Westwood Post Acute: Sexual Abuse Unreported for Days - CA
The incident happened on April 3, 2026, around noon, in a resident's room. By the facility's own written policy, a report should have been made within two hours, to the Ombudsman, to the California Department of Public Health, and to the police. None of those calls happened that day. None happened the next day either, or the day after that.
The state inspection, conducted May 29, 2026, documented what investigators found after a complaint brought them through the door.
Two nursing assistants were in the room when it happened. One of them, identified in the inspection report as CNA C, reported the incident to the Unit Manager at 12:15 p.m. on April 3, the same day. The Unit Manager confirmed receiving that report. Then she held onto it for four days.
The Unit Manager told inspectors she finally reported the incident to the facility's Abuse Coordinator, who was the Administrator, on April 7, more than 96 hours after CNA C came to her. She acknowledged that her own facility's Abuse Reporting Protocol required reporting within two hours. She said it should have gone to the Ombudsman, the state health department, and the police. None of that happened on April 3. None of it happened on April 4, April 5, or April 6.
The female resident's family was never contacted on the day of the incident either. The Unit Manager confirmed that the responsible party was not informed on April 3.
When the Director of Nursing spoke with inspectors by phone on May 4, she confirmed that CNA C had not been alone in that room. CNA D was also present when the sexual abuse was witnessed. The Director of Nursing said the incident should have been reported earlier. That was the extent of her elaboration.
The facility submitted a five-day investigation report to the California Department of Public Health on April 10, a week after the incident. The event description in that report listed the date of the alleged incident as April 3, 2026, and described a male resident standing with exposed genitalia and making physical contact with a female resident in the head area. The report listed the date the facility received the report from staff as April 7, 2026 — four days after the abuse was witnessed.
What the five-day report did not explain was why it took from April 3 to April 7 for the administrator to hear about it, or why the family was never called that afternoon, or why no one contacted the Ombudsman or the police for days.
CNA C, when interviewed by inspectors, said she did not know who the facility's Abuse Coordinator was.
That detail sits at the center of what the inspection found. A nursing assistant who witnessed a sexual assault on a resident, reported it to her supervisor within hours, and did not know who was responsible for handling abuse at the facility where she worked. The Unit Manager knew. She waited four days anyway.
The facility's own policies, reviewed by inspectors, defined sexual abuse as non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident. A male resident exposing himself and making contact with a female resident's head without her consent fits that definition without ambiguity. The facility's abuse investigation and reporting policy, dated October 2022, stated the two-hour reporting requirement in plain terms for any alleged violation involving abuse.
The gap between what the policy said and what the Unit Manager did is four days.
Inspectors cited the violation under the standard requiring facilities to protect residents from abuse and to ensure that alleged violations are reported immediately. The level of harm was listed as minimal harm or potential for actual harm. The number of residents affected was listed as few.
What the inspection record does not contain is any explanation from the Unit Manager for why she waited. Her interview, conducted May 6 by phone, confirmed the timeline and confirmed she knew the two-hour requirement existed. She offered no account of what she believed justified the delay. The inspection report does not indicate she was asked.
The female resident at the center of this incident is identified only as Resident 4 throughout the inspection documents. Her age, her diagnosis, her condition at the time, whether she was able to communicate what happened to her, whether she understood what had happened — none of that is in the inspection record. What is in the record is that the person responsible for notifying her family chose not to make that call on April 3, and that the agencies responsible for investigating abuse in California nursing homes were not contacted that afternoon or for the four days that followed.
Westwood Post Acute is a post-acute and rehabilitation facility. The inspection was complaint-driven, meaning someone outside the facility, or someone inside it, initiated contact with the state before investigators arrived.
The Unit Manager's acknowledgment that the protocol required two-hour reporting, paired with her four-day delay, is the core of what inspectors documented. The Director of Nursing's comment that it should have been reported earlier does not appear to have been accompanied by any further detail about what, if anything, the facility did in response to the reporting failure itself, beyond submitting the five-day investigation report to the state on April 10.
By that point, a week had passed since a nursing assistant walked out of a resident's room and told her supervisor what she had seen.
The resident whose family was not called on April 3 had a responsible party somewhere, a person who had agreed to be notified when something happened. The Unit Manager knew that person existed. The incident had been reported to her at 12:15 in the afternoon. She did not make the call.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Westwood Post Acute 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
WESTWOOD POST ACUTE in SAN JOSE, CA was cited for abuse-related violations during a health inspection on May 29, 2026.
The incident happened on April 3, 2026, around noon, in a resident's room.
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.