Hearing officer warns facility over missing discharge plan; gives Friday deadline to withdraw or risk dismissal

Hearing Officer Schulman told a facility representative on the record that the hearing record contains no documentation showing the facility provided a discharge plan to resident and appellant Suzanne Devlin, and he set a deadline for the facility to submit a written withdrawal.

"I have nothing that indicates that there's compliance by your facility with respect to the discharge plan," Schulman said after questioning, noting the only material in the record beyond testimony was the notice of intent to discharge. Devlin testified she received only the notice and "just paper," and that staff told her "I was going to go to a shelter."

Schulman said state law requires a discharge plan to be provided to the resident within seven days of issuance of a notice of intent to discharge and cited the applicable statutory sections, saying the absence of that document created a procedural defect that could support findings against the facility. He told the facility they could withdraw and redo the process, or he could "write it up as a decision against the facility" by granting a motion to dismiss.

A facility representative, Miss Gomez, said she was "working on 2 of these cases" and that one file did not include Devlin's name, describing confusion about which documents had been provided. Gomez told the hearing she expected the owner to withdraw and restart the process "just because I'm not the owner." Counsel for Devlin asked Schulman for a written order on the motion to dismiss to give all parties certainty about when, if ever, the next process should begin.

Schulman said he would give the facility until Friday to submit a written withdrawal and that if he did not receive it he would issue a formal written ruling the following week. He instructed that any withdrawal be a written communication from Mr. Gibbs to the office, copying attorney Carlson, indicating withdrawal or the date a resent notice of intent to discharge was issued and noting whether the facility intended to refile.

The hearing officer noted the office gains jurisdiction over these matters only when an appeal is filed and encouraged parties to seek funding or negotiate placement while the process is reset. If the facility does not submit the written withdrawal by the deadline, Schulman said he will make a formal ruling on the motion to dismiss.

The hearing recessed after the scheduling instruction.