Muskingum Skilled Nursing: Sexual Abuse Allegations - OH
The LPN, identified as #119 in inspection records, was taken from Muskingum Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitation for questioning by detectives. The facility's administrator wasn't informed of the allegations until police showed up at the building.
One resident's family member discovered blood during a routine visit the day before the arrest. The power of attorney for Resident #18 was helping change her mother's incontinence brief when she noticed the bleeding.
"The aide thought it could be vaginal bleeding but it went further back," the inspection report states. When they rolled the resident further, "there was blood from her rectum."
The family member initially wasn't concerned. Resident #18 had a history of irritable bowel syndrome, diverticulitis, constipation and hemorrhoids. She had previously needed manual removal of stool from her rectum. A nurse examined the resident, and the daughter "had no concerns at the time and reported seeing stool on her mom's fingers before so it made sense to her."
The next morning brought a shocking phone call.
The facility called the resident's power of attorney about "allegations of sexual abuse." She was stunned because "the allegations happened the night before but she had not been notified."
If she had received a call at the time of the incident, she said, "she would have come to the facility to be with her mom and to make decisions related to the allegation."
The director of nursing arrived at the facility around 4:35 A.M. and didn't see LPN #119. Police informed the director and administrator of the allegations later that morning around shift change, which occurred at 6:00 A.M. for nursing assistants and 7:00 A.M. for nurses.
Federal inspectors found the facility failed to follow its own policies for handling abuse allegations. The director of nursing told inspectors that when allegations are made, "the alleged perpetrator should be removed from the facility as soon as allegations were made to ensure resident safety."
She also said residents "should be assessed immediately, witness statements collected, family and physicians should be notified, and medical care should be obtained if needed."
None of that happened according to protocol.
The facility was required to report allegations to the administrator immediately and to state agencies within two hours. The administrator remained unaware until police arrived at the facility.
A second resident was also allegedly involved. The power of attorney for Resident #18 learned about allegations regarding "the other resident (#22) as well" when she spoke with facility administrators.
Initially, the family member's reaction was denial. "Nothing had happened, the aides were wrong and had jumped to conclusions," she told inspectors. But learning about the second resident changed her perspective.
She spoke with a police sergeant and learned investigators "had collected evidence and would have additional information when the lab reported back."
The inspection narrative cuts off mid-sentence while describing police involvement, indicating additional details about the investigation that weren't included in the available report section.
Federal regulations require nursing homes to report suspected abuse immediately to administrators and within 24 hours to state survey agencies. The facility must also notify the resident's physician and family members or representatives immediately.
The immediate jeopardy finding indicates inspectors determined the facility's failures created a situation where residents faced serious injury, harm, or death. This is the most severe category of violation federal inspectors can assign.
Immediate jeopardy violations trigger enhanced oversight and require facilities to submit detailed correction plans. The facility must demonstrate it has eliminated the immediate threat to resident safety before inspectors will remove the immediate jeopardy designation.
The case highlights systemic breakdowns in the facility's abuse prevention and response protocols. Staff members apparently made allegations serious enough for police to remove an employee for questioning, yet the facility's leadership chain remained uninformed for hours.
The director of nursing's account suggests a fundamental communication failure. When detectives called at 4:00 A.M., "the nurses did not know what was happening." This indicates front-line staff either weren't aware of proper reporting procedures or weren't following them.
The timing raises additional concerns about resident supervision and safety. The alleged incidents occurred during overnight hours when staffing levels are typically lowest and administrative oversight is minimal.
For Resident #18's family, the notification failure compounded the trauma. The power of attorney had been present at the facility the day before, helping with personal care, and noticed physical signs that could have been related to the allegations. Yet she learned about the serious allegations through a phone call the next morning rather than immediately when staff first suspected abuse.
The family member's initial skepticism reflects how difficult it can be to distinguish between legitimate medical issues and signs of abuse, particularly in elderly residents with complex health conditions. Resident #18's medical history of bowel problems and need for manual stool removal created a clinical picture that initially seemed to explain the physical findings.
The involvement of a second resident suggests the allegations weren't isolated incidents. Multiple residents being allegedly victimized by the same staff member would indicate broader failures in the facility's resident protection systems.
Police collection of evidence suggests the allegations were serious enough to warrant criminal investigation. The mention of lab results indicates physical evidence was gathered that required forensic analysis.
The facility's failure to immediately remove the alleged perpetrator, assess the residents, collect witness statements, and notify families violated multiple layers of resident protection protocols designed to prevent additional harm and ensure appropriate medical and psychological support.
Federal inspectors concluded these failures created immediate jeopardy to resident health and safety, meaning the facility's response was so inadequate it posed serious risk of harm to residents beyond those directly involved in the allegations.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Muskingum Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitation from 2025-08-13 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: June 20, 2026 · Our methodology
MUSKINGUM SKILLED NURSING & REHABILITATION in BEVERLY, OH was cited for abuse-related violations during a health inspection on August 13, 2025.
The LPN, identified as #119 in inspection records, was taken from Muskingum Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitation for questioning by detectives.
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.