Majestic Care of Connersville: Sexual Abuse Violations - IN

She swiped his hand away and told him to cut it out.

She told staff. A couple of them, she said. And then she waited.

The director of nursing never came to speak with her.

That detail, plain and unremarkable in its bureaucratic packaging, sits at the center of a complaint inspection completed October 29, 2025, at Majestic Care of Connersville, a nursing facility at 1029 E 5th Street in this small eastern Indiana city. Federal inspectors rated the deficiency at the level of actual harm, meaning the failures documented inside the building had already hurt people, not merely created the conditions to do so.

The resident identified in the report as Resident G has type 2 diabetes, generalized anxiety disorder, and depression. A quarterly assessment completed in September 2025 found her moderately cognitively impaired. She uses a wheelchair. When inspectors interviewed her on October 27, she described what happened a couple of weeks earlier with a clarity that required no interpretation.

Resident C, she said, had approached her from behind in the hallway, offered to push her chair, and then used that proximity to touch her. She pushed his hand away. She reported it. And then, she told inspectors, these sexual behaviors kept happening outside, when residents were coming back in from the smoking area with Resident C, and no one ever sees it.

That last phrase is the one that stays. No one ever sees it.

She was not the only one.

An electronic care note dated October 16, 2025, recorded that a licensed practical nurse had reported Resident B alerting staff that the same resident, Resident C, had groped her breast on the way back inside from the 8:00 p.m. smoke break. Another resident witnessed it. The director of nursing was notified that night.

Resident B was prescribed buspirone, a medication used to treat anxiety, taken at bedtime. The record showed she received it on October 15, the night before the documented assault.

Two women. The same resident. The same location, the smoking area and the path back inside. A pattern that Resident G described explicitly to inspectors, saying it kept happening outside and no one ever sees it. She had told staff. The director of nursing had been notified about Resident B. And still, by the time inspectors sat down with Resident G on October 27, the director of nursing had not come in to speak with her about what happened to her.

The facility's own abuse policy, provided to inspectors by the director of nursing on October 27, defined sexual abuse as non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident. The policy stated the facility would identify, correct, and intervene in situations in which abuse is more likely to occur. It stated the facility would ensure other residents are protected.

The gap between that language and what Resident G experienced is not subtle. She reported the incident. She described an ongoing pattern. She waited for someone in authority to follow up. No one did.

Inspectors found the deficiency under F0600, which addresses abuse, neglect, and exploitation protections. The level of harm was marked actual harm. The number of residents affected was listed as few, which in the formal taxonomy of these inspections means more than one.

There is something worth sitting with in the specific geography of these incidents. The smoking area. The path back inside. Resident G described it as a recurring location, a place where Resident C's behavior happened repeatedly, where the timing and the setting made it easy for no one to see. The 8:00 p.m. smoke break where Resident B was groped was a scheduled, predictable event. Staff were present, at least in some capacity, because residents were being escorted or supervised in and out. And yet the behavior continued.

The facility's policy language about identifying situations in which abuse is more likely to occur is exactly the kind of language that looks protective on paper. A smoking break at the end of the day, a narrow path back inside, a resident with a documented pattern of this behavior toward women in wheelchairs and women returning from outdoor areas — that is a situation in which abuse is more likely to occur. The policy said the facility would intervene in those situations. The inspection record says otherwise.

Resident G, moderately cognitively impaired, dependent on a wheelchair, living with anxiety and depression, told inspectors she had reported what happened to her to multiple staff members. She knew the director of nursing had not come to see her. She knew the behavior was continuing outside. She described it without apparent confusion or uncertainty. The inspection record does not suggest she was wrong about any of it.

What the record does not contain is any indication that Resident C's access to the smoking area, or his proximity to other residents during that transition, had been restricted or supervised differently after either incident was reported. The inspection does not document any protective measures taken on Resident G's behalf after she reported the assault to staff. It documents only that the director of nursing had been notified about Resident B, and that the director of nursing had not come to speak with Resident G.

The complaint that triggered this inspection was assigned intake number 2644466. Inspectors completed their work on October 29, 2025.

Resident G had been waiting, by her account, for a couple of weeks before inspectors arrived. She told them what happened. She told them it kept happening. She told them no one ever sees it.

She had already told the staff.

Full Inspection Report

The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Majestic Care of Connersville from 2025-10-29 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.

Additional Resources

• View all inspection reports for Majestic Care of Connersville
• Browse all IN nursing home inspections