Aperion Care Lincoln: Sexual Abuse Report Failure - IN

The incident, which occurred on or around August 23, 2025, came to light during a complaint inspection on September 24. By then, it had been sitting unreported inside the facility for roughly four weeks, known to at least three people in the chain of command, none of whom understood, or chose to act on, any obligation to notify the Indiana State Survey Agency.

The inspection report identifies the residents only as Resident B and Resident T. Resident T, according to an anonymous source interviewed by inspectors, was not capable of giving consent.

The sequence of events, as reconstructed through inspector interviews, began when a certified nurse aide witnessed or learned of the encounter and brought it to the Director of Nursing. The aide reported that Resident B had entered Resident T's room, asked her to be his girlfriend, and asked whether she had ever had sex. Resident T said no, and Resident B left the room. The Director of Nursing recalled this much during a morning interview with inspectors. She could not remember when the incident had occurred.

Two hours later, the Director of Nursing added something she had not mentioned in the first interview. The aide had also told her that Resident T showed Resident B her breasts. That detail, the more serious of the two, had not come up at 9:24 in the morning. It came up at 11:00.

The Director of Nursing placed the incident at around August 23.

That afternoon, inspectors sat down with the administrator. He confirmed he was aware of what had happened between Resident B and Resident T. He said he did not know the incident needed to be reported to the State Survey Agency.

Six minutes later, inspectors spoke with the facility's Regional President of Operations. She, too, was aware of the incident. She, too, said she did not know it needed to be reported to the state.

The administrator was interviewed a second time that afternoon, at 2:27. He told inspectors that the facility did not have a policy related to reporting alleged violations and that it followed state regulations. What those regulations required, and whether anyone at the facility had ever read them carefully enough to know, went unaddressed.

What the inspection report describes is not a case of a single employee making a judgment call in the moment and getting it wrong. It is a case in which an allegation of sexual abuse involving a resident without the capacity to consent traveled up the facility's chain of command, was received and retained by at least three people with authority to act, and went nowhere for a month. The certified nurse aide did what she was supposed to do. She reported it to her supervisor. The supervisor told the administrator. The administrator told, or at least discussed it with, the regional president. And there it stopped.

The Director of Nursing's memory of the incident was incomplete enough that she did not mention the breast exposure in her first interview with inspectors, only in her second. Whether that reflects the passage of time, the way the incident was documented internally, or something else, the inspection report does not say. What it does say is that she was unable to remember when the incident occurred at all, until pressed.

The administrator's explanation, that he was unaware reporting was required, is the kind of statement that lands differently depending on what you already know about how nursing homes are supposed to operate. Suspected abuse of a resident, particularly one who cannot consent, triggers mandatory reporting obligations. Those obligations exist precisely because facilities cannot be trusted to investigate themselves. The administrator's claim of ignorance does not explain why no one, at any point in the four weeks between August 23 and September 24, looked into whether the state needed to know.

The regional president's response was nearly identical to the administrator's. She knew. She did not report. She said she did not know she had to.

The citation was classified as minimal harm or potential for actual harm, a designation that reflects the regulatory framework's assessment of the immediate physical consequences to Resident T rather than the nature of what was alleged. The incident itself, a resident without capacity being asked for sex and exposing herself to another resident, is described in the report without any indication that the facility conducted a formal investigation, notified Resident T's family, or took any documented protective action in the weeks that followed. The inspection report does not say those things did not happen. It also does not say they did.

What the report does document, with specificity, is that the facility had no policy governing the reporting of alleged violations. The administrator said so himself. The facility, he explained, simply followed state regulations. He said this in the same interview in which he acknowledged not knowing what those regulations required.

Aperion Care Lincoln is a nursing facility at 1236 Lincoln Avenue in Evansville. The inspection was a complaint survey, meaning someone from outside the facility, or someone inside it unwilling to be identified, contacted regulators. The anonymous source who described the incident to inspectors indicated that Resident T was not capable of giving consent, a detail that shapes everything else about how the incident should have been handled and was not.

Resident T's name does not appear in the report. Her age, her diagnosis, the length of her stay, whether she had family involved in her care, whether anyone spoke with her after the incident, whether she understood what had happened or was distressed by it, none of that is in the record inspectors made public. What is in the record is that she was vulnerable, that what happened to her met the threshold for a reportable allegation of sexual abuse, and that the people responsible for her care decided, collectively and without apparent discussion of the regulations, that the state did not need to know.

The certified nurse aide who brought the incident forward did her job. She saw something, or heard something, and she told her supervisor. What happened after that was not her decision to make.

Full Inspection Report

The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Aperion Care Lincoln from 2025-09-24 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.

Additional Resources

• View all inspection reports for Aperion Care Lincoln
• Browse all IN nursing home inspections