FAILED TO MONITOR AND REPORT A SERVICE RECIPIENT’S FOOD INTAKE
When “A.” Center for Autism was found by the NYS Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs to have committed “category four neglect” (as defined by the Social Services Law), the Center asked for a formal hearing.
After an Administrative Law Judge found that a “preponderance of the evidence” supported the determination that neglect had been committed, and denied the Center’s request that the report be amended and sealed, a special proceeding was brought before the a County Supreme Court, which transferred the matter to the Appellate Division, Second Department.
On its review, the AD2 noted that the Center’s staff had been remiss in tracking the food consumption of a service recipient. Apparently, a dietician had requested that the individual’s calorie intake be monitored, and that a nurse be notified when meals were refused. Lapses in that reporting by members of the Center’s staff is said to have “exposed the service recipient to harm or risk of harm.”
Because there was “substantial evidence” that the lapses were due to "systemic problems such as inadequate management, staffing, training or supervision,” the AD2 confirmed the underlying determination and dismissed the administrative proceeding.
Who’s keeping track of that?
DECISION