Hickory Creek New Castle: Abuse Report Omitted Key Facts - IN
Indiana health inspectors documented the omission following a complaint investigation completed in late May 2026. What they found was not a facility that failed to investigate. It was a facility that investigated, reached a conclusion, created care plans to address what happened, and then sent the state a report that read as though almost nothing of consequence had occurred.
The two residents at the center of the incident are identified in inspection records only as Resident B and Resident D. Resident D admitted to touching Resident B's breast. That admission, according to the executive director herself, came out during the investigation. She said she substantiated the abuse allegation on the basis of it.
What the follow-up report sent to the Indiana State Department of Health said, or rather did not say, is the core of the citation. The report did not include that Resident D had admitted to the touching. It did not include that the abuse had been substantiated. It did not include that a care plan had been developed for Resident D specifically addressing his inappropriate touching of Resident B, with interventions requiring that the two residents be kept separated during meals and activities and that Resident D not enter other residents' rooms uninvited. It did not include that Resident D's existing care plan for distributing candy to other residents had been revised after the incident to restrict that activity to common areas only.
The executive director, interviewed by inspectors on May 27, 2026, did not dispute any of this. She confirmed each omission. She said she was unsure why she had not included Resident D's admission in the report. She said she was unsure why she had not noted that the abuse was substantiated. She said she was unsure why she had not described the care plan interventions that her own facility had put in place.
She offered one explanation for a phrase that had appeared in the report. When she wrote that staff and resident interviews had been conducted "with no concerns," she said she meant there were no concerns identified among other residents or other staff members. She did not mean, she told inspectors, that Resident D's interview had raised no concerns.
That distinction matters, but it does not resolve what was missing. A resident admitted to sexually touching another resident. The facility found that admission credible enough to substantiate the allegation and restructure both residents' care plans. None of that appeared in the official report forwarded to state regulators.
Indiana's long-term care rules require that upon completion of an abuse investigation, which is to occur within five working days of the reported occurrence, a report be forwarded to the Long-Term Care Division of the Indiana State Department of Health. The requirement is not simply that a report be filed. The point of the requirement is that the state receives information about what the investigation found.
A report that omits the perpetrator's admission, the substantiated finding, and the protective measures the facility itself deemed necessary does not accomplish that purpose. The state, reading that report, would have had no way to know that a resident had admitted to groping a woman in her room, that the facility had confirmed it happened, or that the two residents now had to be kept apart at meals.
The executive director provided the facility's Abuse Prohibition and Investigating policy to inspectors on May 19, 2026. The policy described the reporting requirement in straightforward terms. The gap between that policy and what was actually submitted to the state is what the citation addresses.
The inspection report does not describe how the incident itself occurred, when it was first reported internally, or what Resident B's condition or response was. It does not describe whether Resident B has dementia or any other cognitive impairment, or whether she was able to report the incident herself or whether it was observed or reported by staff. Those details are not in the inspection record as provided.
What is in the record is the shape of what followed. Someone reported an incident. The facility investigated. Resident D admitted to touching Resident B's breast. The executive director found that sufficient to substantiate abuse. Staff developed a care plan that acknowledged what Resident D had done and put specific limits on his movements and interactions, including keeping him away from Resident B during shared activities and meals, barring him from entering other residents' rooms without invitation, and confining his candy-distribution habit to common areas where other residents would be present.
Those are not trivial interventions. A care plan that restricts a resident's access to other residents' private rooms, that requires supervised separation during daily activities, reflects a judgment that the risk of further incidents was real enough to manage actively. The facility made that judgment. It simply did not tell the state.
The executive director's uncertainty about why she omitted these details is the most striking element of her interview. She did not claim the omissions were intentional. She did not offer an alternative account of what the investigation found. She agreed, item by item, that each piece of information was missing from the report. She had no explanation for any of it.
The inspection was tied to Intake 2975918 and cited under 410 IAC 3.1-28(e), Indiana's administrative code governing abuse reporting in long-term care facilities. The level of harm was assessed as minimal harm or potential for actual harm, and the finding was noted as affecting few residents.
Resident B remains at Hickory Creek at New Castle. So, based on the inspection record, does Resident D, whose care plan now requires that he be kept away from her.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Hickory Creek At New Castle from 2026-05-29 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.
Download the official CMS inspection PDF from Medicare.gov
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 19, 2026 · Our methodology
HICKORY CREEK AT NEW CASTLE in NEW CASTLE, IN was cited for abuse-related violations during a health inspection on May 29, 2026.
Indiana health inspectors documented the omission following a complaint investigation completed in late May 2026.
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.