The dispute at Paradigm at First Colony centered on Resident #1, who had designated a friend and neighbor as her power of attorney. The administrator blocked the transfer process after the friend requested clinical records be faxed to another skilled nursing facility.
"I did not have my Social Worker faxed clinicals due to the POA did not appear to be valid," the administrator told inspectors on October 8, 2025. She argued the power of attorney was illegitimate because it was "notarized by someone that did not know Resident #1 and she looked up the notary and she only sold food."
The administrator never consulted a corporate attorney about the document's validity, despite acknowledging it contained the state seal of Texas, a notary identification number, and expiration date.
Resident #1 demonstrated clear awareness during interviews. When asked about current events, she correctly identified that "the president was Trump and she was in a nursing home, it was 2025 and Fall time of the year." She told inspectors she "knew her POA and they lived in the same apartment complex and she was her friend."
The resident explicitly consented to the transfer. "She was ok with moving to another facility because she can never live by herself anymore," according to inspection records. She said her friend "will take care of her" and that she "wanted her friend and neighbor to help her make good decisions."
The administrator claimed Resident #1 "could not have known what she was signing because of memory issues and the POA coerced Resident #1 into signing the invalid document." However, the resident directly contradicted this account, telling inspectors she "was not forced into sign POA."
When the administrator asked Resident #1 if she wanted to go to another facility, the resident initially said no. But during the formal inspection interview, she expressed willingness to move.
The facility's social worker had raised concerns about the power of attorney documentation due to an Adult Protective Services case involving the designated agent. The social worker said the administrator instructed her not to send clinical records "because of the POA not being valid."
Resident #1 was receiving psychological services for anxiety and "psychoactive behaviors" at the time of the inspection. The social worker described her as "alert x 3 at times but may need some redirection."
The administrator's decision to unilaterally reject the power of attorney created a barrier to the resident's desired transfer. The friend had "signed Resident #1 out and did not disclose where she was taking her" before returning with the durable power of attorney paperwork and transfer request.
Federal inspectors found the facility's actions violated regulations requiring proper handling of discharge and transfer requests. The facility's own policy commits to "ensuring safe discharge dispositions" and making "every effort to facilitate a smooth transition of care."
The administrator's rejection of properly notarized legal documents based on her personal investigation of the notary's occupation raised questions about the facility's understanding of power of attorney requirements. Texas law does not require notaries to personally know the parties to documents they notarize.
Resident #1 recalled "signing a lot of paperwork since she has been in this place" and maintained that her friend would "help her make good decisions." The resident's consistent statements about her relationship with the power of attorney holder contradicted the administrator's claims of coercion.
The inspection revealed a pattern of administrative obstruction that prevented a cognitively capable resident from exercising her right to designate a trusted advocate. Despite the resident's clear consent and properly executed legal documents, facility leadership created barriers to her desired care transition.
The case highlighted tensions between nursing home administrators' protective instincts and residents' autonomy rights. While Adult Protective Services involvement may have raised legitimate concerns, the facility's unilateral rejection of valid legal documents exceeded its authority.
Resident #1 remained at Paradigm at First Colony while the power of attorney dispute continued, her transfer request stalled by administrative decisions that contradicted both her stated wishes and the legal documentation she had properly executed with her chosen advocate.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Paradigm At First Colony from 2025-12-01 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.