Majestic Care of Connersville: Sexual Abuse Investigation Failures - IN
What happened after that is what federal inspectors came to document.
Resident B uses a wheelchair. She has anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder. A clinical assessment completed in September 2025 found her moderately cognitively impaired. On the evening of October 15, she told a nurse that another resident had reached over her shoulder and touched her chest while they were coming in from the smoking area. She said she had pushed his hand away. She said another resident had witnessed it.
The other resident was Resident J, and he had seen it too. He told inspectors he had watched Resident C push Resident B in her wheelchair and put his hands down her shirt. He said Resident B was trying to push Resident C's hands away. He reported it to a licensed practical nurse. Then he waited. Nobody from management ever came to interview him.
Inspectors interviewed Resident B on October 27, nearly two weeks after the incident. She told them that Resident C had started by rubbing her shoulders while standing behind her wheelchair as they came back inside from smoking, then reached his hand down the front of her chest. She swatted his hand away and told a nurse what had happened.
Resident G told a similar story. She is also a wheelchair user, also moderately cognitively impaired, and also told inspectors she had been targeted by Resident C in the same setting, residents coming back inside from the smoking area. She said he had been pushing her wheelchair down the hallway when he slid his hand down the front of her chest. She pushed him away and told him to cut it out. She told a couple of staff members, though she couldn't remember their names. She told inspectors that these behaviors kept happening outside when residents were coming back in from smoking with Resident C, but that no one ever saw it.
The Director of Nursing had not spoken to Resident G about any of it.
The facility's own abuse policy, provided to inspectors by the Director of Nursing on October 27, described what an investigation was supposed to look like: interview the resident, the accused, and all witnesses, including anyone who witnessed or heard the incident, anyone who came into close contact with the resident that day, and employees who worked closely with either the accused or the alleged victim. The investigation was to be completed within five working days.
What actually happened was narrower. The Director of Nursing told inspectors that after the October 15 incident involving Resident C and Resident G, the facility obtained statements from one nurse and one aide. There were no further resident interviews. No further staff interviews. The Director of Nursing said it was the responsibility of the Interdisciplinary Team to ensure a complete and thorough investigation was conducted for allegations of sexual abuse.
The Interdisciplinary Team had not ensured that.
Resident J, the eyewitness who had reported what he saw to a nurse on the night of October 15, had a cognitive assessment from August 2025 that found him intact for daily decision making. Inspectors noted he was consistent and reasonable. He told them he had never been contacted by anyone in management. Two weeks had passed.
There is something else in the inspection record that makes the timeline harder to read charitably. A registered nurse, interviewed by inspectors on October 28, said she remembered that as of October 5, Resident C had been placed on 15-minute checks because he was sexually acting out toward female residents. That was ten days before he reached his hand down Resident B's shirt. The RN said she was unsure which female residents had been involved before October 5, or what had prompted the monitoring in the first place.
So the facility knew. They had placed him on heightened supervision for exactly this kind of behavior. Ten days later, in the same recurring situation, coming back inside from the smoking area, he did it again to at least two women.
Resident G told inspectors it had been happening repeatedly outside, in that same moment of transition back into the building, and that no one ever saw it. She was moderately cognitively impaired and in a wheelchair, and she had been telling staff members, names she couldn't recall, and nothing had changed.
The inspection was a complaint investigation. It was conducted on October 29, 2025. The level of harm was classified as actual harm. A few residents were affected, in the language of the federal deficiency form, which is its own kind of understatement.
The Director of Nursing, when asked about the incomplete investigation, did not dispute that resident interviews had not been conducted. She explained the division of responsibility and moved on. The facility's abuse policy was on paper. The commitment to interview victims, witnesses, and anyone in close contact on the day of an incident was written down in that policy. The Director of Nursing had handed inspectors the document herself.
Resident B had told a nurse the same night it happened. The nurse had immediately called the Director of Nursing. The witness had told the nurse what he saw. The aide at the door had been alerted the moment residents came inside. The information was there from the beginning.
What the investigation produced, in the weeks that followed, was two staff statements and no conversations with any of the residents involved, including the woman who had been groped, the woman who said it had been happening to her repeatedly, and the man who had watched it happen and reported it himself.
Resident G said the Director of Nursing had never spoken to her. She said these behaviors kept happening outside. She said no one ever sees it.
She was right that no one had been looking very hard.
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
Data source: This article is based on inspection data downloaded directly from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) via Medicare.gov. CMS releases inspection reports in bulk; we publish the findings as documented by state surveyors in the official Form CMS-2567 Statement of Deficiencies.
Plan of correction: The CMS report we receive does not include the facility's plan of correction. Facilities submit plans of correction separately to state survey agencies and those responses may not be reflected in CMS data at the time of publication. The absence of a plan of correction in our data does not mean one was not filed. Readers who want information about corrective steps taken are encouraged to contact the facility directly or their state survey agency.
Corrections may have occurred: Inspection reports reflect conditions observed on the date of the survey. Facilities may have implemented corrections, staffing changes, additional training, or other remediation since the report was issued. We report what CMS provides and encourage readers to seek current information from the facility.
Editorial process: Inspection findings are extracted from CMS source documents and synthesized using AI, reviewed for factual accuracy against the original report by our editorial team.
Professional review: All content reviewed by Christopher F. Nesbitt, Sr., NH EMT & BU-trained Paralegal.
Last verified: September 6, 2026 · Our methodology
MAJESTIC CARE OF CONNERSVILLE in CONNERSVILLE, IN was cited for abuse-related violations during a health inspection on October 29, 2025.
What happened after that is what federal inspectors came to document.
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.