Citrus Post-Acute: Staff Hired With Fraudulent ID - CA
The admission came during a November 2025 complaint inspection. The aide, identified in inspection records only as RNA 1, joined the interview by telephone and spoke through an interpreter. He confirmed that back in 2009, he worked under a previous CNA license number, one he had obtained using a Social Security Number that was not his. He later acquired a legal Social Security Number and used it when he applied for the license he currently holds.
What the facility's own background check eventually turned up was something else: RNA 1 was on the Medi-Cal exclusion list.
The exclusion list exists to flag individuals barred from participating in Medi-Cal, California's Medicaid program, which funds care for a significant share of nursing home residents across the state. Being on that list is not a minor administrative footnote. It is a formal prohibition, and facilities that bill Medi-Cal are not supposed to employ people on it.
The recruitment lead, who joined the follow-up interview by phone, told inspectors the facility had conducted a rigorous background screening process. That process is what surfaced the exclusion list placement. The administrator and the director of nursing were also present for the interview with RNA 1.
What the inspection record does not resolve is how long RNA 1 worked at the facility before the exclusion was discovered, or how many residents he cared for in that time. The report identifies the level of harm as minimal harm or potential for actual harm, and notes that few residents were affected.
The fraud itself predates his employment at Citrus Post-Acute by more than fifteen years. RNA 1 was not accused of harming any resident. But the circumstances raise a question the inspection report leaves open: if the facility's background check was rigorous enough to find the Medi-Cal exclusion, why did the hiring process proceed to the point where inspectors were called in on a complaint?
The inspection was triggered by a complaint, not a routine survey. That means someone, before the facility completed its own review, believed something was wrong enough to report it.
Background screening in long-term care is meant to serve as the last line of defense against people who should not be working with vulnerable adults. The system depends on facilities checking not just whether a license is current but whether the person holding it has any flags that should disqualify them. The Medi-Cal exclusion list is one of those flags. It is publicly searchable.
RNA 1's current CNA license was obtained legally, under his legal Social Security Number. The fraudulent document was the earlier one, from 2009. Whether the Medi-Cal exclusion stems from the earlier license, the fraudulent identity, or something else entirely is not specified in the inspection report.
What is specified is that the facility's recruitment lead confirmed the exclusion list hit only after the complaint inspection was already underway, in an interview conducted the same day inspectors were on site.
The administrator was present for both interviews, the one with the recruitment lead and the one with RNA 1. No statement from the administrator about how or when the facility intended to act on the exclusion finding appears in the report.
RNA 1's status at the facility at the time the inspection closed is not recorded in the documents made public.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Citrus Post-acute from 2025-11-26 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: August 24, 2026 · Our methodology
Citrus Post-Acute in SANTA ANA, CA was cited for violations during a health inspection on November 26, 2025.
The admission came during a November 2025 complaint inspection.
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.