Lakeside Rehab: Administrator Accused of Obscene Gesture - TX

The allegation against the administrator at Lakeside Rehabilitation and Care Center surfaced in late April when staff members complained to corporate officials. But inspectors found the facility's response violated federal requirements for investigating potential abuse.

Multiple witnesses told inspectors they heard about the incident. One staff member said they heard Resident #1 tell the former assistant director of nursing: "I don't know why he would feel comfortable doing that with me because we don't have a relationship like that."

The same witness said they followed up with the resident about a week later. The resident told them "no one had come to talk with him about it but he was told it's been taken care of."

That resident was never formally interviewed during the facility's investigation.

The regional director of operations, who oversees 20 facilities, told inspectors in a telephone interview that the finger gesture incident "was bordering on reportable but sounded like it was reportable." He said he couldn't remember all the details because "it had been sometime since the incidents" and he manages multiple facilities.

The facility's registered nurse consultant was tasked with investigating the complaint from the director of nursing. But inspectors found significant gaps in that investigation.

The RNC told inspectors she conducted the investigation from April 29 through May 8 — a ten-day period. She said the administrator received verbal counseling about the incident, but no written documentation was created.

She acknowledged that "a lot of time had passed" during the investigation window. More critically, she confirmed that Resident #1 was never interviewed as part of the investigation process.

In response to the incident and residents' responses on safe surveys dated May 8, the facility conducted an in-service training on abuse. But no further investigations were conducted into any of the allegations that emerged from those surveys.

The corporate regional director told inspectors he received emails about complaints from the former director of nursing and assistant director of nursing regarding the administrator. He said he believed the RNC shared her investigation results with him, though he couldn't recall specific details.

He was unaware that Resident #1 had never been interviewed during the investigation.

One witness told inspectors that all the staffing changes at the facility "made them not feel comfortable to report anything to the Administrator or Corporate." This person was also never interviewed by the RNC regarding the allegation.

The witness described hearing Resident #1's account of the incident and the resident's apparent confusion about why the administrator would act that way toward him.

During inspectors' exit conference on August 28, the administrator "adamantly denied the allegation he flipped Resident #1 off." He told inspectors he disagreed with their findings.

The administrator also disputed the RNC's account of receiving counseling. He said the RNC never formally counseled him and "all she said was, if you did it don't do it again."

Federal regulations require nursing homes to immediately report suspected abuse to the administrator and other officials. The facility must also conduct a thorough investigation when allegations arise.

Inspectors determined the facility failed to meet these requirements. The investigation took ten days to complete, never included interviewing the alleged victim, and resulted in only informal verbal guidance rather than documented corrective action.

The deficiency was classified as causing minimal harm or potential for actual harm, affecting few residents.

The incident highlights broader concerns about the facility's reporting culture. Staff members expressed reluctance to bring forward concerns due to recent personnel changes and uncertainty about the administrative response.

The former director of nursing and assistant director of nursing both filed complaints with corporate officials about the administrator's conduct. These complaints were part of what triggered the investigation, though the scope of their concerns extended beyond the single finger gesture incident.

The regional director of operations acknowledged receiving these complaints via email but struggled to recall specific details during his interview with inspectors. His oversight of 20 facilities may have contributed to the lack of detailed knowledge about this particular incident.

The facility conducted abuse prevention training following the incident, suggesting administrators recognized the seriousness of the allegations. However, inspectors found this response insufficient given the gaps in the investigation process.

The RNC's investigation methods came under particular scrutiny. Despite being tasked with a thorough review of the allegations, she failed to interview the resident at the center of the complaint. This omission represents a fundamental flaw in the investigation process.

Federal inspectors noted that the ten-day investigation timeline was excessive for addressing allegations of potential abuse. Facilities are expected to respond quickly to protect residents and determine whether incidents require reporting to state authorities.

The administrator's denial of the allegations during the exit conference created additional questions about the facility's internal investigation. His account of the RNC's response differed significantly from her description of providing verbal counseling.

This discrepancy suggests either miscommunication between facility leadership or disagreement about the appropriate response to the allegations.

The case demonstrates how facilities can technically conduct investigations while missing critical elements that would make those investigations meaningful. Going through the motions of an inquiry without interviewing the alleged victim renders the process largely symbolic.

Resident #1 remained at the facility throughout the investigation period, apparently unaware that a formal review was taking place. The resident's comment about being told the matter was "taken care of" suggests minimal communication about the resolution process.

The witness who followed up with Resident #1 a week after the incident provided inspectors with the clearest account of the resident's perspective. This person's willingness to check on the resident's wellbeing contrasted with the facility's failure to include the resident in its formal response.

Staff concerns about the reporting environment may have contributed to the incident going unaddressed initially. When employees don't feel comfortable raising concerns through normal channels, problems can escalate before receiving appropriate attention.

The facility's response to the safe surveys conducted in May suggested awareness that residents had ongoing concerns about safety and treatment. However, the decision not to investigate additional allegations that emerged from those surveys represented another missed opportunity for comprehensive review.

Resident #1's expressed confusion about why the administrator would act inappropriately toward him suggests the incident was unexpected and unwelcome. The resident's apparent assumption that such behavior would only be acceptable in the context of a personal relationship indicates awareness that the conduct was inappropriate in a care setting.

Full Inspection Report

The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Lakeside Rehabilitation and Care Center from 2025-08-28 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.

Additional Resources

• View all inspection reports for Lakeside Rehabilitation and Care Center
• Browse all TX nursing home inspections