Majestic Care of Connersville: Sexual Abuse Failures - IN
She was right. Nobody saw it. Or if they did, they didn't act like it mattered much.
A complaint inspection at Majestic Care of Connersville, completed October 29, 2025, found that the facility failed to protect female residents from a male resident with a documented history of sexually inappropriate behavior. Two cognitively impaired women were groped during what should have been routine trips back inside from smoke breaks. Both women told inspectors what happened. Both said they had reported it to staff. The Director of Nursing, according to inspection records, had not spoken to one of them about the incident at all.
Resident B has anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder. A federal assessment from September 2025 classified her as moderately cognitively impaired. She smokes, and a few weeks before inspectors arrived, a staff member was wheeling her back into the facility when Resident C positioned himself behind her wheelchair. He started rubbing her shoulder. Then he reached his hand down the front of her chest.
She swiped his hand away and reported it immediately to LPN 2.
What she told inspectors next says more about the facility's response than any policy document could. She felt very uncomfortable. She was upset. She was fearful that Resident C was going to come into her bedroom while she was asleep.
LPN 2 called the Director of Nursing. The DON's response was to put Resident C on 15-minute checks and one-on-one supervision during smoke breaks, and to have LPN 2 reassure Resident B and give her anti-anxiety medication. That was the intervention for a resident who said she was afraid to sleep in her own room: reassurance and medication.
Resident G's account came separately. She has type 2 diabetes, generalized anxiety disorder, and depression, and she too was classified as moderately cognitively impaired in a September 2025 assessment. She was wheeling herself down a hallway when Resident C offered to push her. He slid his hand down the front of her chest. She swiped it away and told him to cut it out. She said she reported it to a couple of staff members but couldn't remember their names. When inspectors interviewed her on October 27, she said the DON had never spoken to her about what happened.
The Director of Nursing knew about Resident C. By October 5, more than three weeks before inspectors arrived, the DON had texted the Regional President of Operations to tell him Resident C was touching a female resident. The Regional President, who told inspectors he was functioning as the facility's administrator at the time, said he received that text and knew it involved Resident C and a female resident, though he wasn't sure which one.
RN 1 remembered October 5 clearly enough. She told inspectors that on that date, Resident C was placed on 15-minute checks because he was sexually acting out toward female residents. She didn't know which residents were involved either.
CNA 4 was working on October 15, when there was another allegation of sexual abuse involving Resident C. She told inspectors she was not aware that Resident C had a history of sexually inappropriate behaviors. What she did know was that he had been moved from the memory care unit, and the reason she had heard was that he "liked to girlfriend everyone."
That phrase, casual and almost affectionate, captures something about how the facility understood the problem. The Director of Nursing explained the decision to move Resident C out of memory care in terms that shifted responsibility entirely onto the women he had been touching. The facility did not feel Resident C was the instigator, the DON told inspectors. The female residents on the memory care unit had gravitated toward him. They were encouraging it.
The women the DON was describing had dementia. They lived in the memory care unit because of their cognitive impairment. The facility's own dementia care policy, provided to inspectors on October 29, states that the facility will address distress triggers and behaviors through care plans and ongoing monitoring. The DON's explanation to inspectors was that the solution to a cognitively impaired male resident touching cognitively impaired female residents was to move him to a different unit, where he subsequently groped two more women in wheelchairs over the course of a few weeks.
The DON told inspectors that staff were made aware of residents with sexually inappropriate behaviors through the care plan and the Kardex, a nursing reference document. CNA 4, who was working the day of the October 15 allegation, said she had no idea Resident C had that history.
There is a particular geography to what happened to Resident B and Resident G that matters. Both incidents occurred in transit, in the moments between the outdoor smoking area and the door back into the facility. Resident B was being wheeled by a staff member, which means Resident C approached a resident in the direct physical care of an employee and reached down her shirt. Resident G was alone in her wheelchair in a hallway when Resident C volunteered to push her.
Resident G told inspectors the behavior kept happening outside, during those returns from smoking. She had told staff. She understood the pattern. The DON had not come to talk to her.
The inspection found the deficiency caused minimal harm or potential for actual harm, and noted few residents were affected. Those are regulatory classifications, and they carry specific meanings in the federal inspection system. They do not mean the women were unharmed. Resident B told inspectors exactly what the experience cost her: fear of her own bedroom, fear that a man who had already reached down her shirt would come through her door while she slept. She was given anti-anxiety medication.
Resident G said it plainly: no one ever sees it. She had mapped the situation herself, understood the timing and location, reported it to staff, and waited. The DON never came.
The inspection was tied to a formal complaint, intake number 2644466, suggesting someone, a resident, a family member, or a staff member, had contacted regulators before inspectors walked through the door. The facility's Regional Nurse Consultant provided the dementia care policy the morning of the last day of inspection. It described ongoing monitoring of care plan interventions for effectiveness.
Resident G was still waiting to hear from the Director of Nursing when inspectors sat down with her on October 27.
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.
Or if they did, they didn't act like it mattered much.
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.