Hickory Creek New Castle: Staff Abuse Investigation - IN
He didn't walk away.
What happened next became the subject of a complaint, a facility investigation, and ultimately a federal inspection citation. By the time inspectors arrived in August, the story had already been told in several different ways by several different people, and the versions didn't entirely match.
The maintenance director's account, given to inspectors, was methodical and self-exculpatory. He said Resident D had been cursing at him. He said he asked Resident D, politely, if he would please stop. He said he did not point his finger at the resident. He said he then went back into the room with the Social Services Director to make sure everyone had the full picture of what was going on, so they would all be on the same page.
He said he'd been trained on abuse when he was hired in April 2025. He said he was trained again after this incident. He said he was told he had handled the situation appropriately, that he had backed out because he wasn't helping.
Resident D, interviewed by inspectors on August 11, said he did not recall any incident with the maintenance director.
That might have settled it, except for what the administrator's own records showed. On July 10, she had sat down with Resident D at length, specifically to discuss the incident between him and the maintenance director. In that conversation, Resident D denied that the maintenance director had yelled at him. That is a different thing from not remembering an incident at all. By August, the resident had apparently lost the memory entirely, or said he had.
The administrator told inspectors she had spoken with both Resident D and Resident C, another witness, and that neither of them said anything had happened. Resident C, she said, described the interaction as not abusive in any way. The maintenance director was trying to talk to Resident D, but Resident D was upset, and you couldn't talk to him when he was upset. The maintenance director, being newer, didn't know that. He just needed to walk away instead of continuing to try to explain.
On the basis of those interviews, the administrator unsubstantiated the abuse allegation.
Federal inspectors looked at the same set of facts and reached a different conclusion, at least procedurally. They cited the facility under F0600, the federal tag covering abuse prohibition. The level of harm was listed as minimal harm or potential for actual harm. The number of residents affected was listed as few.
The citation does not say the maintenance director abused Resident D. What it says, using the framework of the facility's own policy, is that Resident D had the potential to experience ongoing anxiety, fear, agitation, and verbal outbursts as a result of what the allegation described. The inspectors applied what they called the reasonable person concept: a reasonable person in Resident D's situation, subjected to what was alleged, could have been left with lingering fear or distress, regardless of what the resident said afterward.
The facility's own abuse policy, which the administrator handed over to inspectors during the visit, defined mental abuse as verbal or nonverbal infliction of anguish, pain, or distress resulting in psychological or emotional suffering. It listed, as examples, harassing a resident, and yelling or hovering over a resident with the intent to intimidate. It defined willfulness as acting deliberately, not necessarily intending to cause harm.
The policy did not require that a resident remember the incident. It did not require that a witness call it abusive. It required that the facility take seriously the possibility that something harmful had occurred.
What the investigation produced, instead, was a newer employee who said he did nothing wrong, a resident who said he didn't recall the incident, a second resident who said it wasn't abusive, and an administrator who concluded, on that basis, that the allegation could not be substantiated. The maintenance director received additional in-service training on abuse, zero tolerance, and better ways to handle resident behaviors. That was the outcome.
There is a gap in this record that the inspection report surfaces without resolving. Between the date of the incident, sometime before July 10, and the date of the federal inspection on August 11 and 12, the facility's internal process moved from complaint to conclusion without, apparently, ever sitting with the harder question: what actually happened in that room before the Social Services Director arrived?
The maintenance director's explanation for going back into the room with the Social Services Director was that he wanted everyone to be on the same page. That framing positions him as a transparent actor trying to ensure clear communication. But the sequence he described, a confrontation with a cursing resident, an attempt to explain himself, and then a return to the room with a supervisor to explain further, is also a sequence in which a newer employee, perhaps without fully understanding what he was doing, kept engaging with a resident who was already distressed.
The administrator acknowledged as much. He just needed to walk away.
Resident D's situation adds another layer. The inspection report describes him as someone who, when upset, could not be reasoned with by talking. That characteristic, whatever its clinical basis, was apparently known to staff generally but not communicated to the maintenance director. A newer employee working in a building full of residents with complex behavioral profiles, without adequate orientation to those profiles, is a structural problem, not just an individual one.
The facility's plan of correction was not included in the inspection documents provided. What is known is that the maintenance director was retrained, the administrator's investigation was reviewed by federal inspectors and found deficient, and the citation was formally issued on August 12, 2025.
Resident D, as of the inspection, said he did not remember any of it.
Whether that is because the incident left no lasting impression, or because something about the incident and its aftermath made it easier to say he didn't remember, the inspection report cannot say. Neither can this article. What the record shows is a man who, in July, told the administrator the maintenance director had not yelled at him, and who, in August, told inspectors he didn't recall a maintenance director incident at all. Those are two different answers to two different questions, separated by a month, inside a facility that had already closed its investigation.
The complaint that prompted the federal visit was filed as Complaint 2568713.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Hickory Creek At New Castle from 2025-08-12 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.
Additional Resources
Data source: Official federal inspection data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
Editorial process: AI-synthesized regulatory data, reviewed for accuracy by our editorial team.
Professional review: All content reviewed by Christopher F. Nesbitt, Sr., NH EMT & BU-trained Paralegal.
Last verified: July 6, 2026 · Our methodology
HICKORY CREEK AT NEW CASTLE in NEW CASTLE, IN was cited for abuse-related violations during a health inspection on August 12, 2025.
What happened next became the subject of a complaint, a facility investigation, and ultimately a federal inspection citation.
Health inspections identify deficiencies that facilities must correct. Violations range from minor documentation issues to serious safety concerns. Review the full report below for specific details and facility response.