Graces Home.
Graces Home is Ranked in the top 40% of California memory care with 16 CDSS citations on record; last inspected May 2026.
A small home, reviewed on public record.
Compared to 152 California facilities with a similar number of beds.
RCFE memory care · 36-month window. Higher percentile = better performance on inspection record. Source: California Dept. of Social Services · Community Care Licensing.
among peers to rank.
Rankings based on 36-month CDSS inspection data. Severity and frequency: fewer citations = higher percentile. Repeat rate: lower repeat citation share = higher percentile.
FACILITY WATCH · FREE
Graces Home has 16 citations on record. Know the moment anything changes.
New findings, complaint investigations, or status changes — emailed to you free.
Where are you in the process? (optional)
Citation history, plotted month by month.
16 deficiencies on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.
Finding distribution
16 total · 36 monthsScope × Severity (CMS A–L)
The rules that apply to this facility.
State requirements with the exact regulation citation, plain-language explanation, and a question to ask on tour. Rules this facility has been cited for appear first.
Plain language
Because a facility markets dementia or Alzheimer's care, state law mandates higher training standards: 12 hours of initial dementia training (6 hours before a staff member works independently with residents, 6 more within the first 4 weeks), 8 hours of annual dementia in-service every year thereafter, and an administrator must include 8 hours of dementia-specific continuing education in every 2-year recertification cycle. Training must cover individualized care plans, behavioral expressions, appropriate supervision, and the facility's dementia care philosophy.
Ask on tour
“Can you show me each direct-care staffer's most recent dementia training certificate, and tell me when their next refresher is due?”
Questions to ask before you visit.
A short pre-tour checklist tailored to Graces Home's record and state requirements.
The facility has 18 serious citations on file across all inspections — can you provide your corrective-action plan for each cited item, and show families any documentation of remediation steps taken?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
Nine complaints are on file with CDSS — were any substantiated, and what remediation did the facility take in response to substantiated findings?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
The facility has 4 citations under §87705 or §87706 dementia-care regulations — can you provide the written dementia-care program required by §87705 and explain what corrective action was taken for each cited deficiency?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
Every inspection visit, verbatim.
15 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.
2026-05-11Complaint InvestigationNo findings
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On today's date Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) William Vanegas made an unannounced visit for the purposes of conducting a plan of correction visit. In regard to deficiencies that were issued on April 23, 2026. Upon arrival LPA was greeted and granted entry to the facility by Administrator (AD) Ngoc "Nick" Mai. LPA explained the purpose of the visit, and began a tour of the facility. LPA observed the following. LPA observed residents to be lounging in the common areas of the facility, and eating breakfast. LPA began a tour of the outside of the facility and observed the following. LPA observed outdoor shaded sitting area to still be inaccessible to residents in care. LPA also observed many miscellaneous items and debris to be around the facilities backyard. LPA observed at least one side exit to be clear of debris and was accessible for residents in care to exit the facility through the side gate in the case of an emergency. Based on observations made during today's inspection a failure to correct penalty will be issued to the facility. An exit interview was conducted with AD and a copy of this report and appeal rights were provided to the facility.
2026-04-23Other VisitType B · 2 findings
Plain-language summary
During an unannounced inspection on May 2, 2026, inspectors found that the outdoor shaded sitting area was blocked by large objects making it inaccessible to residents, and that side gates were obstructed, creating a potential safety risk. Deficiencies were issued for both conditions. The facility was notified of these findings.
“Based on observations made by LPA the Administrator failed to meet this requirement by containing large objects along the passage ways of the side exits making the exits inaccessable which poses a potenial saftey risk to residents in care.”
“(2) Outdoor activity areas that are easily accessible to residents, protected from traffic, and have adequate shady areas. Based on observations the Administrator failed to meet this requirement by storing large ammounts of objects unerneath the shaded sitting area.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On today's date Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) William Vanegas conducted an unannounced inspection for the purposes of conducting a visit to deliver findings for a complaint received by our department. Upon arrival LPA was greeted and granted entry into the facility by care giving staff. LPA explained the purpose of the inspection and explained the findings to the staff on duty. LPA conducted a tour of the facility and observed additional violations per title 22 chapter 8 division 6 of the California Code of Regulations. LPA observed the outdoor shaded sitting area to be inaccessible to residents in care due to having large objects underneath it. A deficiency was issued on today's date. Additionally LPA observed the side gates to be obstructed causing a potential safety risk to residents in care. A deficiency was issued on today's date. Based on the observations made during today's visit deficiencies will be issued per title 22 chapter 8 division 6 of the California Code of Regulations. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report was provided to the facility.
2026-04-23Complaint InvestigationUnsubstantiatedNo findings
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Continuation from LIC9099 Interview with S2 revealed that they never witnessed any offer to R1 to invest in a company, and they have never witnessed any exchange of funds from any residents to S1. S1 states that R1 learned about the company on their own and they never offered an opportunity to invest in the company. S1 provided a receipt of where the invested money went directly to the stem cell company. As a result of the documents collected and interviews conducted the allegation is found to be unsubstantiated, meaning that based on the information gathered during the investigation and review of documents obtained, LPA is unable to ascertain if the allegation occurred as reported. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove or refute the alleged violation occurred.
2025-12-23Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
This was a non-complaint inspection visit. During interviews, staff said the facility provided good care and that a resident's spouse helped with feeding; the facility confirmed a resident was on a modified diet due to age rather than a health condition. The state was unable to find enough evidence to either confirm or rule out the allegation being investigated.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
According to W1, there were no concerns about the care of R1 at the facility. W1 stated, the facility did a great job. W1 explained, R1’s spouse was present and would go to the facility to assist with R1’s feeding. W1 denied R1 was on a special diet that was related to the residents health condition. W1 says R1 was on a special diet due to the residents age and for no other reason. W1 denied R1 was on any dietary restrictions and was told to avoid foods that are spicy or salty only. W1 says R1 was not restricted to only eating certain foods. Based on the information gathered during the investigation through interviews and document review, the Department is unable to ascertain if the allegation occurred as reported. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove or refute the alleged violation occurred; therefore, the allegation is deemed Unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report was provided.
2025-12-22Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
On December 22, 2025, the state conducted a follow-up visit to check whether the facility had fixed problems found during a previous inspection on November 24, 2025. The facility had resolved most issues, including obtaining a negative tuberculosis test result for one resident, submitting required CPR certification and training documentation for staff, and an admission agreement for another resident; the administrator said he would submit the emergency disaster drill plan by the required deadline of December 24, 2025. An exit interview was held with the administrator to review the findings.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On December 22, 2025, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Garlli Tat made an unannounced visit to conduct a case management visit to follow up on deficiencies cited. LPA was greeted and granted entry by staff on duty. LPA stated the purpose of the visit. Staff on duty notified Administrator Ngoc Mai. The purpose of the case management visit was to revisit the deficiencies noted on November 24, 2025. Administrator called the social worker to follow up on the TB test for Resident #2. The social worker confirmed the TB test is negative and reported they would bring the results to the facility today. The request was sent to the PCP on December 10, 2025. Administrator reported he will fax the emergency disaster drill today. LPA reminded administrator that he should send it no later than December 24, 2025. Admission agreement for Resident #3, CPR certification for Staff #2, and 20 hours of training for Staff #2 have been received via email. An exit interview was conducted with the administrator and a copy of this report was reviewed and provided at the end of the visit.
2025-11-24Other VisitType B · 4 findings
Plain-language summary
This was an unannounced annual inspection of the facility on November 24, 2025, where the inspector found the home clean and well-maintained, with proper safety equipment, secured medications and hazardous items, and adequate food and water supplies. The facility met most requirements, but deficiencies and a technical violation were cited and discussed with the administrator at the end of the visit.
“Based on interview and record review, the licensee did not have First Aid certification for himself or staff on duty at the time of the visit, which poses a potential health, safety or personal rights risk to persons in care. POC Due Date: 12/24/2025 Plan of Correction 1 2 3 4 Licensee will ensure that at least one staff on duty that are First Aid certified at any given time. Licensee will provide proof to CCLD by POC due date.”
“Based on record review, Staff #2 does not have 20 hours of training at the time of the visit, which poses a potential health, safety or personal rights risk to persons in care. Staff #2 has 12 hours of training. POC Due Date: 12/24/2025 Plan of Correction 1 2 3 4 Licensee will ensure Staff #2 completes at least 20 hours of training and submit proof to CCLD by POC due date.”
“Based on interview and record review, Resident #3 did not have a signed admission agreement on file, which poses a potential health, safety or personal rights risk to persons in care. POC Due Date: 12/24/2025 Plan of Correction 1 2 3 4 Licensee will obtain a signed admission agreement by resident or authorized representative and keep it in resident's file and send proof to CCLD by POC due date.”
“Based on record review, the licensee did not conduct quarterly emergency drills with staff and residents, which poses a potential health, safety or personal rights risk to persons in care. POC Due Date: 12/24/2025 Plan of Correction 1 2 3 4 Licensee will conduct and document quarterly emergency drills (i.e., fire, flood, earthquake, active shooter, etc.) and keep in log. Licensee will send copy to CCLD by POC due date.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On November 24, 2025, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Garlli Tat conducted an unannounced visit to the facility for the purpose of a required annual inspection. LPA explained the purpose for the visit and was greeted and granted entry by Administrator (AD), Ngoc Mai. For this visit, there are two staff members on duty, including the AD, both of which are background cleared and associated. The PUB475 ‘See Something, Say Something’ poster was observed to be located in the hallway. LPA observed the Administrator's Certificate for Ngoc Mai, which expires on July 11, 2027. The facility is a Residential Care facility for the Elderly (RCFE) licensed for six residents, six of which may be non-ambulatory, two of which may be bedridden, and a hospice waiver for six. LPA toured the interior and exterior portions of the facility with the AD. For this visit, there are a total of two non-ambulatory and three ambulatory residents in care, one is on hospice, and none are bedridden. The facility is a single story home. There are a total of six bedrooms, five of which are resident bedrooms, and one bedroom is for staff. LPA toured each bedroom with the AD and observed that bedrooms were provided with furniture in good repair, clean linens, and adequate storage space. LPA observed the staff room is kept locked and inaccessible to residents in care. Smoke and carbon monoxide detectors as well as auditory exit alarms were tested and operational. There are a total of two bathrooms for both staff and residents. Continued on LIC 809-C. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Bathrooms were observed to be in good repair, toilets and faucets were operational and showers were equipped with grab bars and non-skid floor mats. Water temperature in the bathrooms were measured to be 112.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Facility met the minimum two-day perishable and seven-day non-perishable food supplies. Sharp items and knives were locked in the kitchen cabinet and inaccessible to residents in care. Fire extinguisher was charged, mounted and located in the kitchen. Fire extinguisher had a purchase date of June 1, 2025. LPA observed the emergency disaster and evacuation plan, which is in a binder in the office. Facility had back-up emergency food and water supply, located in the garage. LPA observed that the First Aid kit had all the required components. Medications were observed to be locked in a cabinet in the kitchen, inaccessible to residents in care. Chemicals were observed to be locked underneath the kitchen sink and in the garage. LPA observed the door leading to the attached two car garage is kept locked and inaccessible to residents in care. The garage is used for storage and laundry. For the exterior portion, LPA observed patio furniture under shading and there are two exit gate in the backyard that can be opened in case of an emergency. There is a shed in the backyard which is locked and used for storage. No bodies of water were observed. During this visit, five resident files and two staff files were reviewed. All staff are background cleared and associated with the facility. LPA reviewed residents’ medication and medication records. Based on today's observations, there are deficiencies being cited per Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. There is also a Technical Violation being issued during this visit. An exit interview was conducted with Ngoc Mai. This report was reviewed with the administrator and a copy was provided at the end of the visit. Appeal Rights were reviewed.
2025-09-24Complaint InvestigationUnsubstantiatedNo findings
Plain-language summary
A complaint was investigated but could not be confirmed based on the available evidence, interviews, and documents reviewed. While the allegation may have merit, there was not enough evidence to determine whether the violation actually occurred. The facility administrator was notified of the findings.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Based on LPA’s interviews which were conducted, review of documents obtained, and observations, LPA is unable to ascertain if the allegation occurred as reported. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove or refute the alleged violation occurred; therefore, this allegation is deemed UNSUBSTANTIATED. An exit interview was conducted with AD Mai. A copy of this report was provided and explained.
2024-12-04Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
A licensing inspector made an unannounced visit to review and correct the facility's annual inspection report from November 2024. The inspector met with the administrator to amend the report and reprint deficiency findings. No new violations were identified during this visit.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Samer Haddadin made an unannounced visit to conduct a case management. LPA met with Administrator Mai Ngoc and stated the purpose of this visit. . The purpose of this case management visit was to amend the annual visit report dated back on November 25th, 2024 and re-print deficiencies and the original 809 annual inspection report and the 809-D pages. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report was provided to AD at the facility,
2024-11-25Annual Compliance VisitType A · 4 findings
Plain-language summary
During an unannounced annual inspection, the facility was found to have several deficiencies: the required emergency information poster was not the correct size, liability insurance documentation was not available, emergency drill records were not on file, food supplies fell short of required minimums (two days for perishables and seven days for non-perishables), and the outdoor area lacked shade, seating, and activity space with potential tripping hazards. Resident rooms, bathrooms, safety equipment like smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, and staff files were in order and met requirements.
“Based on observation, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above by hot water measuing 126.6 degree F which poses an immediate health, safety or personal rights risk to persons in care. POC Due Date: 12/05/2024 Plan of Correction 1 2 3 4 This is an emmended report. Original POC date as the 26th of Nov. AD, Mai Ngoc , was advised of POC date on the 26th of Nov”
“Based on observation and recored review, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above by not having valid libility insurance which poses an potential health, safety or personal rights risk to persons in care. ***THIS IS AN EMDED REPORT*** POC Due Date: 01/01/2025 Plan of Correction 1 2 3 4 This is an emended deficiency .AD, Mai Ngoc , was advised of POC date on the 26th of Nov”
“Based on observation, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above by having uncleared backyard nor space for residents activity which poses an potential health, safety or personal rights risk to persons in care. ***THIS IS AN AMENDED REPORT*** POC Due Date: 01/01/2025 Plan of Correction 1 2 3 4 This is an emended deficiency .. AD, Mai Ngoc , was advised of POC date on the 26th of Nov”
“Based on observation, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above by which poses an potential health, safety or personal rights risk to persons in care. ***THIS IS AN AMENDED REPORT*** POC Due Date: 01/01/2025 Plan of Correction 1 2 3 4 This is an emended deficiency . Original POC date as the 26th of Nov. AD, Mai Ngoc , was advised of POC date on the 26th of Nov”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Samer Haddadin made an unannounced required annual inspection at this facility. LPA met with Administrator Mai Ngoc and stated the purpose of this visit. The facility is a single level home and licensed for six non-ambulatory of which two may be bedridden with a hospice waiver for six. This facility is a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly/Dementia. The facility had 6 bedrooms in which 4 are used for resident and 2 for staff members. LPA toured the interior and exterior portions of the facility. Resident rooms were provided with furniture, chair, clean linen, adequate storage space, and kept free of tripping hazards. Hard wired smoke detectors, carbon monoxide and audible exit alarms were tested to be operational. LPA did not observe the required PUB 475 to be in the right size. Also, LPA asked AD for liability insurance, AD stated he does not have one currently on his person will provide it. LPA did not observe any emergency drill documentation. All files of staff and clients contained all required documentation. Bathrooms were observed to be in good repair and provided with grab bars and hot water was measured at 126.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Facility did not met the minimum two-day supply of perishable and seven-day supply of non-perishable food stock requirements. For the exterior portion, facility did not have a shaded area and nor chairs; grounds were unclear of tripping hazards and no space for activities. Facility has a 2-car garage and is kept locked and used for storage; the garage also had an operational washer and dryer. Based on this inspection, deficiencies are being cited per Title 22 Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations. . ***THIS IS AN AMENDED REPORT***
2024-09-26Other VisitType A · 3 findings
Plain-language summary
This was a follow-up inspection related to an earlier complaint investigation. The inspector found that the administrator was absent from the facility and an uncleaned staff member (who had not completed background clearance) was alone supervising residents; the administrator said he was in San Bernardino buying kitchen supplies and that the staff member was a cousin he was testing out for hire, but explained that background clearance paperwork had just started. The facility was cited for staffing deficiencies.
“Based on LPA's observation, new staff does not have background clearance to be at the facility. This poses an immediate health and safety risk to residents in care.”
“Based on LPA's observation, facility lacks enough staffing and back up administrator while away, which poses an immediate health and safety risk to residents in care.”
“Based on LPA's observation, licensee can not recall if the incident on 02/01/2023 was reported to CCLD. LPA searched past SIRs during the time of incident and there is no LIC624 reporting the incident from the facility.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On today's date, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Michael Tea conducted this case management in conjunction with the continued Complaint visit Control #:22-AS-20230203140953. LPA Tea met with Caregiver (CG) Quy "Anna" Mai and discussed purpose of today's case management visit - Deficiencies visit. Administrator Ngoc "Nick" Mai was not present but LPA spoke to AD Mai over the phone. During the visit LPA Tea was greeted and granted entry by a new staff, Sau Nguyen. LPA observed that AD was not present and just the staff was alone with the residents at the facility. LPA was able to talk to AD Mai over the phone and asked where he was. AD Mai said he is far away from the facility in San Bernardino obtaining cooking utensils for the facility and that the residents are being supervised by the present staff who is AD Mai's cousin, who he plans to hire as a caregiver for the facility. AD Mai said that he was testing him out with the residents. LPA Tea asked AD Mai if he had the staff fingerprinted and passed background clearance. AD Mai said he just started the paperwork. LPA explained that all staff whether test trial or not is required to have full background clearance to be at the facility. AD Mai understood and said that he will have his sister, Quy "Anna" Mai an on-call caregiver come to facility within in half an hour. LPA observed there is not enough staff to care for residents, especially when AD Mai is away. Based on this inspection, deficiencies are being cited per Title 22 Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations. See LIC 809-D for the deficiencies. An exit interview was conducted with Caregiver staff Quy "Anna" Mai and Administrator Nick Mai over the phone a copy of this report LIC809 and LIC809D and appeal rights were provided at exit.
2024-09-26Complaint InvestigationSubstantiatedType A · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
A complaint investigation found that a resident left the facility unsupervised through an unlocked front door and was found collapsed in Orange County the next morning with facial injuries; staff had disabled the door alarm, left the resident unsupervised on the porch regularly, and did not realize the resident was missing until the next day when the hospital contacted them. The resident was treated at UCI Medical Center for facial trauma to the forehead and nose, and a head CT scan ruled out serious brain bleeding. The facility was cited for failing to adequately supervise the resident in their care.
“Based on interview and review of documents licensee failed to supervise R1 in which they left the facility unassisted and ended up at emergency at hospital.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Per interview with AD Mai allows R1 to sit outside on the facility front porch unsupervised. AD stated he leaves the front door unlock for R1. AD explained that R1 usually comes back from outside and goes in their room and closes their door. The night of the incident, AD Mai check and saw a blanket covering R1’s pillow and thought R1 was in bed. AD stated he didn’t hear R1 leave. AD reported the door alarm was turned off because it irritates R1. AD Mai was not aware that R1 was missing until in the morning where he usually wakes up R1 for breakfast. Upon realizing R1 was missing, AD checked the facility and surrounding neighborhood and notified police & R1’s responsible party. AD does not recall notifying CCLD about R1's elopement. LPA did not find any SIRs from the facility around that time period of the incident. R1 was brought to UCI Medical Center via paramedics after a syncope and collapse. After a series of tests, R1 was diagnosed with facial trauma to their forehead and nose. Per hospital discharge paperwork dated 2/2/23, R1’s head CT scan did not show any signs of acute intercranial hemorrhage, herniation or hydrocephalus. AD Mai was not aware that R1 was brought to the hospital upon admission. AD Mai was contacted by hospital staff upon finding his business card in R1’s pocket. Hospital records note R1 did not recall the event and was unclear how they came to be in Orange County. LPA attempted to interview R1 who refused to speak with LPA. Therefore, based on the preponderance of evidence through records reviewed and interviews the allegation facility staff did not adequately supervise resident while in care is determined to be SUBSTANTIATED, meaning the complaint allegation is valid and that a violation has occurred. The following is being cited per California Code of Regulations Title 22 Division 6 Chapter 8. An exit interview was conducted with Caregiver Quy "Anna" Mai and Ngoc “Nick” Mai over the phone and a copy of this report and appeal rights was provided.
2024-09-11Other VisitType B · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
This was a follow-up visit to check whether a previous complaint had been corrected. The inspector found that a resident with dementia did not have an updated physician's report on file, as required annually, and cited the facility for this deficiency. The administrator was notified of the findings at the end of the visit.
“Based on LPA's review of resident records, LPA discovered outdated Physician Report sign and dated by Physician 02/17/2023.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On today's date, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Michael Tea conducted this case management in conjunction with the continued Complaint visit Control #:22-AS-20230203140953. LPA Tea met with Administrator (AD) Ngoc "Nick" Mai and discussed purpose of today's case management visit - Deficiencies visit. During the visit LPA Tea while reviewing resident records discovered Resident 1(R1) Physician report to be outdated and has a diagnosis of dementia. Residents with dementia are suppose to have updated physician's report annually. Based on this inspection, deficiencies are being cited per Title 22 Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations . See LIC 809-D for the deficiency. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator Nick Mai a copy of this report LIC809 and LIC809D and LIC811 and appeal rights were provided at exit.
2024-04-29Complaint InvestigationUnsubstantiatedNo findings
Plain-language summary
A complaint alleged a resident was left in soiled diapers on multiple occasions. Staff members all reported providing diaper changes as needed when the resident requested them, and the resident was able to communicate their needs clearly; the family member who filed the complaint could not provide specific details to support the allegations. The complaint was unsubstantiated due to lack of evidence.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
It is alleged that the resident was left in soiled diapers on multiple occasions. Three out of the three staff indicated that R1 was provided incontinent care such as diaper changes. All staff expressed that R1’s diaper was changed as needed and at their request by calling their name or using the buzzer. R1 was cognitively “sharp” and was able to express their needs which aligned with the Physician’s Report dated May 14, 2020. The family member who also corroborated with the statement was unable to recall details to R1’s care. It is alleged that the resident was left in soiled diaper for an extended period of time. Three out of the three staff denied the allegation and the family member was unable to provide further information. Therefore, based on the interviews and the record review, although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the following allegations: Resident was left in soiled diapers on multiple occasions and Resident was left in soiled diaper for an extended period of time are deemed UNSUBSTANTIATED. An exit interview was conducted with Licensee/Administrator Ngoc Mai, and a copy of this report including the LIC9099C and the LIC811 were provided at exit.
2024-03-08Complaint InvestigationSubstantiatedType A · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
A complaint investigation found that the facility failed to pay its electricity bill on time, with payment made in two parts on March 1 and March 8, 2024. The utility company confirmed that without these late payments, there would have been a service disruption. The facility was cited for this violation.
“This requirement was not met as evidence by faciltiy received a notice to pay electricity bill or face a disruption in service. This poses an immediate health and safety risks to persons in care.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Based on interview with Licensee Mai he stated that a partial payment was made on 03/01/2024 and the remaining balance was paid on 03/08/2024. LPA Mendivil received a copy of receipt of both payments from 03/01/2024 and 03/08/2024 while at the facility. It was confirmed by Anaheim Public Utilities if the balance was paid then there would not be a disruption in service. Therefore, based on the preponderance of evidence through records reviewed and interviews the allegation facility failed to pay electricity bill timely is determined to be SUBSTANTIATED, meaning the complaint allegation is valid and that a violation has occurred. The following is being cited per California Code of Regulations Title 22 Division 6 Chapter 8. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report and appeal rights was provided to the facility representative.
2023-09-26Complaint InvestigationUnsubstantiatedNo findings
7 older inspections from 2021 are not shown above.
Get the complete record, translated into plain language — emailed to you.
Other facilities in Orange County.
Other memory care facilities in Orange County with similar care offerings.
Free · Tour Prep
Family reviews
No reviews yet — be the first to share your experience
Other memory care options nearby.
More options in neighboring cities
Licensed memory care in other cities within this county region — useful when your search radius crosses city limits.