R1’s responsible party often visits the facility at 8:00 p.m., when the resident is already asleep, and wakes the resident up. Staff stated that residents are not forced to go to bed at 5:30 p.m. S1-S4 denied the allegation. LPA interviewed residents #2 -6 (R2–R6). All five residents stated that staff do not force residents to go to bed at an unreasonable time. 5 out of 6 residents stated they can go to bed whenever they choose. R2–R6 denied the allegation. Based on interviews, available evidence, observation, information received, and records reviewed there was not enough sufficient evidence to support the allegation. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is deemed unsubstantiated. A copy of the Complaint Investigation Report LIC9099 and LIC9099-C was provided to the Administrator Lorenzona Medina. No deficiencies were cited. An exit interview was conducted.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 15, 2026 · control 11-AS-20250707125514
Apr 15, 2026Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Staff handled resident in a rough manner. Resident sustained an unexplained injury while in care. Staff not allowing a resident to use the restroom. Staff are not allowing a resident to use a medical device. Staff did not ensure resident was cleaned during diaper changes. Staff did not serve an adequate amount of food to residents in care. Staff did not prevent the facility from being unkempt. Staff illegally evicted a resident in care. Staff left residents in a soiled diaper for a long period of time.
The purpose of the visit is to provide additional information not included in the report dated January 21, 2026; the findings remain the same. On April 15, 2026, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Pamela Bunker conducted an initial visit to gather information regarding the above allegations. LPA met with Lorenzona Medina, Administrator, and explained the purpose of the visit. LPA was granted entry to the facility. The investigation consisted of the following: On January 21,2026, the following documents were reviewed obtained as part of the investigation: Personnel Report (dated 11/14/2024), Resident Roster (dated 01/26/2026), Admission Agreement (dated 03/28/2023) Identification and Emergency Information (dated 03/28/2023), Physician’s Report (dated 03/28/2023), Medical Assessment (dated 03/28/2023), Medication Administration Records (MARs) (dated 07/01/2025-07/31/2025), Residential Appraisal & Needs and Services Plan (dated 09/25/2024), Functional Capability Assessment (dated 03/28/2023), Preplacement Appraisal Information (dated 03/299/2023), Personal Rights (dated 03/28/2023), Consent Forms (dated 03/28/2023), Menu (dated 05/01/2025-07/312025), Unusual Incident Report (dated 02/16/2024 & 02/10/2025) In-Service Training (dated 09/24/2024-09-26-2024, 11/1/2024, and 11/11/1024). See continued LIC9099-C page 2. Unsubstantiated Continued LIC9099-C page 2. Unusual Incident/Injury Report (dated 02/10/2024 & 02/16/2024), Sign In and Out Sheet (dated 01/2025--02/2025), and Flex Note (2/17/2025, 02/21/2025, 03/01/2025, 03/02/2025. and 03/04/2025. On 12/19/2025, between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., LPA Pamela Bunker conducted interviews with staff members #1–#4 (S1–S4) and with residents #2–#6 (R2–R6). Resident #1 (R1) was unavailable for an interview as they no longer reside at the facility. R1 transferring to a higher level of care facility. The investigation revealed the following: Allegation #1: Staff handled the resident in a rough manner. LPA interviewed staff members #1–4 (S1–S4). All four staff members (4 out of 4) stated that facility staff did not handle any resident in a rough manner. 4 out of 4 staff members stated that no staff member caused a resident to cry or slam a resident’s wheelchair to the ground while the resident was seated in it. S1–S4 denied the allegation. LPA interviewed residents #2–6 (R2–R6). All five residents (5 out of 6) stated that the staff has never handled any resident roughly. 5 out of 6 residents reported that staff provide a safe and comfortable environment and would never harm a resident. 5 out of 5 residents reported feeling safe in the facility and stated that staff cares about their well-being. 5 out of 6 residents reported being happy with the staff and the care they are receiving, and they had no problems or concerns. R2–R6 denied the allegation. LPA observed staff interactions with residents during the visit and noted that staff were respectful, gentle, and attentive to residents’ needs. No evidence was found to support the allegation. Allegation #2: Resident sustained an unexplained injury while in care. LPA interviewed staff members #1–4 (S1–S4). All four staff members (4 out of 4) stated that no resident sustained an unexplained injury while in care. Staff explained that any injuries are documented immediately, and incident reports are completed and submitted to the Department as required. S1–S4 denied the allegation. LPA also interviewed residents #2–6 (R2–R6). All five residents (5 out of 6) stated they did not witness any resident sustaining an unexplained injury while in care. Residents reported feeling safe and confirmed that staff respond promptly to any concerns. R2–R6 denied the allegation. See continued LIC 9099-C page 3. Continued LIC9099-C page 3 LPA reviewed the facility’s incident and injury logs for the past six months and found no documentation of unexplained injuries regarding the resident. During the visit, LPA observed residents in care and noted no visible injuries or signs of neglect. No evidence was found to support the allegation. Allegation #3: Staff not allowing a resident to use the restroom. LPA interviewed staff members #1–4 (S1–S4). All four staff members (4 out of 4) stated that residents are always allowed to use the restroom as needed and that staff do not restrict access. Staff explained that residents are encouraged to use the restroom independently, and assistance is provided only when requested or necessary. S1–S4 denied the allegation. LPA also interviewed residents #2–6 (R2–R6). All five residents (5 out of 6) stated that they are free to use the restroom whenever they need to and stated that they are independent and do not require staff assistance for restroom use. R2–R6 denied the allegation. LPA observed residents moving freely throughout the facility during the visit, including access to restrooms without staff interference. No evidence was observed to support the allegation. Allegation #4: Staff are not allowing a resident to use a medical device. LPA interviewed staff members #1–4 (S1–S4). All four staff members (4 out of 4) stated that residents are allowed to use their prescribed medical devices according to their physician’s orders. 4 out of 4 staff members explained that they assist residents with medical devices when needed and ensure proper usage for safety and compliance. S1–S4 denied the allegation. LPA also interviewed residents #2–6 (R2–R6). All five residents (5 out of 6) stated they are allowed to use their medical devices without restriction and reported no issues or interference from staff. R2–R6 denied the allegation. LPA observed residents during the visit and noted that medical devices were present and in use as appropriate. LPA reviewed residents’ medical records and confirmed that physician orders for medical devices were documented and followed. No evidence was found to support the allegation. See continued LIC9099-C page 4 Continued LIC9099-C page 4. Allegation #5: Staff did not ensure the resident was cleaned during diaper changes. LPA interviewed staff members S1–S4 (S1–S4). All four staff members (4 out of 4) stated that staff assist residents with diapering and ensure diapers are changed every two hours or as often as needed based on individual needs. 4 out of 4 staff members confirmed that proper hygiene practices are followed during diaper changes, including cleaning the resident before applying a new diaper. 4 out of 4 staff members stated that staff do not instruct residents to urinate in their diapers. 4 out of 4 staff members stated that residents are not left in soiled diapers for extended periods and do not exhibit a foul odor. S1–S4 denied the allegation. LPA also interviewed residents #2-#6 (R2–R6). 1 out of 6 resident stated that staff change their diapers regularly and that they are never left in soiled diapers or garments. R2 stated that staff cleans them appropriately during diaper changes. 4 out of 6 residents stated that they do not wear diapers and are independent in their toileting needs. Resident #1 (R1) was unavailable for an interview. Resident R1, who had been receiving incontinence care, was unavailable for an interview and is no longer residing at the facility. R2–R6 denied the allegation. During the visit, LPA observed staff performing diaper changes during the visit and noted that staff followed proper hygiene protocols, including cleaning the resident before placing a new diaper. No evidence was observed to support the allegation. Allegation #6: Staff did not serve an adequate amount of food to residents in care. LPA interviewed staff members #1–4 (S1–S4). All four staff members (4 out of 4) stated that residents are served an adequate amount of food. Staff confirmed that residents receive three meals per day plus snacks and have access to an ample supply of both perishable and non-perishable food items. 4 out of 4 staff members explained that residents are provided with more than enough food and are allowed second servings. If a resident does not like what is being served, alternative options are available. S1-S4 denied the allegation. LPA observed residents eating lunch during the visit and verified that the facility’s food supply was sufficient. The observed meal included generous portions, and staff followed the posted menu. LPA also reviewed the facility’s food menus from May 2025 through July 2025 and confirmed compliance with meal planning requirements. See continued LIC9099-C page 5. Continued LIC9099-C page 5 LPA interviewed residents #2–6 (R2–R6). All five residents (5 out of 6) stated they receive three meals per day plus snacks and have plenty of food to eat. Residents stated they are satisfied with the meals provided and had no complaints about the food. R2–R6 denied the allegation. LPA inspected the kitchen and pantry areas and confirmed that the facility maintained the required two-day supply of perishable foods and seven-day supply of non-perishable foods, in accordance with Title 22 regulations. No evidence was found to support the allegation. Allegation #7: Staff did not prevent the facility from being unkempt. LPA interviewed staff members #1–4 (S1–S4). All four staff members (4 out of 4) stated that the facility is cleaned daily and maintained in good condition. 4 out of 4 staff members explained that cleaning schedules are followed consistently, including sanitizing common areas, resident rooms, and bathrooms. S1–S4 denied the allegation. During the visit, LPA observed the facility to be clean, organized, and in good repair. Floors, furniture, and bathrooms were free of dirt and clutter, and no safety hazards were noted. The facility appeared well-maintained and met Title 22 requirements for cleanliness and sanitation. LPA also interviewed residents #2–6 (R2–R6). All five residents (5 out of 6) stated that staff cleans the facility every day and confirmed that the environment is kept neat and sanitary. Residents reported no concerns regarding cleanliness. R2–R6 denied the allegation. LPA reviewed the facility’s housekeeping schedule and confirmed that daily cleaning tasks are documented and completed. No evidence was found to support the allegation. See continued LIC9099-C page 6 Continued LIC9099-C page 6 Allegation #8: Staff illegally evicted a resident in care. LPA interviewed staff members #1–4 (S1–S4). S1 and S2 stated that staff did not illegally evict the resident and confirmed that the resident never received an eviction notice. 2 out of 4 staff members explained that the resident required a higher level of care due to increased needs and was referred to a locked memory care facility for safety and supervision. S3 and S4 stated they do not handle eviction matters and had no knowledge of any illegal eviction. 4 out of 4 staff members stated that the this facility is an assisted living facility where residents are free to come and go as they please. S1 and S2 stated that no formal eviction process occurred. S1–S2 denied the allegation. LPA also interviewed residents #2–6 (R2–R6). All five residents (5 out of 6) stated they were not aware of any illegal eviction and stated that they themselves had not received an eviction notice. R2–R6 denied the allegation. LPA reviewed the resident’s file and observed documentation indicating that the resident’s condition had changed, requiring a higher level of care. The facility followed proper procedures by notifying the responsible party and assisting with the transition to an appropriate care setting. No evidence was found to support the allegation of an illegal eviction. Allegation #9: Staff left residents in a soiled diaper for a long period of time. LPA interviewed staff members #1–4 (S1–S4). All four staff members (4 out of 4) stated that residents are not left in soiled diapers for extended periods. 4 out of 4 staff members explained that residents are checked and changed every two hours or more frequently as needed to maintain hygiene and comfort. S1–S4 denied the allegation. LPA also interviewed residents #2–6 (R2–R6). All five residents (5 out of 6) stated that staff do not leave residents in soiled diapers and stated that staff respond promptly when assistance is needed. R2–R6 denied the allegation. See continued LIC9099-C page 7 Continued LIC9099-C page 7. LPA observed staff providing care during the visit and noted that proper diapering procedures were followed. LPA reviewed the facility’s care logs, which documented regular diaper checks and changes in accordance with the facility’s policy and Title 22 regulations. No evidence was found to support the allegation. Based on interviews, available evidence, observation, information received, and records reviewed, there was not enough sufficient evidence to support the allegation. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is deemed unsubstantiated. A copy of the Complaint Investigation Report LIC9099 and LIC9099-Cs was provided to Lorenzona Medina, Administrator. No deficiencies were cited during this visit. An exit interview was conducted.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 15, 2026 · control 11-AS-20250707125514
Apr 9, 2026Facility evaluation reportCase Management - OtherReport on file
Type of visit: Case Management - Other
On 04/09/26 Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Villegas conducted a health and safety check for residents that were relocated from another facility. LPA met with Administrator as the purpose of the visit was explained. During visit LPA conducted a tour of the facility including kitchen and obtained a copy of the resident roster. LPA observed the kitchen to have (4) refrigerators, (1) walk in freezer, and (1) pantry all adequately stocked. Per Administrator the facility receives food delivery once a week. Administrator reported that no residents are on a special diet (Ex: chopped, pureed). LPA observed that additional tables and chairs have been temporarily placed in the TV for residents to have their meals, Administrator informed LPA that facility staff is working on re-arranging dinning room so that all residents can enjoy their meals in the dinning room comfortably. During tour of the facility LPA checked that relocated residents were doing well and that residents have the appropriate furniture to accommodate them comfortably. Administrator reported that (2) of the relocated residents are currently at the hospital and that an unusual incident report was sent to CCLD. LPA requested an update on relocated residents records. Per Administrator, relocated residents have met with Physician and all have obtained order for lab work. Additionally, Administrator reports that records are coming along, LPA reminded Administrator that Physicians reports with TB test results, and a care plan must be available for all residents. Exit interview conducted, and a copy of this report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 9, 2026
Jan 26, 2026Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Staff did not safeguard resident's personal belongings. Staff did not give a resident water. Staff did not prevent a resident from eloping from the facility. Staff force residents to go to bed at an unreasonable time.
On January 26, 2026, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Pamela Bunker conducted an initial visit to gather information regarding the above allegations. LPA met with Lorenzona Medina, Administrator, and explained the purpose of the visit. LPA was granted entry to the facility. The investigation consisted of the following: On January 26,2026, the following documents were reviewed and obtained as part of the investigation: Personnel Report (dated 11/14/2024), Resident Roster (dated 01/26/2026), Admission Agreement (dated 03/28/2023) Identification and Emergency Information (dated 03/28/2023), Physician’s Report (dated 03/28/2023), Medical Assessment (dated 03/28/2023), Medication Administration Records (MARs) (dated 07/01/2025-07/31/2025), Residential Appraisal & Needs and Services Plan (dated 09/25/2024), Functional Capability Assessment (dated 03/28/2023), Preplacement Appraisal Information (dated 03/299/2023), Personal Rights (dated 03/28/2023), Consent Forms (dated 03/28/2023), Menu (dated 05/01/2025-07/312025), Unusual Incident Report (dated 02/16/2024 & 02/10/2025) In-Service Training (dated 09/24/2024-09-26-2024, 11/1/2024, and 11/11/1024). See continued LIC9099-C page 2. Unsubstantiated Continued LIC9099-C page 2. Sign In and Out Sheet (dated 01/2025--02/2025), and Flex Note (2/17/2025, 02/21/2025, 03/01/2025, 03/02/2025. and 03/04/2025. On 01/21/2026 & 01/26/2026, between 11:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., LPA Pamela Bunker conducted interviews with staff members #1–#4 (S1–S4) and with residents #2–#6 (R2–R6). Resident #1 (R1) was unavailable for an interview as they no longer reside at the facility. R1 transferring to a higher level of care facility. The investigation revealed the following. Allegation: Staff did not safeguard the resident’s personal belongings. LPA interviewed staff members S #1–S4 (S1-S4). All four staff members (4 out of 4) stated that facility staff safeguard residents’ personal belongings. They explained that Resident R1’s laundry is handled by the responsible party, not by facility staff. S1–S4 further stated that if any personal belongings are missing, staff will search for the items or replace what is missing. S1-S4 denied the allegation. LPA interviewed Residents #2–#6 (R2–R6), who stated that staff safeguard their personal belongings and nothing has gone missing. 5 out of 6 residents reported that staff are always available to assist and make sure they are not missing any of their personal items. R2-R2 denied the allegation. Allegation: Staff did not give a resident water. LPA interviewed staff members #1-4 (S1–S4). All four staff members (4 out of 4) stated that facility staff provide residents with plenty of water to drink and that each resident has a pitcher of water in their room. S1 and S2 stated that the resident was not hospitalized for dehydration or lack of water but was hospitalized for a urinary tract infection (UTI). S1-S4 denied the allegation. LPA interviewed residents #2-6 (R2–R6). All five residents (R2-R6) stated that they receive plenty of water to drink and have a pitcher of water in their rooms. R2–R6 denied the allegation. See continued LIC9099-C page 3. Continued LIC9099-C page 3. Allegation: Staff did not prevent a resident from eloping from the facility. LPA interviewed staff members #1-4 (S1–S4). All four staff members (4 out of 4) stated that the facility ensures adequate care and supervision to prevent residents from eloping. Staff stated they self-reported the incidents on February 16, 2024, and February 10, 2025, prior to the complaint. S1-S2 stated R1 briefly left the facility. In both cases, staff immediately located R1 and returned the resident to the facility within a short time. S1 and S2 stated that the incidents were reported to the Long Beach Police Department; however, no police reports were taken. Staff explained that routine rounds are conducted every two hours, and when R1 was discovered missing, staff initiated a search immediately and successfully located the resident a short time later, the same day. S1 and S2 stated that on March 2, 2025, R1 was transferred to a higher-level care facility. They confirmed that all incidents were self-reported to the appropriate agencies, responsible parties, family members, and R1’s physician in a timely manner. According to staff, 4 out of 4 staff members stated that the facility followed Title 22 regulations and implemented necessary precautions to ensure resident safety at all times. 4 out of 4 staff members denied the allegation that staff did not prevent a resident from eloping from the facility. Residents #2–#6 (R2–R6) stated that staff provide adequate care and supervision. 5 out of 6 residents reported that staff are always available to assist and consistently check on residents throughout the day and night. 5 out of 6 residents stated that they did not witness any resident eloping from the facility. R2–R6 also reported that their daily needs are being met and that they are happy living at the facility, expressing no problems or concerns. See continued LIC9099-C page 4 Continued LIC9099-C page 4. Allegation: Staff force residents to go to bed at an unreasonable time. LPA interviewed staff members #1-4 (S1–S4). All four staff (4 out of 4) stated that residents are not forced to go to bed at an unreasonable time. 4 out of 4 staff members stated that most residents typically go to sleep around 7:00 p.m. or 8:00 p.m., after visiting hours. S1–S4 noted that R1’s responsible party often visits the facility at 8:00 p.m., when the resident is already asleep, and wakes the resident up. Staff stated that residents are not forced to go to bed at 5:30 p.m. S1-S4 denied the allegation. LPA interviewed residents #2 -6 (R2–R6). All five residents stated that staff do not force residents to go to bed at an unreasonable time. 5 out of 6 residents stated they can go to bed whenever they choose. R2–R6 denied the allegation. Based on interviews, available evidence, observation, information received, and records reviewed there was not enough sufficient evidence to support the allegation. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is deemed unsubstantiated. A copy of the Complaint Investigation Report LIC9099 and LIC9099-C was provided to the Administrator Lorenzona Medina. No deficiencies were cited. An exit interview was conducted.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jan 26, 2026 · control 11-AS-20250707125514
Jan 21, 2026Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Staff handled resident in a rough manner. Resident sustained an unexplained injury while in care. Staff not allowing a resident to use the restroom. Staff are not allowing a resident to use a medical device. Staff did not ensure resident was cleaned during diaper changes. Staff did not serve an adequate amount of food to residents in care. Staff did not prevent the facility from being unkempt. Staff illegally evicted a resident in care. Staff left residents in a soiled diaper for a long period of time.
On January 21, 2026, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Pamela Bunker conducted an initial visit to gather information regarding the above allegations. LPA met with Lorenzona Medina, Administrator, and explained the purpose of the visit. LPA was granted entry to the facility. The investigation consisted of the following: On January 21,2026, the following documents were reviewed obtained as part of the investigation: Personnel Report (dated 11/14/2024), Resident Roster (dated 01/26/2026), Admission Agreement (dated 03/28/2023) Identification and Emergency Information (dated 03/28/2023), Physician’s Report (dated 03/28/2023), Medical Assessment (dated 03/28/2023), Medication Administration Records (MARs) (dated 07/01/2025-07/31/2025), Residential Appraisal & Needs and Services Plan (dated 09/25/2024), Functional Capability Assessment (dated 03/28/2023), Preplacement Appraisal Information (dated 03/299/2023), Personal Rights (dated 03/28/2023), Consent Forms (dated 03/28/2023), Menu (dated 05/01/2025-07/312025), Unusual Incident Report (dated 02/16/2024 & 02/10/2025) In-Service Training (dated 09/24/2024-09-26-2024, 11/1/2024, and 11/11/1024). See continued LIC9099-C page 2. Unsubstantiated Continued LIC9099-C page 4. Allegation #5: Staff did not ensure resident was cleaned during diaper changes. LPA interviewed staff members #1–4 (S1–S4). All four staff members (4 out of 4) stated that staff assist residents with diapering and ensure diapers are changed every two hours or as often as needed based on individual needs. 4 out of 4 staff members confirmed that proper hygiene practices are followed during diaper changes, including cleaning the resident before applying a new diaper. 4 out of 4 staff members stated that staff do not instruct residents to urinate in their diapers. 4 out of 4 staff members stated that residents are not left in soiled diapers for extended periods and do not exhibit a foul odor. S1–S4 denied the allegation. LPA also interviewed residents #2–6 (R2–R6). One resident (1 out of 6) stated that staff change their diapers regularly and that they are never left in soiled diapers. 1 out of 6 residents stated that staff cleans them appropriately during diaper changes. 4 out of 6 residents stated that they do not wear diapers and are independent in their toileting needs. R2 denied the allegation. During the visit, LPA observed staff performing diaper changes during the visit and noted that staff followed proper hygiene protocols, including cleaning the resident before placing a new diaper. No evidence was observed to support the allegation. Allegation #6: Staff did not serve an adequate amount of food to residents in care. LPA interviewed staff members #1–4 (S1–S4). All four staff members (4 out of 4) stated that residents are served an adequate amount of food. Staff confirmed that residents receive three meals per day plus snacks and have access to an ample supply of both perishable and non-perishable food items. 4 out of 4 staff members explained that residents are provided with more than enough food and are allowed second servings. If a resident does not like what is being served, alternative options are available. S1-S4 denied the allegation. LPA observed residents eating lunch during the visit and verified that the facility’s food supply was sufficient. The observed meal included generous portions, and staff followed the posted menu. LPA also reviewed the facility’s food menus from May 2025 through July 2025 and confirmed compliance with meal planning requirements. See continued LIC9099-C page 5. Continued LIC9099-C page 3 LPA reviewed the facility’s incident and injury logs for the past six months and found no documentation of unexplained injuries regarding the resident. During the visit, LPA observed residents in care and noted no visible injuries or signs of neglect. No evidence was found to support the allegation. Allegation #3: Staff not allowing a resident to use the restroom. LPA interviewed staff members #1–4 (S1–S4). All four staff members (4 out of 4) stated that residents are always allowed to use the restroom as needed and that staff do not restrict access. Staff explained that residents are encouraged to use the restroom independently, and assistance is provided only when requested or necessary. S1–S4 denied the allegation. LPA also interviewed residents #2–6 (R2–R6). All five residents (5 out of 6) stated that they are free to use the restroom whenever they need to and stated that they are independent and do not require staff assistance for restroom use. R2–R6 denied the allegation. LPA observed residents moving freely throughout the facility during the visit, including access to restrooms without staff interference. No evidence was observed to support the allegation. Allegation #4: Staff are not allowing a resident to use a medical device. LPA interviewed staff members #1–4 (S1–S4). All four staff members (4 out of 4) stated that residents are allowed to use their prescribed medical devices according to their physician’s orders. 4 out of 4 staff members explained that they assist residents with medical devices when needed and ensure proper usage for safety and compliance. S1–S4 denied the allegation. LPA also interviewed residents #2–6 (R2–R6). All five residents (5 out of 6) stated they are allowed to use their medical devices without restriction and reported no issues or interference from staff. R2–R6 denied the allegation. LPA observed residents during the visit and noted that medical devices were present and in use as appropriate. LPA reviewed residents’ medical records and confirmed that physician orders for medical devices were documented and followed. No evidence was found to support the allegation. See continued LIC9099-C page 4 Continued LIC9099-C page 2. Unusual Incident/Injury Report (dated 02/10/2024 & 02/16/2024), Sign In and Out Sheet (dated 01/2025--02/2025), and Flex Note (2/17/2025, 02/21/2025, 03/01/2025, 03/02/2025. and 03/04/2025. On 12/19/2025, between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., LPA Pamela Bunker conducted interviews with staff members #1–#4 (S1–S4) and with residents #2–#6 (R2–R6). Resident #1 (R1) was unavailable for an interview as they no longer reside at the facility. R1 transferring to a higher level of care facility. The investigation revealed the following: Allegation #1: Staff handled the resident in a rough manner. LPA interviewed staff members #1–4 (S1–S4). All four staff members (4 out of 4) stated that facility staff did not handle any resident in a rough manner. 4 out of 4 staff members stated that no staff member caused a resident to cry or slam a resident’s wheelchair to the ground while the resident was seated in it. S1–S4 denied the allegation. LPA interviewed residents #2–6 (R2–R6). All five residents (5 out of 6) stated that the staff has never handled any resident roughly. 5 out of 6 residents reported that staff provide a safe and comfortable environment and would never harm a resident. 5 out of 5 residents reported feeling safe in the facility and stated that staff cares about their well-being. 5 out of 6 residents reported being happy with the staff and the care they are receiving, and they had no problems or concerns. R2–R6 denied the allegation. LPA observed staff interactions with residents during the visit and noted that staff were respectful, gentle, and attentive to residents’ needs. No evidence was found to support the allegation. Allegation #2: Resident sustained an unexplained injury while in care. LPA interviewed staff members #1–4 (S1–S4). All four staff members (4 out of 4) stated that no resident sustained an unexplained injury while in care. Staff explained that any injuries are documented immediately, and incident reports are completed and submitted to the Department as required. S1–S4 denied the allegation. LPA also interviewed residents #2–6 (R2–R6). All five residents (5 out of 6) stated they did not witness any resident sustaining an unexplained injury while in care. Residents reported feeling safe and confirmed that staff respond promptly to any concerns. R2–R6 denied the allegation. See continued LIC 9099-C page 3. Continued LIC9099-C page 5 LPA interviewed residents #2–6 (R2–R6). All five residents (5 out of 6) stated they receive three meals per day plus snacks and have plenty of food to eat. Residents stated they are satisfied with the meals provided and had no complaints about the food. R2–R6 denied the allegation. LPA inspected the kitchen and pantry areas and confirmed that the facility maintained the required two-day supply of perishable foods and seven-day supply of non-perishable foods, in accordance with Title 22 regulations. No evidence was found to support the allegation. Allegation #7: Staff did not prevent the facility from being unkempt. LPA interviewed staff members #1–4 (S1–S4). All four staff members (4 out of 4) stated that the facility is cleaned daily and maintained in good condition. 4 out of 4 staff members explained that cleaning schedules are followed consistently, including sanitizing common areas, resident rooms, and bathrooms. S1–S4 denied the allegation. During the visit, LPA observed the facility to be clean, organized, and in good repair. Floors, furniture, and bathrooms were free of dirt and clutter, and no safety hazards were noted. The facility appeared well-maintained and met Title 22 requirements for cleanliness and sanitation. LPA also interviewed residents #2–6 (R2–R6). All five residents (5 out of 6) stated that staff cleans the facility every day and confirmed that the environment is kept neat and sanitary. Residents reported no concerns regarding cleanliness. R2–R6 denied the allegation. LPA reviewed the facility’s housekeeping schedule and confirmed that daily cleaning tasks are documented and completed. No evidence was found to support the allegation. See continued LIC9099-C page 6 Continued LIC9099-C page 6 Allegation #8: Staff illegally evicted a resident in care. LPA interviewed staff members #1–4 (S1–S4). S1 and S2 stated that staff did not illegally evict the resident and confirmed that the resident never received an eviction notice. 2 out of 4 staff members explained that the resident required a higher level of care due to increased needs and was referred to a locked memory care facility for safety and supervision. S3 and S4 stated they do not handle eviction matters and had no knowledge of any illegal eviction. 4 out of 4 staff members stated that the this facility is an assisted living facility where residents are free to come and go as they please. S1 and S2 stated that no formal eviction process occurred. S1–S2 denied the allegation. LPA also interviewed residents #2–6 (R2–R6). All five residents (5 out of 6) stated they were not aware of any illegal eviction and stated that they themselves had not received an eviction notice. R2–R6 denied the allegation. LPA reviewed the resident’s file and observed documentation indicating that the resident’s condition had changed, requiring a higher level of care. The facility followed proper procedures by notifying the responsible party and assisting with the transition to an appropriate care setting. No evidence was found to support the allegation of an illegal eviction. Allegation #9: Staff left residents in a soiled diaper for a long period of time. LPA interviewed staff members #1–4 (S1–S4). All four staff members (4 out of 4) stated that residents are not left in soiled diapers for extended periods. 4 out of 4 staff members explained that residents are checked and changed every two hours or more frequently as needed to maintain hygiene and comfort. S1–S4 denied the allegation. LPA also interviewed residents #2–6 (R2–R6). All five residents (5 out of 6) stated that staff do not leave residents in soiled diapers and stated that staff respond promptly when assistance is needed. R2–R6 denied the allegation. See continued LIC9099-C page 7 Continued LIC9099-C page 7 LPA observed staff providing care during the visit and noted that proper diapering procedures were followed. LPA reviewed the facility’s care logs, which documented regular diaper checks and changes in accordance with the facility’s policy and Title 22 regulations. No evidence was found to support the allegation. Based on interviews, available evidence, observation, information received, and records reviewed, there was not enough sufficient evidence to support the allegation. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is deemed unsubstantiated. A copy of the Complaint Investigation Report LIC9099 and LIC9099-Cs was provided to Lorenzona Medina, Administrator. No deficiencies were cited during this visit. An exit interview was conducted.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jan 21, 2026 · control 11-AS-20250707125514
20256 state visits · 6 documents
Aug 27, 2025Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Staff speak to resident inappropriately.
On 08/27/2025 Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Troy Watson made an unannounced complaint visit to the above listed facility. LPA Watson was greeted by the Administrator Lorenzona Medina and explained the purpose of this visit is to investigate the allegation mentioned above. The investigation consisted of the following: LPA Watson conducted interviews with residents and staff. LPA Watson requested, obtained and reviewed the following documents: Resident Roster, Employee Roster, Physicians Reports, Resident Appraisals, and Incident Report, for Resident#1-Residents#6 (R1-R6). On 08/27/2025 LPA Watson conducted interviews with Residents #1 - Residents #6 (R1-R6) and Staff #1- Staff #6 (S1-S6). LPA Watson toured the facility with administrator Lorenzona Medina and observed the facility clean and in good repair. CONTINUED ON LIC9099-C Unsubstantiated The investigation revealed the following: Allegation: Staff speak to residents inappropriately. On 08/27/2025 LPA Watson interviewed Residents #1 - Residents #6 (R1-R6). Of those interviewed, 6 out of 6 staff denied the above allegation. On 08/27/2025 LPA Watson conducted interviews with Staff#1 - Staff #6 (S1-S6). Of those interviewed, 5 out of 6 staff denied the above allegation. LPA Watson requested, and obtained an Unusual Incident Report and it showed no documented evidence that residents were spoken to inappropriately by staff. Based on interviews, records,observations there is insufficient evidence to support the allegation: Staff speak to residents inappropriately. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is Unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with the Administrator Lorenzona Medina and a copy of this report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 27, 2025 · control 11-AS-20250820150324
Aug 26, 2025Facility evaluation reportOfficeReport on file
Type of visit: Office
On August 26, 2025, at 1:30 PM, an office meeting was held to discuss Complaint 11-AS-20210226154939. Present at the meeting were Janae Hammond, Licensing Program Manager (LPM); Lizeth Villegas Licensing Program Analyst (LPA), Rodrigo Ramos Licensee, Elvie Medina Lorenzona Administrator, Shalani Ramos Quality assurance, and Luwana Klarstrom Compliance. During the meeting, the LPM reviewed the details of the complaint. On April 8, 2022, the Department substantiated an allegation of neglect and lack of care and supervision, which facility staff retained a resident with a prohibited health condition that needed a higher level of care due to pressure injuries. At the time the findings were delivered on April 8, 2022, the Department indicated that an enhanced civil penalty determination was pending, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 1569.49(e), relating to Serious Bodily Injury. The Department is reviewing the complaint for enhanced civil penalty for serious bodily injury pursuant to H&S 1569.49(e). The total amount for the civil penalty totals $10,000 for Serious bodily injury. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 26, 2025
Aug 7, 2025Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Staff did not prevent resident from engaging in inappropriate interactions with another resident in care.
*This report supersedes the investigation report dated 07/03/25. A subsequent visit was conducted on 08/07/2025 to clarify findings in the report. Although this report supersedes the previous report, the complaint investigation findings remain the same*. The department was greeted by Rodrigo Ramos, Licensee, and the purpose of the visit was explained. On 7/3/25, at 09:30am, the department conducted an initial complaint visit to the facility and was greeted by Lorenzona Elvie Medina, Administrator. Later joined by Rodrigo Ramos, Licensee. The department explained the purpose of this visit is to gather information about the complaint, gather facility files, interview staff/residents, and deliver findings for the allegation mentioned above. The investigation consisted of the following: The department investigated the allegation mentioned in this complaint; and conducted interviews with staff (S1-S5), and residents (R1-R7) from 9:30am-12:00pm. The department received the following documents: Resident Roster (Dated: No Date), Staff Roster (Dated: 11/14/2025), ID Emergency Information (Dated: 10/29/2018, 01/21/2020, 2/28/2021), Physicians Report (Dated: 12/13/2024,12/20/2024, 03/20/2025)... Report Continued on LIC909-C Unsubstantiated Resident Appraisal Information (Dated:04/07/2025, 01/23/2024, 03/12/2024, 03/20/2025), Preplacement Appraisal (Dated: 03/12/2024) and Medication List (Dated: 07/01/2025-07/31/2025), from the facility. The investigation revealed the following: Allegation- Staff did not prevent resident from engaging in inappropriate interactions with another resident in care. The details of the complaint alleged that a resident in the facility exposed themselves to another resident (R1) in care. On 7/3/25, from 9:30am-12:00pm, the department interviewed staff (S1-S5) and residents (R1-R7) regarding the allegation. All staff (S1-S5) denied the allegation that Staff did not prevent resident from engaging in inappropriate interactions with another resident in care. Staff stated that they did not witness any inappropriate interactions between residents that was sexual in nature. They further state that no other resident to their knowledge has been observed exposing themselves to other residents or staff. They state that a resident (R1) in the facility has been known to fabricate and have delusions that people were doing things to them which turned out not to be true, once investigated. Staff stated that (R1) has a mental condition that brings about paranoid delusions, agitated behavior, and psychosis. The department interviewed residents (R1-R7) about the allegation and 6 of 7 residents that were interviewed, denied any knowledge of inappropriate behaviors from residents that were sexual in nature. They stated that they have not witnessed or were aware of anyone exposing themselves in the facility. While resident (R1) declined to participate in the interview. The department reviewed the Physicians Report (Dated: 03/20/2025), Resident Appraisal (Dated: 03/20/2025), Medication List (Dated: 07/01/2025-07/31/2025), and Preplacement Appraisal (Dated: 03/12/2024) and did not observe any reports that would support the allegation in being substantiated. Based on interviews and records reviewed, there is insufficient evidence to support the allegation that Staff did not prevent resident from engaging in inappropriate interactions with another resident in care. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur because of neglect, therefore the allegation is Unsubstantiated. No citations were issued. An exit interview was conducted with Rodrigo Ramos, Licensee, and a hard copy of this Complaint Investigation Report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 7, 2025 · control 11-AS-20250624140329
Jul 3, 2025Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Staff did not prevent resident from engaging in inappropriate interactions with another resident in care.
On 7/3/25, at 09:30am, the department conducted an initial complaint visit to the facility and was greeted by Lorenzona Elvie Medina, Administrator. Later joined by Rodrigo Ramos, Licensee. The department explained the purpose of this visit is to gather information about the complaint, gather facility files, interview staff/residents, and deliver findings for the allegation mentioned above. The investigation consisted of the following: The department investigated the allegation mentioned in this complaint; and conducted interviews with staff (S1-S5), and residents (R1-R7) from 9:30am-12:00pm. The department received the following documents: Resident Roster (Dated: No Date), Staff Roster (Dated: 11/14/2025), ID Emergency Information (Dated: 10/29/2018, 01/21/2020, 2/28/2021), Physicians Report (Dated: 12/13/2024,12/20/2024, 03/20/2025), Resident Appraisal Information (Dated:04/07/2025, 01/23/2024, 03/12/2024, 03/20/2025), Preplacement Appraisal (Dated: 03/12/2024) and Medication List (Dated: 07/01/2025-07/31/2025), from the facility. Report Continued on LIC9099-C Unsubstantiated The investigation revealed the following: Allegation- Staff did not prevent resident from engaging in inappropriate interactions with another resident in care. The details of the complaint alleged that a resident in the facility exposed themselves to another resident (R1) in care. On 7/3/25, from 9:30am-12:00pm, the department interviewed staff (S1-S5) and residents (R1-R7) regarding the allegation. All staff (S1-S5) denied the allegation that Staff did not prevent resident from engaging in inappropriate interactions with another resident in care. Staff stated that they did not witness any inappropriate interactions between residents that was sexual in nature. They further state that no other resident to their knowledge has been observed exposing themselves to other residents or staff. They state that a resident (R1) in the facility has been known to fabricate and have delusions that people were doing things to them which turned out not to be true, once investigated. Staff stated that (R1) has a mental condition that brings about paranoid delusions, agitated behavior, and psychosis. The department interviewed residents (R1-R7) about the allegation and 6 of 7 residents that were interviewed, denied any knowledge of inappropriate behaviors from residents that were sexual in nature. They stated that they have not witnessed or were aware of anyone exposing themselves in the facility. While resident (R1) declined to participate in the interview. The department reviewed the Physicians Report (Dated: 03/20/2025), Resident Appraisal (Dated: 03/20/2025), Medication List (Dated: 07/01/2025-07/31/2025), and Preplacement Appraisal (Dated: 03/12/2024) for (R1) and observed that the resident has a medical history of schizoaffective behavior, psychosis, and paranoia. The department also observed that the resident is taking aripiprazole and lithium medication, which is used to treat psychosis and bipolar disorder. Symptoms of psychosis include delusions, hallucinations, and agitation. During an episode of psychosis, a person’s thoughts and perceptions are disrupted and they may have difficulty recognizing what is real and what is not, according to the National Institute of Mental Health website www.nimh.nih.gov . Based on interviews and records reviewed, there is insufficient evidence to support the allegation that Staff did not prevent resident from engaging in inappropriate interactions with another resident in care. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur because of neglect, therefore the allegation is Unsubstantiated. No citations were issued. An exit interview was conducted with Lorenzona Elvie Medina, Administrator, and a hard copy of this Complaint Investigation Report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 3, 2025 · control 11-AS-20250624140329
May 28, 2025Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file
Type of visit: Required - 1 Year
On 05/28/25 Licensing Program Analyst’s (LPA’s) Villegas and Gibbs conducted an unannounced annual required visit using the CARE Inspection Tool. LPA met with Licensee Rodrigo Ramos, and Acting Administrator Shalani Ramos as the purpose of the visit was explained.The facility is licensed to serve 60 ambulatory and 60 non-ambulatory residents ages 60 and above. The facility has an approved hospice waiver for 10 residents. An active liability insurance was observed to have an expiration date of 04/09/26. Acting Administrator was provided with pin and information regarding the annual fee of $1,982 due by 06/26/25. The facility is two-story commercial building consists of (60) resident bedrooms, (60) resident bathrooms, (6) common bathrooms, dining room, commercial kitchen, med room, library, washer and dryer/ storage area, a shaded sitting area, and administrative offices. Commercial Kitchen was inspected and observed to be clean and operational. A 2-day supply perishable and 7-day supply of non-perishable foods are present in the facility kitchen. Toxins and knifes were stored and inaccessible to residents. (5) Resident bedrooms were checked, mattresses and box springs were in good condition, adequate lighting, plenty of dresser and closet space was observed. Bathroom toilets and water faucets worked properly, shower was free of mold/mildew, and there are sufficient toiletries accessible to residents. The water temperature properly measured between 105-120 F.. Exits and walkways are free of debris/hazards, there are no weapons nor bodies of water on the premises. LPA’s conducted a records review of 5 staff records, 5 resident records, and 5 medication reviews. Medications were centrally stored and properly locked, first aid kit was checked, fully stocked, and located in the medication room. The last disaster drill was conducted on 02/28/25, fire extinguisher fully charged, carbon monoxide and smoke detectors are operational. LBFD conducted a fire inspection on 04/16/24, facility is in compliance. Deficiencies cited on 809D page. Exit interview conducted, appeal rights explained, and a copy of this report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 28, 2025
Jan 9, 2025Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Staff neglect resulted in a resident being hospitalized . Client did not receive medication as prescribed.
On 01/09/25 Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) Villegas and Day conducted a subsequent complaint visit regarding the allegation(s) above. LPA met with Administrator (A1) Lorenzona Medina as the purpose of today’s visit was explained. The investigation consisted of the following: On 02/07/24 LPA obtained a copy of the staff and residents rosters, conducted a tour, there were no immediate health and safety concerns, conducted a medication review, conducted interview with staff 1 (S1), and obtained copies of the following: Resident #1 (R1) complete file, incident report dated 01/29/24, order summary report dated 01/04/24, communication log for 01/04/24 and 01/28/24, and medication technician communication log dated 01/25/24 and 01/29/24.On 01/09/25 LPAs obtained a copy of the resident and staff rosters, on 01/09/25 between 10am- 10:45 am LPAs conducted interviews with residents #2-6 (R2-R6), and between 11am- 11:15am LPAs conducted interview with Administrator (A1). Unsubstantiated The investigation revealed the following: Allegation: Staff neglect resulted in a resident being hospitalized. It is being alleged that resident did not receive high blood pressure medication which resulted resident being hospitalized with kidney failure. On 02/07/24 LPA Villegas interviewed staff 1 (S1) regarding the allegation above, S1 denied the allegation above and reported that on 01/24/24 the VA sent residents cycle meds to the SNF where resident was previously receiving treatment. Per S1, VA Dr. and Dr. reported medications would be re-sent to Hacienda Grande Senior Living. On 07/30/24 LPA Villegas conducted a review of R1’s medical records from St. Mary medical center in Long Beach from dates 1/29/2024 through 2/08/2024, per medical records resident was admitted on 01/29/24 diagnosis of visit being shortness of breath, acute renal injury, and hyperkalemia. On 02/07/24 LPA Villegas conducted a review of R1’s physicians report dated 12/18/23 and preplacement appraisal dated 12/18/23 which revealed R1 was diagnosed with acute kidney failure upon admission to the Hacienda Grande Senior Living. On 11/24/24 the department conducted a review of R1’s medical records from St. Mary medical center in Long Beach from dates 1/29/2024 through 2/08/2024 which upon review it was determined it would be difficult to prove that missing any medications for a few days would have contributed to kidney failure since R1 already was at CKD stage 5, which is kidney failure (or close to failing) requiring dialysis or kidney transplant for survival. On 01/09/25 between 10am- 10:45 am LPAs conducted interviews with R2-R6, 5 of 5 residents interviewed denied the allegation above. On 01/09/25 between 11am- 11:15am LPAs conducted interview A1 regarding the allegation above, A1 denied the allegation above and reported R1 was admitted to Hacienda Grande Senior Assisted Living with diagnosis of Kidney failure. Allegation: Staff mishandled a resident's medication while in care. It is being alleged that R1 was without medication for just a few days. On 02/07/24 LPA Villegas interviewed S1 regarding the allegation above, S1 confirmed the allegation above and reported that 3 days’ worth of medication were found in residents’ bedroom on 01/25/24. Per S1 R1 was reminded of the importance of medication compliance, per S1 moving forward staff will watch R1 take medications. On 02/07/24 LPA Villegas conducted a review and confirmed that the facility sent CCLD an incident report dated 01/25/24 reporting that R1 did not take AM nor PM medications on 01/22/24, 01/23/24, and on 01/24/24. On 12/30/24 LPA Villegas conducted a review of R1’s Physicians report dated 12/18/23 which indicates R1 can administer own prescribed meds, able to administer own PRN’s and R1 is able to store own meds. On 12/30/24 LPA Villegas conducted a review of PM shift med-tech communication log dated 01/24/24, per S1 01/25/24 3 days’ worth of bedtime medications found, when questions R1 reported R1 forgot to take the medication. On 02/07/24 LPA Villegas conducted a conducted a medication review and did not observe any discrepancies. On 01/09/25 between 10am- 10:45 am LPAs conducted interviews with R2-R6, 3 of 5 residents interviewed denied the allegation above. 2 of 5 residents interviewed reported going without medications for 3 days, 2 of 5 residents reported obtaining medications after making appointment and having prescription sent to the pharmacy. On 01/09/25 between 11am- 11:15am LPAs conducted interview with A1 regarding the allegation above, A1 denied the allegation and reported staff administered R1 medications as prescribed, however staff did not watch R1 take medications as it is documented on R1’s Physicians report dated 12/18/23 that R1 can take own meds. A1 continued to report that on 01/25/24 (3) days’ worth of medication were found in residents’ bedroom by staff, which was reported to CCLD. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated. Exit interview conducted with Administrator Lorenzona Medina, and a copy of this report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jan 9, 2025 · control 11-AS-20240205224822
20244 state visits · 5 documents
Oct 23, 2024Complaint investigation reportSubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Unlawful eviction. Facility staff open resident's mail without permission.
On 10/23/24, at 9:35am, Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) Perry Scott and Wendy Gibbs conducted an initial complaint visit to the facility and was greeted by Lorenzona Medina (S2), Administrator, and Rodrigo Ramos (S1), Licensee. LPAs explained the purpose of this visit is to conduct interviews, gather facility files, and render findings in the complaint. The investigation consisted of the following: LPA investigated the allegations mentioned in this complaint and conducted interviews with staff (S1-S3) and residents (R1-R6). Additionally, LPA obtained the following facility documents: Resident Roster (Dated: 1/04/2024), Staff Roster (Dated: 1/10/2024), Admission Agreement (Dated: 07/25/2024), Eviction Notice (Dated: 9/11/2024) Copy of Check (Dated: 08/26/2024 & 08/30/2024) Physicians Report (Dated: 07/20/2024), ID/Emergency Information (Dated: 07/25/2024), Flex Notes (Dated: 08/14/24, 09/20/24, and10/09/24), Medication Administration Record Receipt of Meds (Dated:10/08/24), Rent Invoice (Dated: 08/01/24, 09/01/24, 10/01/24) and Email Notice (Dated: 10/09/24) from the facility. Report continued on LIC9099-C Substantiated The investigation revealed the following: Allegation #1- Unlawful eviction. The details of the complaint alleged that the licensee issued the resident (R1) an eviction notice on 9/11/2024 due to possible non-payment. On 10/23/24, from 09:35am-12:30pm, LPAs interviewed staff (S1-S3) and residents (R1-R6) regarding the allegation. 2 of 3 staff (S1- S3) denied the allegation that the facility issued an Unlawful eviction. Staff (S1-S2) stated that they did not issue a 30-day eviction notice to R1 but rather a notice that the rent was past due and that R1 had not paid any rent since R1 was admitted on 07/25/24, and if not received, then the facility would issue an eviction letter. One staff had no knowledge of an eviction notice. LPA reviewed the notice and observed that in the heading of the letter it says, “This letter shall serve as a 30 day notice to vacate room 229A because of failure to pay the services rendered by Hacienda Grande”. LPA also reviewed the rent invoices (Dated: 08/01/24, 09/01/24, 10/01/24) that shows a past due balance of rent unpaid. LPA interviewed residents R1-R6 about the allegation and 1 of 6 residents that were interviewed corroborated the allegation that the facility issued an Unlawful eviction. Resident (R1) stated that they issued an eviction letter to them on 9/11/24. 5 of 6 residents stated that they have not been issued an eviction notice. Based on interviews and records reviewed the Licensee, (S1) failed to serve R1 with an eviction notice in accordance with tittle 22 regulations. A review of the eviction notice dated 09/11/24, revealed the following items were not included in the eviction notice: The eviction notice was missing resources and referrals for R1, a statement regarding if R1 stays at the facility an unlawful detainer shall be filed. Also, a written copy of the eviction notice was not issued to Community Care Licensing (CCLD) within 5-days. The facility stated that they mailed a copy to the Monterey Park office on 09/11/24. CCLD received the eviction notice on 10/09/24. Moreover, a statement indicating the residents right to file a complaint with CCLD and the contact information for the Long-Term Care Ombudsman was missing from the eviction letter. Therefore, the above allegation Unlawful eviction, is found to be Substantiated. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division (6) and chapter (8) deficiencies are being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. Allegation #2- Facility staff open resident's mail without permission. The details of the complaint alleged that the facility opened the residents’ (R1) mail without consent, including the residents’ social security checks. On 10/23/24, from 09:35am-12:30pm, LPAs interviewed staff (S1-S3) and residents (R1-R6) regarding the allegation. 2 of 3 staff (S1-S3) denied the allegation that the Facility staff open resident's mail without permission. S1 stated that all mail that are checks with their name on it (Hacienda Grande) are opened and processed. And any other mail that is not addressed to Hacienda Grande and are addressed to the residents are not opened. LPA reviewed the copy of two checks and observed that R1s name was on the check above the facilities name. The name and address of the facility below R1s name is the facility that R1 is residing at, and therefore should not have been opened. Report continued on LIC9099-C LPA interviewed residents (R1-R6) about the allegation and 1 of 6 residents that were interviewed corroborated the allegation that the Facility staff open resident's mail without permission. R1 stated that the facility had no right to open R1s mail because it was not addressed to the facility but to R1 only. 5 of 6 residents stated that they have not had an issue with the facility opening their mail. Based on interviews conducted and records reviewed, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met. Therefore, the above allegation: Facility staff open resident's mail without permission, is found to be Substantiated. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division (6) and chapter (8) Deficiencies are being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. Citations were issued, and plans of corrections were discussed. Note: *Citations not cleared by the due date will have a $100 fine assessed for each citation until it is cleared. Civil penalties will continue to accrue until Proof of Corrections (POC) is cleared. An exit interview was conducted with Rodrigo Ramos, Licensee, and a copy of this Complaint Investigation Report and appeal rights were provided. LPA interviewed residents (R1-R6) about the allegation and 1 of 6 residents that were interviewed corroborated the allegation that the Facility staff did not provide a safe environment for the residents. The majority of residents (5 of 6) interviewed stated that the facility does provide a safe environment and that they are happy with the care and supervision provided by the staff. Based on interviews, there is insufficient evidence to support the allegation that the Facility staff did not provide a safe environment for the residents. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is Unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Rodrigo Ramos, Licensee, and a copy of this Complaint Investigation Report and appeal rights were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Oct 23, 2024 · control 11-AS-20241014150005
From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87224(d)(1)(B)(C)(D) · Plan of correction due date: Oct 30, 2024
87224(d)(1)(B)(C)(D) Eviction Procedures. (d) The licensee shall set forth in the notice to quit the reasons relied upon for the eviction... (1) The notice to quit shall include the following information: (B) Resources available to assist ...Referral services...(C) A statement informing residents of their right to file a complaint with the licensing agency…(D)…the residential care facility for the elderly must file an unlawful detainer action. This requirement is not met as evidenced by: Based on interviews and records reviewed, the licensee failed to serve resident (R1) with an eviction notice in accordance with tittle 22 regulations. This poses a potential personal rights risk to residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Oct 23, 2024
Plan of correction: R1 no longer resides in the facility. In the future, Administrator will submit an eviction notice that is in compliance with Title 22 regulations, 87224(d)(1)(B)(C)(D) Eviction Procedures. Administrator will submit a statement acknowledging understanding of Title 22 Regulations by POC due date of 10/30/24 and email it to LPA Perry Scott at perry.scott@dss.ca.gov.
From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87468.1(a)(1)(3) · Plan of correction due date: Oct 30, 2024
87468.1(a)(1)(3) Personal Rights of Residents in All Facilities (a) Residents in all residential care facilities for the elderly shall have all of the following personal rights:(1) To be accorded dignity in their personal relationships with staff, residents, and other persons. (3) To be free from punishment, humiliation, intimidation, abuse, or other actions of a punitive nature, such as withholding residents’ money or interfering with daily living functions such as eating, sleeping, or elimination. This requirement is not met as evidenced by: Based on a record review of the eviction notice dated 9/11/24. The licensee failed to ensure the residents’ personal rights due to the nature of and items in the eviction notice to the resident by making inappropriate statements. The licensee stated in the eviction notice that the resident knows how to ride the system, is a manipulator, and threatened to have R1 removed from a state funded program, which poses a potential personal rights risk to residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Oct 23, 2024
Plan of correction: Licensee to review Personal Rights of Residents 87468.1(a)(1)(3) and submit a statement acknowledging understanding of Title 22 Regulations by POC due date of 10/30/24 and email it to LPA Perry Scott at perry.scott@dss.ca.gov.
From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87468.1(a)(15) · Plan of correction due date: Oct 30, 2024
87468.1(a)(15) Personal Rights of Residents in All Facilities (a) Residents in all residential care facilities for the elderly shall have all of the following personal rights: (15) To send and receive unopened correspondence in a prompt manner. This requirement is not as evidenced by: Based on interviews, the licensee failed to ensure resident's personal rights due to staff opening their personal mail without prior consent.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Oct 23, 2024
Plan of correction: Licensee/Administrator shall read Title 22, Section 87468.1(a)(15) Personal Rights of Residents... and submit a statement acknowledging understanding of Title 22 Regulations by POC due date of 10/30/24 and email it to LPA Perry Scott at perry.scott@dss.ca.gov.
Jun 20, 2024Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file
Type of visit: Required - 1 Year
On 06/20/24 Licensing Program Analyst’s (LPA’s) Villegas and Iniguez conducted an unannounced annual required visit using the CARE Inspection Tool. LPA met with Licensee Rodrigo Ramos as the purpose of the visit was explained. LPA’s were later joined by acting Administrator Shalani Ramos. The facility is licensed to serve 60 ambulatory and 60 non-ambulatory residents ages 60 and above. The facility has an approved hospice waiver for 10 residents. The current facility census is 46 residents in care. An active liability insurance was observed to have an expiration date of 04/09/25. Licensee was provided with information regarding the annual fee of $1,982 due by 06/26/24. The facility is two-story commercial building consists of sixty (60) resident bedrooms, sixty (60) resident bathrooms, six (6) common bathrooms, dining room, commercial kitchen, med room, library, washer and dryer/ storage area, backyard with umbrella with table and chairs, and administrative offices. Commercial Kitchen was inspected and observed to be clean and operational. A 2-day supply perishable and 7-day supply of non-perishable foods are present in the facility kitchen. Toxins and knifes were stored and inaccessible to residents. Resident bedrooms were checked, mattresses and box springs were in good condition, adequate lighting, plenty of dresser and closet space was observed. Bathroom toilets and water faucets worked properly, shower was free of mold/mildew, and there are sufficient toiletries accessible to residents. The water temperature properly measured between 105-120 F.. Exits and walkways are free of debris/hazards, there are no weapons nor bodies of water on the premises. LPA’s conducted a records review of 5 staff records, 4 resident records, and 4 medication reviews. Medications were centrally stored and properly locked, first aid kit was checked and fully stocked. The last fire was conducted on 01/22/24, fire extinguisher fully charged, carbon monoxide and smoke detectors are interconnected and operational. LBFD conducted a fire inspection on 04/16/24, facility is in compliance. Deficiencies are cited on 809D page. Exit interview conducted, appeal rights explained to licensee, and a copy of this report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jun 20, 2024
May 6, 2024Facility evaluation reportCase Management - DeficienciesDeficiency page: Type B
Type of visit: Case Management - Deficiencies
On 05/06/24 at 1pm Licensing program analyst (LPA) Villegas conducted a case management visit to issue deficiency for reporting requirements, LPA Met with Administrator Shalani Ramos as the purpose of todays visit was explained. On 04/30/24 LPA received two unusual incident reports, the first incident report was dated 04/17/24 but was not received by the department until 04/30/24 (13 days). The second unusual incident report was dated 04/19/24 but was not received by the department until 04/30/24 (11 days). Based of review of the incident reports the facility staff did not submit the unusual incident reports within 7 days of the occurrence as required by title 22. Deficiency cited under California code regulations, title 22, division 6, Chapter 8 are being cited on the attached LIC 809D. Exit interview conducted, appeal rights provided, and a copy of this report was provided to Administrator Shalani Ramos.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 6, 2024
From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87211(a)(1) · Plan of correction due date: May 10, 2024
Each licensee shall furnish to the licensing agency... A written report shall be submitted to the licensing agency and to the person responsible for the resident within seven days of the occurrence of any of the events specified in (A) through (D) below... This requirement is not met as evidet by, based on records review the licensee did not submit incident reports dated 4/17/24, and 4/19/24 to licensing within 7 days of the occurence. This poses potential health and safety risk to residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 6, 2024
Plan of correction: Administrator to review title 22 reporting requirementsand self certify acknowledgement of the review. Administrator shall submit self certification by POC due date.
May 6, 2024Facility evaluation reportCase Management - DeficienciesDeficiency pages: Type B
Type of visit: Case Management - Deficiencies
On 05/06/24 at 1pm Licensing program analyst (LPA) Villegas conducted a case management visit to issue deficiency for citations observed during complaint investigation 11-AS-20230811161937, LPA met with Administrator Shalani Ramos as the purpose of todays visit was explained. During the complaint investigation, LPA observed resident #1 (R1) had a change in condition and facility staff did not document such changes in residents record. Also, during complaint investigation during interviews conducted facility staff communicated with R1's physician when R1 refused medication but there was no documentation of the communication and the physicians directives. Deficiencies cited under California code regulations, title 22, division 6, chapter 8 are being cited on the attached 809D. exit interview conducted, appeal rights explained, and a copy of this report was provided Administrator Shalani Ramosthe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 6, 2024
From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87566 · Plan of correction due date: May 13, 2024
Observation of the Resident ...When changes such as unusual weight gains or losses or deterioration of mental ability or a physical health condition are observed, the licensee shall ensure that such changes are documented and brought to the attention of the resident's physicians and the resident's responsible person, if any. Based on interviews conductedand reocrds reviewed, R1 had a change in condition in physical and mental functioning, and R1 was refusing meds and the licensee failed to document shuch changes. This poses a health and safety risk to residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 6, 2024
Plan of correction: Licensee shall develope a plan outlining the steps the facility will take when residents have change in conditions and how such changes shall be documented in residents file. Licensee shall submit plan to licensing by POC due date.
From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR87465(d)(2) · Plan of correction due date: May 13, 2024
Incidental Medical and Dental Care If the resident is unable to determine his/her own need for a prescription...The date and time of each contact with the physician, and the physician's directions, shall be documented and maintained in the resident's facility record. This requirement is not met as evident by based on interviews conducted and records review, the licensee failed to document contact with R1's physician when R1 refused medication(s). This poses a health and safety risk to residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 6, 2024
Plan of correction: Licensee shall develope a plan outlining the steps the facility will take to ensure documented contact with physician and physicans directions is maintained in rseidents records. Licensee shall submit plan to licensing by POC due date.
Mar 6, 2024Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Facility staff are opening residents mail. Facility staff are asking residents for money outside of monthly rent fees.
On 03/06/24 at 9:00 a.m. licensing program analyst (LPA) Lizeth Villegas conducted an initial complaint visit regarding the allegations above. LPA met with Administrator Lorenzona Medina as the purpose of the visit was explained. LPA later met with Licensee Rodrigo Ramos. The investigation consisted of the following: On 03/06/24 LPA obtained copies of the following Resident #1, #7, and #8's (R1,R7,R8) identification and emergency information form, physician report, admission agreement, rent invoices for January-March 2024, and a list of all residents who can manage their own mail. On 03/06/24 LPA interviewed Administrator (AD), Licensee (L1), staff #1-3 (S1-S3), and Residents # 2-6 (R2-R6). The investigation revealed the following: Allegation: Facility staff are opening resident’s mail. It is being alleged that facility staff have opened mail from social security without consent prior to providing the mail to the resident. On 03/06/24 LPA interviewed AD regarding the above allegation, AD denied the Unsubstantiated allegation above. Per AD, mail is only opened when it is addressed to Hacienda Grande Senior assisted living. On 03/06/24 LPA interviewed L1 regarding the allegation above, L1 stated that social security mail is opened if the mail is addressed directly to Hacienda Grande Senior Assisted Living. On 03/06/24 LPA interviewed S1-S3 regarding the above allegation, 1 of 3 staff interviewed reported that all mail is sealed when provided to a resident, 2 of the 3 staff interviewed reported that they have no knowledge of the mail procedures. On 03/06/24 LPA interviewed R2-R6 regarding the allegation above, 5 of 5 residents interviewed denied the allegation above reporting they have not had any issues with obtaining their mail. On 03/06/24 LPA was unable to interview R1, R1 whereabouts are unknown at this time. Allegation: Facility staff are asking residents for money outside of monthly rent fees. It is being alleged that facility staff are asking resident for resident’s debt card and resident refused. Facility staff proceeded to ask resident to get in staff’s car to withdraw money. Resident refused. On 03/06/24 LPA interviewed AD regarding the above allegation, AD denied the allegation above. AD continued to state that L1 will speak to residents and residents POA if the months rents was not paid. On 03/06/24 LPA interviewed L1 regarding the allegation above, L1 denied the allegation above and reported POA’s are contacted when rent payment has not been made. 03/06/24 LPA interviewed S1-S3 regarding the above allegation, 3 of 3 staff interviewed denied the allegation above. On 03/06/24 LPA interviewed R2-R6 regarding the allegation above, 5 of 5 residents interviewed denied the allegation above and reported the facility does not handle any of their financial resources. On 03/06/24 LPA was unable to interview R1, R1 whereabouts are unknown at this time. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore the allegations and Unsubstantiated. Exit interview conducted with Licensee Rodrigo Ramos, and a copy of this report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 6, 2024 · control 11-AS-20240229165254
Earlier years2021 to 2023 · 12 documents
20232 state visits · 3 documents
Sep 7, 2023Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Due to staff neglect resident developed a pressure injury while in care.
On 09/07/23 at 12:00pm Licensing program analyst (LPA) Villegas and Licesing program manager (LPM) Hammond initiated a complaint investigation regarding the above allegations. LPA and LPM met with Administrator Lorenzona Medina as the purpose of the visit was explained. During todays visit LPA and LPM obtained copies of resident roster and staff roster, toured the physical plant and conducted an interview with Administrator/Licensee Rodrigo Ramos (A1). The details of the complaint allegation do not match information recevied during investigation. LPA and LPM conducted interview with Administrator/Licensee Rodrigo Ramos to inquire if Resident 1 (R1) ever resided at facility, Administrator stated there has not been a resident by the name at the facility. LPA and LPM asked administrator if there is or has been any Registered nurse employeed by the name of "Manny", Administrator reported there was a Manny employed but was a cook. LPA and LPM reviewed resident roster and did not observe R1's name listed. LPA and LPM reviewed staff roster and did not observe any employee with a name Unsubstantiated similar to "Manny." LPA and LPM conducted a tour of the facility and did not observe any bedroom listed with the number indicated in complaint details. LPA and LPM could not clarify details of the complaint allegation with the reporting party (RP) as no contact information is listed. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore the allegation us unsubstantiated. Exit interview conducted with Administrator Lorenzona Medina, and a copy of this report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Sep 7, 2023 · control 11-AS-20230906083302
Sep 7, 2023Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Staff did not ensure resident was taking prescribed medications. Facility did not notify resident's responsible party of a change in resident's medical condition. Facility staff failed to properly address residents change in condition.
On 05/06/243 at 1:00pm m, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Lizeth Villegas conducted a subsequent complaint visit to render investigation finding. LPA met with Administrator Shalani Ramos and the purpose of today’s visit was explained. The investigation consisted of the following: On 08/17/23 LPA interviewed Administrator, staff #1-3 (S1-S3), interviewed residents # 2-6 (R2-R6) and Witness #1 on 08/22/23. LPA is unable to interview resident #1 during the investigation. LPA obtained copies of the following for R1's; Emergency Identification form, Pre placement appraisal, physician’s report, med lists, Conservatorship paperwork, email interactions between facility and responsible party, physician orders, staff and resident rosters. On 08/17/23 LPA conducted a medication review of 8 resident medications. The investigation revealed the following: Allegation- Staff did not ensure resident was taking prescribed medications. Unsubstantiated It is alleged the staff was seen leaving medications in R1’s room without confirmation of their intake, and the Administration could not provide an explanation or policy regarding this. On 08/17/23 LPA interviewed Administrator regarding the above allegation, AD denied the allegation above. Per AD’s, all three med techs are ensuring residents especially dementia residents are taking their meds before walking away. AD’s continued to state that the facility does not use a medication administration record (MAR), however med refusals are documented and PCP is informed. When asked if R1 refused meds, AD stated that when R1 wasn't in a good mood R1 would refuse psych meds. Higher level of care was suggested by AD to family as staff had a hard time administering meds due to refusals. Per AD, normally telephone calls to sister or conservator were made to report med refusals. On 08/17/23, LPA interviewed S1—S3, 3 out of 3 staff interviewed denied the above allegation. S1 reported that staff only documents med refusals in the Mar and Doctor is notified if med refusals continue. On 08/17/23 LPA interviewed residents # 2-6 about the above allegations, 5 out of 5 residents denied the allegation above. On 08/17/23 LPA conducted file review of R1 file and did not observe any documented medication refusals Allegation: Facility did not notify resident's responsible party of a change in resident's medical condition. It is alleged the Facility did not notify resident's responsible party of a change in resident's weight gain and leg edema. On 08/17/23 LPA interviewed Administrator regarding the above allegation, AD denied the allegation above. Per AD, there was communication via telephone and email with responsible party and Doctor. On 08/17/23 LPA interviewed S1—S3, 3 out of 3 staff interviewed denied the above allegation. Per S1-S3 if any change in condition is observed Administrator is informed and Administrator notifies responsible party. LPA conducted review of emails dated 9/12/2022 and 09/18/2022 and observed that there was communication between R1’s responsible party and facility about R1’s change in condition. On 08/22/23 LPA and LPM interviewed witness #1 (W1) regarding the allegation above, W1 indicated being made aware by facility staff of R1's change of medical condition. On 08/17/23 LPA interviewed residents # 2-6 about the above allegations, 5 out of 5 residents denied the allegation above. Allegation: Facility staff failed to properly address residents change in condition. It is alleged the facility staff failed to properly address resident # 1’s leg edema. On 08/17/23 LPA interviewed Administrator regarding the above allegation, AD denied the allegation above. Per AD, there was communication via telephone and email with responsible party and Doctor. LPA and LPM interviewed Witness #1 regarding the allegation, witness #1 confirmed that when there are any changes in condition the facility staff would notify primary care physician. Witness # 1 stated that if there were any changes in condition, witness #1 would come out to the facility. LPA interviewed S1—S3, 3 out of 3 staff interviewed denied the above allegation. 1 of 3 staff interviewed stated that staff reports to med techs and administration. 2 out the 3 staff interviewed denied the allegation and confirmed that Doctor is aware of change in condition. LPA interviewed residents #2-6, 5 out of 5 residents did not have any knowledge of allegation but did confirm facility Doctor visits facility monthly. On 08/17/23 LPA conducted a review of R1's file and did not observe any documentation regarding leg edema Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is Unsubstantiated. Exit interview conducted with Administrator Shalani Ramos and a copy of this report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Sep 7, 2023 · control 11-AS-20230811161937
Jul 27, 2023Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file
Type of visit: Required - 1 Year
On 07/27/2023 at 12:00 noon, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Jose Calderon conducted an unannounced annual inspection visit at Hacienda Grande Senior Assisted Living Facility. LPA Calderon was allowed entry into the facility by Owner Rodrigo Ramos. The facility is licensed for 120 residents age 60 and over. Currently, there are forty-six (46) residents residing in the facility 60 years or older. LPA Calderon explained to Owner Rodrigo Ramos, the purpose of the 1-year Annual Inspection visit, and escorted LPA Calderon on a tour of the entire inside and outside facility grounds. As part of the inspection, LPA Calderon reviewed: six (6) resident service records, six (6) resident medication records, and LPA Calderon interviewed six (6) residents and six (6) staff members for visit. LPA Calderon inspected the inside facility and outside grounds. The facilities’ last fire drill was conducted on 04/20/2022. The two-story commercial building consists of sixty (60) resident bedrooms, sixty (60) resident bathrooms, six (6) common bathrooms, dining room, commercial kitchen, staff room, office area, library, washer and dryer/ storage area, backyard with umbrella with table and chairs. No weapons are stored in the premises. Commercial Kitchen was inspected and observed to be clean and operational. A 2-day supply perishable and 7-day supply of non-perishable foods are present in the facility kitchen. Emergency Water Storage is in the basement of the facility. LPA Calderon observed that all facility rooms are clean and in good repair. A comfortable temperature was observed, and the facility has central air and heating. LPA Calderon observed the following during inspection of resident’s rooms #100, #103, #106, #200, #206, #210: mattresses are in good condition, adequate lighting present, plenty of dresser/closet space is present, and all bed linens present. All bedrooms contain furniture, lighting fixtures and personal storage space as required, all beds have the required amount of linen and mattress covers, LPA Calderon observed fully stocked closet with bedding, towels, and toiletries supplies. Bathroom fixtures are clean, in good repair, and working properly and contain the required nonskid mats and grab bars. LPA Calderon observed bathrooms were found to be within Title 22 regulation. Bathroom #1 hot water temperature properly measured at 115 degrees Fahrenheit, and bathroom #2 hot water temperature properly measured at 112 degrees Fahrenheit, and Bathroom #3 hot water temperature properly measured at 111 degrees Fahrenheit. Commercial kitchen hot water temperature properly measured at 112 degrees Fahrenheit. Facility sixty (60) Carbon Monoxide and sixty (60) Smoke Detectors hard wired and connected were tested and are working properly. The facility twenty (20) Fire Extinguishers were checked and found to be fully charged and accessible. All exit doors in the facility have alarm systems. All toxins and knifes are locked/secured and inaccessible to residents. Medications are centrally stored and in a locked medication room. Facility first aid six (6) kit is fully stocked with manual was checked and in order. Outside grounds were toured and no bodies of water were observed. All Exits/ Walkways around the home were free of debris and hazards. Outside patio accessible to residents. Six (6) staff files were checked and have the required documents. The facility does not handle resident's money/cash resources. All the required documents are posted in the facility in a clearly visible area. LPA Calderon noted the Administrator Elvie Medina Certification # 6053801740 expiration date of 10/02/2023 was valid at time of visit. Commercial General Liability Policy #NAL-CA-2021-12161-23 policy period from 04/09/2023 to 04/09/2024 and a Commercial Professional Liability Insurance Policy #NAL-CA-2021-12161-23 policy period from 04/09/2023 to 04/09/2024 underwritten by National Assisted Living Risk Retention Group Inc coverage 1,000,000/3,000,000 is valid at time of inspection. LPA Calderon spoke to Owner Rodrigo Ramos who will email full copy of insurance contact which shows all coverages to LPA Calderon no later than 08/06/2023. All the required documents are posted in the facility in a clearly visible area to all staff, clients, and guests. LPA Calderon reviewed LIC500 and noted all staff associated to facility per LIS. LPA Calderon reviewed the resident roster, LPA Calderon confirmed residents’ interview are on resident roster LPA advised the Owner Rodrigo Ramos to continuously monitor the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) website and Community Care Likening Provider Informational Notices (PIN) for any updates relating to COVID-19 guidance. . According to the California Code of Regulations (Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8), LPA Calderon did not observe deficiencies therefore no citations were issued at this time. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of the Facility Evaluation Report was provided to Owner Rodrigo Ramos.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 27, 2023
20225 state visits · 5 documents
Aug 9, 2022Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file
Type of visit: Required - 1 Year
On 08/09/2022 at 09:00 AM, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Jose Calderon conducted an unannounced annual inspection visit at Hacienda Grande Senior Assisted Living Facility. LPA Calderon was allowed entry into the facility by Administrator Elvie Medina. The facility is licensed for 120 residents age 60 and over. LPA Calderon explained to Elvie Medina, the purpose of the 1-year Annual Inspection visit, and escorted LPA Calderon on a tour of the entire inside and outside facility grounds. As part of the inspection, LPA Calderon reviewed: (3) resident service records, (3) resident medication records, and inspected the inside facility and outside grounds. The facilities’ last fire drill was conducted on 04/20/2022. The two-story commercial building consists of (60) resident bedrooms, (60) resident bathrooms, (6) common bathrooms, dining room, commercial kitchen, staff room, office area, washer and dryer/ storage area, backyard with umbrella with table and chairs. No weapons are stored in the premises. Commercial Kitchen was inspected and observed to be clean and operational. A 2-day supply perishable and 7-day supply of non-perishable foods are present in the facility kitchen. Emergency Water Storage is in the basement of the facility. On 08/09/2022 at 09:00 AM, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Jose Calderon conducted an unannounced annual inspection visit at Hacienda Grande Senior Assisted Living Facility. LPA Calderon was allowed entry into the facility by Administrator Elvie Medina. The facility is licensed for 120 residents age 60 and over. LPA advised the Administrator to continuously monitor the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) website and Community Care Likening Provider Informational Notices (PIN) for any updates relating to COVID-19 guidance. . According to the California Code of Regulations (Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8), LPA Calderon did not observe deficiencies therefore no citations were issued at this time. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of the Facility Evaluation Report was provided to Administrator Elvie Medina. LPA Calderon observed that all facility rooms are clean and in good repair. A comfortable temperature was observed, and the facility has central air and heating. LPA Calderon observed the following during inspection of resident’s rooms: mattresses are in good condition, adequate lighting present, plenty of dresser/closet space is present, and all bed linens present. All bedrooms contain furniture, lighting fixtures and personal storage space as required, all beds have the required amount of linen and mattress covers, LPA Calderon observed fully stocked closet with bedding, towels, and toiletries supplies. Bathroom fixtures are clean, in good repair, and working properly and contain the required nonskid mats and grab bars. LPA Calderon observed bathrooms were found to be within Title 22 regulation. Bathroom #1 hot water temperature properly measured at 115 degrees Fahrenheit, and bathroom #2 hot water temperature properly measured at 112 degrees Fahrenheit, and Bathroom #3 hot water temperature properly measured at 111 degrees Fahrenheit. Facility (60) Carbon Monoxide and (60) Smoke Detectors hard wired and connected were tested and are working properly. The facility (20) Fire Extinguishers were checked and found to be fully charged and accessible. All exit doors in the facility have alarm systems. All toxins and knifes are locked/secured and inaccessible to residents. Medications are centrally stored and in a locked storage cabinet. Facility first aid kit is fully stocked with manual was checked and in order. Outside grounds were toured and no bodies of water were observed. All Exits/ Walkways around the home were free of debris and hazards. Outside patio accessible to residents. Three (3) resident files were reviewed and found to be complete. LPA Calderon reviewed (3) resident medications and they were all found to be administered according to doctor's orders. Three (3) staff files were checked and have the required documents. The facility does not handle resident's money/cash resources. All the required documents are posted in the facility in a clearly visible area.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 9, 2022
May 26, 2022Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Resident is being threatened by another resident in care
On 5/26/22 at 9:44am., Licensing Program Analyst (LPA)/ Susan Campos, initiated a 10-day complaint investigation visit for the allegation listed above. LPA was allowed entry into the facility by Administrator Rodrigo Ramos. LPA explained to Mr. Ramos the purpose of the visit. The investigation consisted of the following: LPA conducted interviews on 5/26/22 with (5) staff members (6) residents. In addition, on 5/26/22, LPA and Mr. Ramos conducted an inspection, for health and safety of the facilities’ physical plant, and food supply. LPA also reviewed the following documents provided by Hacienda Grande Senior Assisted Living Administrator Ramos: LIC 500-staff roster, client roster, Internal staff incident reports for May 2022, House Rules, R1 and R2 Physician Report, R1 and R2 Assessment Service Plan, and R1 and R2 Case Notes. Report continued on LIC 9099C Unsubstantiated Investigation Allegation: Resident is being threatened by another resident in care. The investigation revealed, per LPA interviews, with (5) staff members, (6) residents from the Hacienda Grande Senior Assisted living facility, and also review of facility documents, that resident is not being threatened by another resident in care. S1 informed the LPA, that all the residents in the facility get along, and that S1 has not reviewed reports from staff or residents, that there are any issues with the residents in the facility. S1 also informed the LPA, that S1 and S2, address all issues or concern, that are reported to them, regarding residents or staff. S2 also stated that S2 is in contact with the staff in the facility, and all daily incidences and occurrences are reported to S1 and S2, so that they may follow up and resolve. Furthermore, S1 and S2 informed the LPA, that R1 and R2 have never had any interaction in the facility. And also, S1 and S2 have never received reports, that R2 has intimidated a resident in the facility. In addition, S1 informed the LPA, that R2, does not interact with residents in the facility, and prefers to be alone. To date, R2 has been compliant with all facility house rules, and does not bother anyone. The LPA also interviewed 5 facility staff personnel, and 5 of the 5 staff personnel interviewed, informed the LPA that they have not witnessed or received reports from resident, staff or family, that a resident is threatened by another resident in the facility. In addition, the LPA interviewed (6) residents, and 5 of 6 residents interviewed, informed the LPA, that the residents in the facility get along, and also that they do not feel threatened by a resident in the facility. Also, 6 of 6 residents interviewed, informed the LPA, that the staff at the facility help them and are available to them when needed. Based on information gathered, the LPA did not find sufficient evidence to support allegation " Resident is being threatened by another resident in care ” Although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are Unsubstantiated. No citations issued. An exit interview was conducted with Rodrigo Ramos, Administrator, and a hard copy of a LIC 9099 was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 26, 2022 · control 11-AS-20220523130359
Apr 8, 2022Complaint investigation reportSubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Resident sustained multiple pressure injuries while in care Facility retained a resident with a prohibited health condition
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Jade Jordan made an unannounced visit to the facility and was greeted by Administrator (Lorenzona “Elvie” Medina). The purpose of this visit is to deliver the findings pertaining to the above-mentioned allegations. An Initial 10-Day virtual visit was conducted by LPA Jade Jordan on 03/01/21 (via telephonically) with Administrator due to the situation surrounding the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to implement mitigation measures. During the virtual, video conference call with Administrator Medina, LPA Jordan conducted a virtual tour of the physical plant of the facility. LPA interviewed five (5) residents in care and requested pertinent documentation (Physician’s Report, Admissions Agreement, Emergency Contact Info, and Home Health Agency notes) for Resident #1. A separate investigation was conducted by Department of Social Service Investigator Eddie Hector which included review of medical records, interview with facility staff and medical services staff. Substantiated Regarding Allegation #1: this investigation revealed that Resident #1 (Referred to as R1) was a resident at the facility and was receiving home health care services. R1 was admitted to the hospital on 02/25/21 for multiple pressure injuries: Left lateral knee (Stage 2); Left foot (purple); Left hip (unstageable); Right heel (purple); Right lateral malious (purple); Right lateral foot (purple-deep pressure injury); Right medial foot (marron); Right hip (unstageable); Left lateral calf (stage 2). On 02/22/21 R1’s diagnosis elevated to a right hip pressure ulcer – Stage 4 (measured: 5x5.5 x 0.8 cm) with moderate purulent drainage with foul smell; left hip (measured: 7 x 6.5 x 0 cm) covered with yellow and gray slough (100% with moderate purulent drainage and foul smell). Right hip pressure ulcer Stage 4 (measured: 5cm x 5.5cm x 0.8cm) with 60% red wound bed and 40% yellow slough. Left hip pressure ulcer (unstageable) – measured: 7cm x 6.5cm x 0cm covered with 100% yellowish slough (now, almost double in size) with foul smell. Facility staff were assisted weekly by Home Health Agency (HHA) skilled nurse who worked together to provide care for R1. In addition, weekly training was being provided to facility staff as to the needs of R1. Facility staff applied first aid and would reposition R1 every 2 hours to prevent further injury. The care plan explains the care provided to R1 by the HHA skilled nurse and facility staff which was consistent with documentation in R1’s care plan instructions. Facility staff reported that R1 would regularly remove its diaper and scratch its wounds and was unwilling to allow the HHA skilled nurse to perform wound care. Based on the evidence gathered, interviews conducted and records reviewed, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met; therefore, the allegation of NEGLECT/LACK OF SUPERVISION: Resident sustained multiple pressure injuries while in care is found to be SUBSTANTIATED. Regarding Allegation #2: this investigation revealed that Resident #1 (Referred to as R1) was receiving care by a Home Health Agency (HHA) while at the facility. On 02/22/21 R1’s diagnosis elevated to a right hip pressure ulcer – Stage 4 (measured: 5x5.5 x 0.8 cm) with moderate purulent drainage with foul smell; left hip (measured: 7 x 6.5 x 0 cm) covered with yellow and gray slough (100% with moderate purulent drainage and foul smell). HHA skilled nurse documented R1’s wounds were getting worse and that R1 continued to deteriorate. On 02/24/21, R1’s wound culture obtained, both hips and documented: Left hip – 100% stricken foul, pungent odor wound. Resident has pressure ulcers – Stage 2. Deep tissue injury at right hip and inner knee with dry scab. HHA skilled nurse recommended hospitalization for wound debridement. Right hip pressure ulcer Stage 4 (measured: 5cm x 5.5cm x 0.8cm) with 60% red wound bed and 40% yellow slough. Left hip pressure ulcer (unstageable) – measured: 7cm x 6.5cm x 0cm covered with 100% yellowish slough (now, almost double in size) with foul smell. HHA skilled nurse documented Resident was referred to higher level of care. Resident needs total care. On 02/25/21, R1 was hospitalized and diagnosed with multiple pressure injuries: Left lateral knee (Stage 2); Left foot (purple); Left hip (unstageable); Right heel (purple); Right lateral malious (purple); Right lateral foot (purple-deep pressure injury); Right medial foot (marron); Right hip (Stage 4); Left lateral calf (Stage 2). Based on medical information provided by the Home Health Agency’s skilled nurses (between 01/03/21 to 02/25/21) to Administrator and facility staff, R1 was diagnosed with unstageable and Stage 4 dermal ulcers on 02/22/21. R1’s dermal ulcers required a higher level of care than what facility staff were able to do or provide. Administrator Medina was required to immediately transfer R1 at the point, but failed to do so. Based on the evidence gathered, interviews conducted and records reviewed, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met; therefore, the allegation of LEVEL OF CARE: Facility retained a resident with a prohibited health condition is found to be SUBSTANTIATED. According to the California Code of Regulations (Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8), the following deficiency observed and citation issued (ref. LIC 9099D). Civil penalty assessed. At this time, an enhanced civil penalty determination is pending in reference to Health & Safety Code 1569.49(e)(1)(A) “Serious Bodily Injury” as defined in Section 243 of the Penal Code that states, a serious physical condition, including, but not limited to, the following: loss of consciousness; concussion; bone fracture; protracted loss or impairment of any bodily member or organ; a wound requiring extensive suturing; and serious disfigurement.” An exit interview was conducted and a copy of the Complaint Report and Appeal Rights were provided to Administrator ((Lorenzona “Elvie” Medina).the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 8, 2022 · control 11-AS-20210226154939
From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type A · Section cited: CCR 87615(a)(1) · Plan of correction due date: Apr 11, 2022
87615(a)(1) Prohibited Health Conditions: Persons who require health services or have a health condition including, but not limited to, those specified below shall not be admitted or retained in a residential care facility for the elderly: Stage 3 and 4 pressure sores (dermal ulcers). The standard of evidence was not met: based on the evidence provided, R1 was diagnosed with unstageable and Stage 4 dermal ulcers on 02/22/21 and 02/24/21 and referred to a higher level of care due to requiring total care. This poses an immediate health, safety and personal rights risk to residents in carethe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 8, 2022
Plan of correction: The administrator shall read Title 22, Section "Prohibited Health Conditions", send a written statement to CCL by the POC date that she will ensure to stay in constant communication with the medical professional and if the resident's medical condition elevate; meaning they require a higher level of care, they will ensure the resident is relocated to a SNF or hospital, the relocation will take place immediately. Because the administrator retained R1 as a resident at the facility for several months after the Home Health Agency skilled nurse stated a higher level of care due to total care, civil penalties are assessed in the amount of: $000.00 for retaining Resident #1 for several months with a prohibited health condition. The plan is due to the CCLD/El Segundo ASC Office by POC due date.
From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type A · Section cited: CCR 87466 · Plan of correction due date: Apr 11, 2022
87466 Observation of the Resident. Licensee failed to observe or conduct an assessment of Resident #1’s level of care during which time the resident was receiving home health care services while at the facility from 01/26/21 thru 02/25/21. On 02/22/21, Resident #1 was diagnosed with a “right hip pressure ulcer – Stage 4” – measured: 5x5.5 x 0.8 cm. On 02/24/21, HHA Registered Nurse recommended R1 be referred to a higher level of care; as the resident required total care. On 02/25/21, R1 was transferred to Long Beach Memorial Medical Center for wound debridement. This poses an immediate health, safety, personal rights risk to residents in carethe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 8, 2022
Plan of correction: Administrator will review Title 22 Regulations, Section 87466 and submit a detailed written plan on how the facility will document and address changes in resident conditions. The plan is due to the CCLD/El Segundo ASC Office by POC date of 04/11/22.
Apr 7, 2022Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Lack of supervision results in resident being assualted on several occasions by another resident.
***This Licensing report supersedes the original complaint investigation report created dated 03/24/22. The finding remains the same as in the prior licensing report -Unsubstantiated. *** On 01/23/20, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Tao conducted an initial ten-day visit and met with Administrator/ Licensee, Rodrigo E. Ramos. During visit, LPA interviewed the CEO and Resident #1 and toured the physical plant. LPA also reviewed and obtained copies of the documents listed below in reference to resident #1 (R1) and resident #2 (R2); Physician report; Identification and emergency information; Resident’s appraisal; Resident’s handbooks; Personal rights; Individual service plan; incident report for incident on 1/14/20; Police report receipt / number. LPA obtained copies of the on-job training log of staff #2 (S2), #3 (S3) and #4 (S4). On 04/15/21, LPA Tao conducted a subsequent visit. Due to the situation surrounding the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), and to implement mitigation measures, the complaint investigation was conducted virtually with Administrator. (-Continued in LIC 9099 C-) Unsubstantiated ***This Licensing report supersedes the original complaint investigation report created dated 03/24/22. The finding remains the same as in the prior licensing report -Unsubstantiated. *** During the subsequent visit conducted on 04/15/21, LPA interviewed staff #1 through staff #6 and resident #1 through resident #7. LPA obtained Resident roster, Staff roster, incident report dated 01/14/20 and resident #1’s medical report. On today’s visit, LPA Tao met with Administrator, Lorenzona Medina and CEO, Rodrigo E. Ramos and discussed the complaint investigation findings. The investigation consisted of interviews with staff and residents; review of facility records for R1 an R2, and R1’s medical records. Regarding allegation: Lack of supervision results in resident being assaulted on several occasions by another resident. It was alleged that R1 was being physically assaulted by R2 on several occasions and staff were not providing care and supervision. Interviews with six (6) out of six (6) staff revealed they were not aware of the incident between R1 & R2 in which R1 was being assaulted by R2 and staff were not aware of a resident being assaulted by another resident. All six (6) staff stated they did not witness or hear any noise from resident’s (R1 & R2) room during the alleged incident. LPA interviewed seven (7) residents, five (5) out of seven (7) residents revealed that they were not aware of an incident between residents in which a resident was being assaulted by another resident and staff did not intervene. LPA interviewed R2 indicated that R2 denied hitting R1 or having an altercation with R1. LPA interviewed R1 indicated that on the morning of 01/14/20, S2 observed R1’s left hand was swollen and asked R1 what happened. R1 reported to S2 that R2 hit R1 with a cane during an argument in the resident’s room. LPA interviewed administrator who indicated that R1 and R2 have been roommates for several years. Administrator stated that an incident between R1 and R2 occurred on 01/14/20, in which staff observed R1 to have a swollen hand, staff had immediately obtained medical treatment for R1. Administrator stated that R1 and R2 had no prior history of having altercations with one another and this was a one-time incident. (-Continued in LIC 9099 C-) ***This Licensing report supersedes the original complaint investigation report created dated 03/24/22. The finding remains the same as in the prior licensing report -Unsubstantiated. *** The investigation revealed that an incident occurred on 01/14/20 between R1 and R2, in which R1 was sustained injury to left hand and required medical attention. S2 immediately sent R1 for medical treatment. R1 was treated for two fractured fingers in the left hand. Medical staff reported the incident to local law enforcement and R2 was arrested for assaulting R1. Per the review of the special incident report, dated 01/14/20, it indicated that S2 observed R1 had a swollen hand and asked what occurred. R1 informed S2 that R2 hit him with a cane. S2 then sent R1 for medical treatment and R1 was treated for finger fractures of the left hand. Administrator placed R1 and R2 into different rooms on 01/15/20 in order to ensure R1 and R2 safety. Administrator reported the incident report, dated 01/14/20, to Licensing timely. Based on interviews conducted with staff and residents; records reviewed, including incident report dated 01/14/20; R1’s medical records review, dated 01/15/20; local law enforcement report #20-2887 review, dated 01/15/20, the investigation did not reveal that staff failed to provide adequate care and supervision to R1 and/or R2 and did not reveal that R1 and R2 had a prior history of having altercations with one another. Therefore, this is insufficient evidence to support the allegation that resident was being assaulted by other resident due to lack of supervision. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur. Therefore, the allegation is unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator, Lorenzona Medina, and CEO, Rodrigo E. Ramos. A hard copy of this licensing report was provided during today’s visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 7, 2022 · control 28-AS-20200121173041
Mar 24, 2022Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Lack of supervision results in resident being assualted on several occasions by another resident.
***This Licensing report supersedes the original complaint investigation report created dated 04/15/21. The finding remains the same as in the prior licensing report -Unsubstantiated. *** On 01/23/20, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Tao conducted an initial ten-day visit and met with Administrator/ Licensee, Rodrigo E. Ramos. During visit, LPA interviewed the CEO and Resident #1 and toured the physical plant. LPA also reviewed and obtained copies of the documents listed below in reference to resident #1 and resident #2; Physician report; Identification and emergency information; Resident’s appraisal; Resident’s handbooks; Personal rights; Individual service plan; incident report for incident on 1/14/20; Police report receipt / number. LPA obtained copies of the on-job training log of staff #2, #3 and #4. On 04/15/21, LPA Tao conducted a subsequent visit. Due to the situation surrounding the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), and to implement mitigation measures, the complaint investigation was conducted virtually with Administrator. (-Continued in LIC 9099 C-) Unsubstantiated ***This Licensing report supersedes the original complaint investigation report created dated 04/15/21. The finding remains the same as in the prior licensing report -Unsubstantiated. *** During the subsequent visit, LPA interviewed staff #1 through staff #6 and resident #1 through resident #7. LPA obtained Resident roster, Staff roster, incident report dated 01/14/20 and resident #1’s medical report. On today’s visit, LPA Tao met with Administrator, Lorenzona Medina and CEO, Rodrigo E. Ramos and discussed the complaint investigation findings. The investigation consisted of interviews with staff and residents; review of facility records for R1 an R2, and R1’s medical records. Regarding allegation: Lack of supervision results in resident being assaulted on several occasions by another resident. It was alleged that R1 was being physically assaulted by R2 on several occasions and staff were not providing care and supervision. The investigation revealed the following: Interviews with six (6) out of six (6) staff revealed they were not acknowledged of the incident. Staff stated they did not witness or hear any noise from R1 and R2’s room during the incident. Interviews with five (5) out of seven (7) resident revealed that they were not acknowledged of the incident. Interviews with administrator indicated that R1 and R2 have been roommate for several years and an incident between R1 and R2 occurred on 01/14/20. Administrator stated that R1 and R2 had no prior history of having altercations with one another. LPA interviewed with R2 indicated that R2 denied hitting R1 or having an altercation with R1. LPA interviewed with R1 indicated that on the morning of 01/14/20, staff #2 (facility caregiver) observed R1’s left hand was swollen and asked R1 what happened. R1 reported to S2 that R2 hit R1 with a cane during an argument in the resident’s room. Staff #2 immediately sent R1 for medical treatment. R1 was treated for two fractured fingers in the left hand. Medical staff reported the abuse to local law enforcement and R2 was arrested for assaulting R1. Per the review of the special incident report, dated 01/14/20, it indicated that S2 observed R1 had a swollen hand and asked what occurred. R1 informed S2 that R2 hit him with a cane. S2 then sent R1 for medical treatment and R1 was treated for finger fractures of the left hand. Administrator placed R1 and R2 into different rooms on 01/15/20 in order to ensure R1 and R2 safety. Administrator reported the incident report, dated 01/14/20, to Licensing timely. (-Continued in LIC 9099 C-) ***This Licensing report supersedes the original complaint investigation report created dated 04/15/21. The finding remains the same as in the prior licensing report -Unsubstantiated. *** On 01/14/20, during the night of the incident between roommates of R1 & R2, in which R1 required medical care, staff assisted R1 in obtaining medical care in timely manner upon staff being made aware of the incident. Based on interviews conducted with staff and residents, including R1 & R2; documents review, including incident report dated 01/14/20; R1’s medical records review, dated 01/15/20; local law enforcement report #20-2887 review, dated 01/15/20, the investigation did not reveal that staff failed to provide adequate care and supervision to R1 or R2 and did not reveal that R1 and R2 had a prior history of having altercations with one another. Therefore, the is insufficient evidence to support the allegation that resident was being assaulted by other resident due to lack of supervision. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur. Therefore, the allegation is unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator, Lorenzona Medina,and CEO, Rodrigo E. Ramos, A hard copy of this licensing report was provided during visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 24, 2022 · control 28-AS-20200121173041
20214 state visits · 4 documents
Dec 20, 2021Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Resident was spoken to inappropriately while in care. Resident was not provided assistance with eating while in care.
On 12/20/21 Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Jade Jordan, conducted an Unannounced complaint visit. Regarding the allegation(s) above. The LPA was met by Facility Administrator Lorenzona Medina,And the purpose of the visit was explained. The Investigation consisted of the following: Interviews with Staff and Residents in Care, Record Review, and Physical tour. Regarding Allegation: Resident was spoken to inappropriately while in care. Interviews with staff, including Administrator revealed that they have not witnessed any residents in care being spoken to inappropriately by other staff, nor have any residents complained to them about being spoken to inappropriately. Interviews with residents 1-3 (R1, R2,R3,R4) revealed that R1-R3 generally stated that they receive assistance, and that staff are speaking, and treating them with respect. Based on interviews conducted the LPA finds that Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated. Unsubstantiated Regarding Allegation: Resident was not provided assistance with eating while in care. Interview with Staff revealed that there are 4 residents In care who need assistance with eating. Interviews with staff revealed that Residents 1-3 can feed themselves but need assistance to make sure That they do not aspirate. Staff stated that they stay in the room with the resident when food is provided. Interviews with residents in care revealed that those who need assistance with eating do receive it, and that staff stay with them. Therefore; based on interviews conducted, and record review the LPA finds that: Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated. An Exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report was provided. No citations were issued during this visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 20, 2021 · control 11-AS-20211216105735
Jul 15, 2021Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Authorized representative found resident naked with no body covering with the air conditioning on. The staff did not seek medical attention for resident.
On 07/15/21 Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Jade Jordan conducted a subsequent visit in regardsTo the allegations above. LPA was met by Administrator Elvie Medina, and the Purpose of the visit was explained. The Investigation Revealed: In regard to: Authorized representative found resident naked with no body covering with the air conditioning on. On 06/24/21 The Reporting Party (RP) found Resident 1 (R1) in her room with no clothes. R1 was not alert when she was found. Interviews were conducted with staff (S1-4) who worked from 6am-2pm. (S1-2) Am staff stated, including Administrator that they observed R1 to be clothed prior to shift changed on 06/24/21. The next change of shift started at 2pm. During this shift R1’s Authorized Representative/RP found R1 in her room without clothes in just a sheet. LPA interviewed a total of 5 Caregivers from Morning shift (6am-2pm) and Afternoon shift (2pm-10pm), and three Med Tech’s who work Am, and Pm on that day. Unsubstantiated All staff interviewed stated that R1 did not request for assistance, to be dressed or undressed. LPA interviewed R1 and R1 stated she had no idea why she was undressed on 06/24/21 and that she really doesn’t know. She answered LPA that she can dress and undress herself. R1 doesn’t not have a diagnosis of Dementia, but Physician Report indicates some forgetfulness. On 06/24/21 R1 was still recovering from a body rash known as shingles. Based On Lpa interviews conducted with staff and R1, it is unclear how the resident became unclothed. Therefore; although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated. In Regard to: The staff did not seek medical attention for resident. On 06/06/21 R1 was observed by Med Tech 1 to have multiple severe rashes on body. Med Tech 1 contacted the Dr. Reid and provided pictures of the rash to the Doctor. The Doctor advised R1 needs to be sent to the hospital ASAP. RP was contacted by Med Tech 1 via text on 06/06/21. Med Tech informed in text that R1 has “Severe Rash” and was being sent to Long Beach Memorial. RP was contacted again via text 06/07/21 by Med Tech 1, that R1 had returned to the facility. According to Discharge Paperwork. R1 was diagnosed with Cellulitis (skin Infection) Fungal Skin Rash, and Shingles. On 06/24/21 the paramedics were called by the facility when R1’s vitals were low. According to interviews with RP, R1 was having a hard time being woken up. R1 was sent to the hospital. During file Review it was observed by LPA that R1 opted to voluntarily discharge herself against Medical advice on 06/25/21. R1 returned to the Assisted Living Facility with Shingles Diagnosis along with another diagnosis, and medical advice. Based on Lpa interviews, file review, and observation the department finds that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated. An exit interview conducted and copy this report given administrator. No citations were issued during this visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 15, 2021 · control 11-AS-20210708145101
May 20, 2021Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Residents do not have access to water Residents are isolated in their rooms
“This a recreation of report delivered on 5/20/2021 by LPA Erik Brown. This report has not been altered and is being recreated for the record. Original signature will be on file.” On this date, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Erik Brown conducted an unannounced subsequent complaint visit to this facility. Upon arrival, LPA was met by Administrator Elvie Medina. LPA explained the purpose of today's visit. During the initial virtual visit on 12/16/2020, LPA Brown conducted a FaceTime tour of the facility. LPA Brown requested a copy of the staff and resident rosters. During the visit on 5/6/2021, LPA interviewed Residents #1-4 (R1-4) and Staff #1-3 (S1-3) regarding the complaint allegations. During today's visit, LPA conducted a physical tour of the facility and observed pitchers of water inside of residents' rooms. LPA observed resident eating at a social distance in the dining room. LPA interviewed staff #4-5 and Residents #5-6 regarding the complaint allegations. Unsubstantiated Based on interviews with resident and staff, there does not appear to be an issue with residents not being able to get water when they want it. Residents also generally stated that they were either not isolated or isolated for their own protection against Covid-19. Based on LPA Brown's observations and the interviews that were conducted, although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator Elvie Medina and a copy of this report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 20, 2021 · control 11-AS-20201215141753
May 19, 2021Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Resident has sustained multiple unwitnessed falls at the facility resulting in hospitalization
****This is an Amended Report of Complaint Intiated 01/12/21; Due to Corona Virus 19, the complaint investigation was conducted virtually, the findings of this report has not changed, and were delivered 05-19-21 to Administrator Elivie Medina******* Investigation Consisted of : On 01/12//21 Resident Interviews, Staff Interviews, Record Review of Resident Roster, incident reports for the month of Dec 2020 related to falls, were conducted. Regarding allegation: Resident Sustained Multiple Unwitnessed falls at facility resulting in hospitalization It was alleged that Resident had multiple unwitnessed falls, resulting in hospitalization. R1 stated that they had fallen out of their wheelchair, due to one leg being shorter. Currently awaiting a proper sized wheelchair. Interviews conducted with administrator revealed that R1 has issues with Methamphetamines, which has attributed to unwitnessed falls in the last month. Interviews conducted with R1 admits to drug use at the facility. Interviews conducted with Residents 1-4 indicated they have no issues with falls. Based on interviews, Record Review and observation the Department finds “Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated. An Exit interview conducted Copy of this report provided no citations issued. Unsubstantiatedthe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 19, 2021 · control 11-AS-20210104094959
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.
57 of 120 beds were occupied at the August 14, 2026 state visit — a count on that day, not an opening.
License holder
La Casa Primavera, Inc., licensed since 2006.
The state’s totals for this licenseSince 2006, as the state’s facility page counts them
- State visits on file
- 28
- Total complaints
- 14
- Substantiated allegations
- 4
- Type A citations
- 2
- Type B citations
- 3
These are the state’s own totals for this license since 2006, 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 | 2 | 0 |
| Type B citations | 3 | 1 |
| Substantiated allegations | 4 | 2 |
| Total complaints | 14 | 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 Hacienda Grande Senior Assisted Living
Is Hacienda Grande Senior Assisted Living licensed?
The state lists this license as “Licensed,” per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
How many residents is Hacienda Grande Senior Assisted Living licensed for?
120 residents — a large community, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
Has Hacienda Grande Senior Assisted Living been cited?
2 Type A and 3 Type B citations since 2006, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026. Those records count 28 state visits over the same years.
Is Hacienda Grande Senior Assisted Living still open?
This license was on the CDSS roster as of November 10, 2026.
What does Hacienda Grande Senior Assisted Living cost?
$3,250 a month to start is a Covelight estimate, likely $2,550–$4,150. 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 9 communities with 50 or more beds within 5 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 8 other homes of a similar licensed size in Long Beach that publish a starting rate, the middle half runs $2,498 to $3,835 a month, and the middle figure is $2,850 (n = 8 other homes publishing a starting rate).
Each of those is a home’s own published figure, gathered on its own date in September 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. What Medi-Cal’s Assisted Living Waiver covers in a care home.
Does Hacienda Grande Senior Assisted Living take Medi-Cal?
On Medi-Cal’s Assisted Living Waiver: this home appears on the DHCS participation list, October 1, 2026. Confirm eligibility and current participation with the program. The waiver pays for care services, not room and board.
Who holds the license?
The license is held by La Casa Primavera, Inc., per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
Is there a hospital nearby?
St. Mary Medical Center is 2.3 miles away in a straight line, per the CDPH licensed-hospital list dated September 16, 2026. See licensed care homes near it.
Can Hacienda Grande Senior Assisted Living keep a resident on hospice?
Hospice care is approved on this license, covering up to 10 residents, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
Hacienda Grande Senior Assisted Living license and inspection record
- Name on the license: “HACIENDA GRANDE SENIOR ASSISTED LIVING”, per the CDSS roster as of May 25, 2025.
- License #198205024. The state lists this license as “Licensed,” per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
- Licensed for 120 residents — a large community, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
- Licensed to La Casa Primavera, Inc., per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
- First licensed in 2006, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
- 28 state inspection visits since 2006, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
- 2 Type A and 3 Type B citations on file since 2006, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026. The same records count 28 state visits in that period.
- 14 complaints and 4 substantiated allegations on file since 2006, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026. One complaint can carry several allegations.
- The most recent state visit on file is October 23, 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 Los Angeles County, most information on file first. Every listed home appears on the same terms.
- Map
Starting rate
$2,200 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
Starting rate
$6,000 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
- Hospice: on the state record
- Map
Starting rate
$4,000 a month to start
Listed by the home on Seniorly · September 9, 2026On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Map
Estimated starting rate
$5,450 a month to start
Covelight estimate · likely $4,450–$6,700On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Dementia: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Bedridden: on the state record
- Map
Estimated starting rate
$5,550 a month to start
Covelight estimate · likely $4,550–$6,850On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Dementia: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Bedridden: on the state record
- Map
Estimated starting rate
$5,550 a month to start
Covelight estimate · likely $4,550–$6,850On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Dementia: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Bedridden: on the state record
Street maps © Protomaps · © OpenStreetMap
Explore Los Angeles County