Huntington House

Type of visit: Case Management - Health Checks

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Angelica Boyles conducted a health and safety visit for one resident relocated from New World Villa North. LPA was welcomed by, and identified herself to Caregiver Ruth Gutierrez and discussed the purpose of the visit. LPA conducted a brief tour and spoke with residents and staff. LPA observed medication for the relocated resident was locked and centrally stored. LPA also reviewed the relocated resident's records. LPA did not observe any health or safety concerns. No deficiencies were cited during today's visit. An exit interview was conducted with Caregiver - Ruth Gutierrez to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided at the conclusion of the visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Sep 14, 2026

Allegation investigated: Facility fire alarm service was terminated

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Angelica Boyles conducted an unannounced visit to initiate a complaint investigation regarding the above-mentioned allegation. LPA identified herself and met with staff Gerald Madla. Chief Operating Officer Lynn Drummond later joined the visit and LPA discussed the purpose of the visit and elements of the complaint. The Reporting Pary provided the Department with a letter from a fire alarm service company dated June 29, 2026 which stated that based upon failure to pay past due invoices the fire alarm monitoring and testing services would be discontinued by July 30, 2026. (Continued on LIC 9099-C) Unsubstantiated (Continued from LIC 9099) Staff provided LPA with email records that revealed the Administrator followed up with the fire alarm service company to prevent the cancellation. A representative from the company confirmed via email to the Administrator that the facility account had been brought current and the cancellations have stopped. Further records confirmed the facility payment to the fire alarm service company was processed and approved on July 8, 2026. The Department has investigated the above-mentioned allegation. Based upon the information obtained during this investigation, it is determined that the preponderance of evidence was not met to support or corroborate this allegation and therefore deemed unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Chief Operating Officer Lynn Drummond, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee’s Rights (LIC9058 01/16) were provided at the conclusion of the visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 13, 2026 · control 08-AS-20260708150124

Type of visit: Case Management - Other

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Angelica Boyles conducted an unannounced Case Management visit to review and collect facility records. LPA was welcomed by, identified herself to, and discussed the purpose of the visit with Lynn Drummond Chief Operating Officer. LPA briefly toured the facility, collected pertinent records, performed a health and safety welfare check on residents in care, and spoke with staff. No deficiencies were observed or cited during today's visit. An exit interview was conducted with LynnDrummond Chief Operating Officer, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 7, 2026

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Ramon Serrano conducted an unannounced Required Annual Inspection. LPA was allowed entry and discussed the purpose of the visit with Chief Operating Officer Lynn Drummond. LPA was then assisted by Caregiver Edelina Patio.According to the facility’s license, the facility has a maximum capacity for six (6) residents, of whom all may be ambulatory or non-ambulatory, and three (3) may be bedridden. LPA, accompanied by Caregiver toured the interior and exterior of the facility, and inspected resident rooms. The facility was clean, sanitary, and in good repair. Pathways were free of obstruction and slip hazards. Resident bedrooms contained the required furnishings. Doors, windows, toilets, and showers were in working order. Both the hot water temperature and the ambient temperature were at compliant readings. Extra linens and hygiene supplies were present, as well as Personal Protective Equipment. The facility had sufficient space and equipment to facilitate dining, laundry, visitation, meetings, and resident activities. There was at least 2 days of perishable food, and at least 7 days non-perishable food present, all safely stored. Cooking/dining equipment and utensils were present. There were no toxic chemicals/poisons accessible to residents. Medications were labeled, as required, and stored in locked areas. Their are no bodies of water on the premises.. Per Caregiver, no firearms or ammunition are kept at the facility. Carbon monoxide detectors, emergency lighting, and facility telephone were all working. Fire extinguisher(s) were present. First aid kit(s) were complete and readily accessible. Required licensing postings were observed in visible areas of the facility. [CONTINUED ON LIC 809-C] LPA reviewed multiple staff and resident records/files. LPA records review did not raise any licensing concerns. The files which LPA reviewed contained required documents. Confidential records were stored in locked areas. No deficiencies were observed or cited during today's annual inspection. An exit interview was conducted with Edelina Patio whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided during the visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 22, 2026

Allegation investigated: Unlawful Eviction Personal Rights

LPA Correia conducted an unannounced visit to the facility to commence and conclude a complaint investigation. Upon arrival, LPA was greeted by the Chief Operating Officer (COO). LPA identified herself, was granted entry, and explained the purpose of the visit. On March 19, 2026, the Department received a complaint that alleged unlawful eviction and personal rights violation. The investigation included staff and outside source interviews, and a review of facility records, resident records, and documentation relevant to the allegations. An interview conducted with Outside Source 1 (OS1) revealed Staff 1 (S1) notified them that Resident 1’s (R1’s) wound needed medical attention. OS1 reported they observed the wound dressing, and it appeared red but intact and that a small amount of possible blood drainage was visible on R1’s brief. S1 informed OS1 that the COO instructed staff to call 911 and had contacted Hospice. Substantiated OS1 stated they also contacted Hospice, who responded to the facility, assessed R1, and determined R1’s vital signs were stable with minor wound drainage. Hospice informed OS1 that an evaluation at a hospital would be reasonable. Based on this, OS1 requested non-emergency medical transport rather than 911 transport, and Hospice agreed. OS1 also requested that R1 be transported to a specific hospital where R1’s established specialists were located, which Hospice also confirmed was appropriate. It was also revealed that the Emergency transport (OSA1) from the original 911 call had arrived and provided OS1 that R1’s vital signs were normal, and the wound showed no active bleeding. OS1 also stated contacting the COO with this information and requested non-emergency transport. According to OS1, the COO agreed. It was revealed that then the Emergency transport (from the original call) discharged R1 while they were still at the facility. However, OS1 stated the facility contacted 911 again and R1 was transferred to an Emergency Room (ER). OS1 stated the COO later contacted them and informed them they did not have the authority to make requests for staff. The COO further stated that if OS1 continued calling, R1 would not be allowed to return to the facility, and they would be contacting the police. The COO then text messaged OS1 they were calling 911 and ended the call. OS1 reported sending text messages attempting to determine R1’s location after transport. The COO responded, “you are being told not to interfere.” Around 11:00 PM, a staff member texted OS1 and reported that the COO instructed staff not to allow R1 back into the facility unless staff contacted the COO first. OS1 attempted to reach the COO multiple times but did not receive a response. With no information provided by the facility, OS1 visited multiple emergency rooms that were able to provide OS1 R1’s location. OS1 found R1 in the ER, accompanied by the emergency transport, who also reported R1 was stable. OS1 disclosed R1’s wound dressing must have been changed at some point prior to their evaluation by the ER Physician, no bleeding or wound issues were observed, and pictures were secured and provided to the Department. At approximately 6:30 AM, hospital staff informed OS1 that R1 was ready for discharge and that facility staff confirmed they would readmit R1. R1 was transported by ambulance back to the facility, with OS1 following. Upon arrival, staff informed OS1 that the COO had directed them not to allow R1 back into the facility or their room. R1 and OS1 remained outside. OS1 contacted Hospice, who stated the facility could not refuse R1’s return. Hospice attempted to contact the COO. Staff attempted to connect with the COO by phone; however, OS1 overheard the COO decline to speak. Emergency medical personnel then spoke with the COO for several minutes. After this communication, EMT staff informed OS1 that R1 would need to return to the hospital. EMT personnel stated this decision was made by the COO and the facility owner and confirmed they were unable to compel the facility to accept R1. R1 was transported back to the hospital. During an interview, the COO stated that when R1 returned to the facility, staff communicated concerns regarding whether the facility could continue meeting R1’s care needs. The COO reported instructing staff not to readmit R1 until the COO had an opportunity to reassess whether R1 could remain safely at the facility. Because their reassessment had not yet been completed. An additional interview conducted with Outside Source 3 (OS3) disclosed they informed the COO that the facility could not refuse R1’s return and that Licensing would be contacted if R1 was denied readmission. OS3 reported advising the COO that a facility must readmit a resident after being released from a hospital or ER stay, unless a qualified professional has documented that the resident requires relocation or a higher level of care and the Department was notified, which had not been provided. While at the emergency room, OS1 received a call from R1’s Hospice agency indicating the facility reported that R1 required a higher level of care and could not return to the facility. OS3 also revealed speaking with Outside Source 4 (OS4) who corroborated the facility being in violation for not allowing R1 back into the facility/their room. [see LIC 811 for confidential name list]. Based on interviews, documentation reviewed, and corroborating statements, the allegation that the facility refused to re-admit R1 and failed to follow required procedures regarding resident acceptance, as well as violation of personal rights were determined to be substantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Jabul Gozales and a copy of the report and appeal rights were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 26, 2026 · control 08-AS-20260319110638

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type A · Section cited: CCR 87468.2(a)(20) · Plan of correction due date: Mar 27, 2026

Additional Personal Rights of Residents... (a) ... residents in privately operated residential care facilities for the elderly shall have all...personal rights: (20) ... A licensee shall not involuntarily transfer or evict residents for reasons other than those permitted by state law or regulations and shall comply with all eviction and relocation protections for residents. For purposes of this paragraph, "involuntary" means a transfer, discharge, or eviction that is initiated by the licensee, not by the resident. This requirement was not met as evidenced by: Based on interveiws and record reviews R1 was not allowed back in the facility after a hospital stay and determined stable by medical professional. This posed an immediate risk to 1 out of 4 residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 26, 2026

Plan of correction: The Licensee and COO agreed to take a CCL certified training regarding eviction procedures. Certificate of completion will be provided by the POC due date.

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87468.1(a)(9) · Plan of correction due date: Apr 27, 2026

1 Personal Rights of Residents... (a) Residents in all...l care facilities for the elderly shall have all of the following personal rights: (9) To have communications to the licensee from their representatives answered promptly and appropriately. This requirement was not met as evidenced by: Based on interviews and record reviews R1's representative was denied communication by facility staff regarding their care decisions. This posed a potential personal rights risk to 1 out of 4 residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 26, 2026

Plan of correction: The Licensee and COO agreed to take a CCL certified training regarding Personal Rights. Certificate of completion will be provided by the POC due date.

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Dang Nguyen made an unannounced visit to conduct a Required Annual Inspection. LPA was welcomed by, identified himself to, and discussed the purpose of the visit with Caregiver Honeylet Castro Verde. LPA then met with Licensee Principal Zayden Chen and Chief Operations Officer (COO) Lynn Drummond, who arrived shortly after. According to the facility’s license, the facility has a maximum capacity for six (6) residents, of whom all may be ambulatory or non-ambulatory, and three (3) may be bedridden. Per LPA observation, LIC602 Physician’s Reports, and staff interviews: During today’s inspection, there were a total of seven (7) residents in care, of whom four (4) were non-ambulatory and three (3) were bedridden. [The issue of the facility currently being over-capacity was already addressed; Licensee was cited/fined for it on 08/26/2025. Licensee’s application requesting an increase in capacity is pending / under review with CCLD.] The facility’s license does not include endorsements for delayed-egress doors or secured perimeters, and none of these were present. LPA, accompanied by Licensee’s staff, toured the interior and exterior of the facility and inspected all common areas and resident bedrooms. LPA interviewed multiple residents and multiple staff. LPA reviewed care records for all current residents, and personnel records for all active staff. [CONTINUED ON LIC 809-C, 1 of 2] [CONTINUED FROM LIC 809] The facility was clean, sanitary, and in good repair. Pathways were free of obstruction and slip hazards. Resident bedrooms contained the required furnishings. Doors, windows and screens, toilets, and showers were working. Extra linens and hygiene supplies were present. The facility had sufficient space and equipment to facilitate dining, laundry, visitation, meetings, and resident activities. The facility’s ambient internal temperature was complaint at 73 F. Where tested, hot water temperature at taps accessible to residents were all compliant: Bathroom #1 Sink was 115.5 F, Bathroom #2 Sink was 115.7 F, Bathroom #3 Sink was 113.2 F, Bathroom #4 Sink was 118 F, Bathroom #5 Sink was 118 F, and Bathroom #6 Sink was 117.9 F. Appliances to preserve perishable food were also compliant in temperature. There was at least two (2) days of perishable food, and at least seven (7) days non-perishable food present, all safely stored. Cooking/dining equipment and utensils were present. There were no sharp objects, toxic chemicals/poisons, or open-faced heaters accessible to residents. Medications were labeled, as required, and stored in locked areas. Confidential records were stored in locked areas. Required licensing postings were observed in visible areas of the facility. Carbon monoxide detector, smoke detectors, emergency lighting, and facility telephone were all working. The facility’s fire extinguisher had been serviced within the last twelve (12) months. No fireplace or pools/bodies of water were observed on the premises. Per the Licensee, no firearms or ammunition are kept at the facility. There were reserve supplies of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), and staff had been trained on PPE within the last (12) months, as required. Licensee presented proof of current business liability insurance. Licensee is Limited Liability Company (LLC) registered in California. As of today’s visit, the LLC had a “Forfeited” status with the State Franchise Tax Board (FTB). Regulation required Licensee to ensure that its governing body was active and functioning, to assure accountability. [During today's visit, Licensee E-mailed their accountant and instructed them to pay all taxes and/or fees owed to the FTB, which is necessary to bring the LLC back into good standing. Licensee agreed to continue to oversee the matter to completion.] [CONTINUED ON LIC 809-C, 2 of 2] [CONTINUED FROM LIC 809-C, 1 of 2] During a review of care records, LPA observed, and manager interview confirmed: Resident #1 (R1) through Resident #5 (R5) were each diagnosed with Dementia, per their respective physician’s reports, which also said these residents would not be safe to leave the facility without escort. [See LIC811 Confidential Names List for a description of select person identifiers used in this report.] However, Licensee did not ensure that the facility’s exterior exit doors had working staff alert devices installed on them, as required when caring for such residents. Also, Licensee did not have documentation that 4 of 7 residents [R1, R2, R4, and Resident #6 (R6)] received an annual routine visit with their respective licensed medical professional, also known as an annual “physical” or “check-up” (or documentation of the resident and/or responsible person’s refusal), as required. During a review of personnel records, LPA observed, and manager interview confirmed: 3 of 10 staff [Staff #1 (S1) through Staff #3 (S3)] did not complete the minimum twenty (20) hours of continuing training within the last rolling year, as required. [Regulation requires 20 hours per direct care staff, of which 8 must be on Dementia care and 4 must be related to postural supports, restricted health conditions, and hospice care.] Also, Licensee did not ensure that 2 of 10 staff [Staff #4 (S4) and Staff #5 (S5)] had current training in First Aid from a qualified source, as required. Five (5) deficiencies were cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22 (refer to the LIC809-D pages). Plans of Correction were jointly developed with the Licensee. LPA also issued one (1) Technical Violation (TV) regarding Disaster Drills (refer to the LIC9102-TV page). An exit interview was conducted with Licensee Principal, Zayden Chen, to whom a copy of this report, the LIC 809-D pages, the LIC9102-TV page, and the LIC811 Confidential Names List, and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided during today’s visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Oct 3, 2025

Allegation investigated: Licensee operated the facility over capacity.

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Dang Nguyen conducted an unannounced visit to commence a Complaint Investigation regarding the above allegation. LPA was welcomed by, identified himself to, and discussed the purpose of the visit with Caregiver Rosario "Pie" Sales. The Complainant alleged that Licensee operated the facility over capacity. CCLD’s investigation involved an unannounced facility tour/welfare check and interviews of relevant staff, residents, and outside sources. The Department also reviewed pertinent administrative and care records. According to the facility’s current/active CCLD-issued license (which also corresponds with the facility’s latest Fire Clearance) the facility is currently licensed to care for a maximum of six (6) residents. [CONTINUED ON LIC 9099-C] Substantiated [CONTINUED FROM LIC 9099] During today’s visit, LPA observed, and staff interviews confirmed: The facility currently has seven (7) residents in care. Records and staff interviews showed that the seventh resident, Resident #7 (R7), moved into the facility on 08/25/2025. [See LIC811 Confidential Names List for a description of select person identifiers used in this report.] Per LPA observation, R7 is currently in a bedroom with one other housemate/roommate. The room they share is sufficiently large/spacious to comfortably accommodate both residents, and this bedroom also has its own bathroom. The room has an immediate exterior exit door, which is appropriate for R7’s non-ambulatory status (per their latest LIC602 Physician's Report). CCLD had prior received an application from Licensee to increase the facility’s capacity. However, this application is still pending / in process, and Licensee was not yet authorized to have more than six (6) residents in care at this time. Based on records and interviews, a preponderance of evidence exists to show that Licensee operated the facility over capacity. The allegation is therefore Substantiated. One (1) deficiency was cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22 (refer to the attached LIC 9099-D page). Since the deficiency is also a violation of the facility’s Fire Clearance, an Immediate Civil Penalty of $500 was also assessed/charged (refer to the LIC421-IM page). A Plan of Correction was jointly developed with the Licensee. An exit interview was conducted with Caregiver Rosario "Pie" Sales, to whom a copy of this report, the LIC 9099-D page, the LIC421-IM page, the LIC811 Confidential Names List, and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided. An electronic set of these same documents was E-mailed to Chief Operating Officer Lynn Drummond during today's visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 26, 2025 · control 08-AS-20250826143902

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type A · Section cited: CCR 87204(a) · Plan of correction due date: Aug 26, 2025

87204 Limitations - Capacity and Ambulatory Status: “(a) A licensee shall not operate a facility beyond the conditions and limitations specified on the license, including specification of the maximum number of persons who may receive services at any one time.” This requirement was not met, as evidenced by: Based on LPA observation, records, and interviews, Licensee operated the facility beyond the conditions and limitations specified on the license, including specification of the maximum number of persons who may receive services at any one time. This posed an immediate health and safety risk to 1 of 7 residents (R7) in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 26, 2025

Plan of correction: Based on LPA observation and record review, the bedroom shared by R7 and their housemate is sufficiently large to comfortably accommodate both residents and has an immediate exit door appropriate to R7’s non-ambulatory status. Licensee’s application to increase facility capacity is pending with CCLD, resolving the immediate risk. No further action is required yet. If the described application is subsequently not approved, Licensee agrees to relocate R7 to come back into compliance.

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Juliana Barfield conducted an unannounced Required Annual Inspection. The facility file was reviewed prior to the visit. LPA was welcomed by, identified herself to, and discussed the purpose of the visit with Administrator Tess Derafera. According to the facility’s license, the facility has a maximum capacity of six (6) residents, all of whom may be non-ambulatory and three (3) may be bedridden. There is a hospice waiver for six (6) residents. During today’s inspection, there were a total of six (6) residents in care. LPA, accompanied by Derafera, toured the interior and exterior of the facility, and inspected each room. Pathways were free of obstruction and slip hazards. Client bedrooms contained the required furnishings. Extra linens and hygiene supplies were present, as well as Personal Protective Equipment. The facility had sufficient space and equipment to facilitate dining, laundry, visitation, meetings, and client activities. Hot water temperature at taps accessible to clients were all compliant. There was at least two (2) days supply of perishable food, and at least seven (7) days non-perishable food present. Cooking/dining equipment and utensils were present. There were no sharp objects, toxic chemicals/poisons, fireplaces, or open-faced heaters observed available to clients. Medications were labeled, as required, and stored in locked areas. (CONTINUED ON LIC809-C) (CONTINUED FROM LIC809) No pools or bodies of water were observed on the premises. Per Derafera, no firearms or ammunition are kept at the facility. Smoke alarms, carbon monoxide detectors, emergency lighting, and facility telephone were all working. Fire extinguisher(s) were serviced within the last 12 months. First aid kit(s) were complete and readily accessible. Confidential records were stored in locked areas. No deficiencies were observed or cited during today's annual inspection. LPA issued two (2) technical violations. An exit interview was conducted with Derafera to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided during the visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 19, 2024