LOS ANGELES — State regulators have launched an inquiry into the Santa Monica sober living home where Presley Gerber died Sunday of a suspected overdose.
The California Department of Health Care Services, responding to a complaint from a rehab reform advocate, is reviewing whether the sober home, Resolutions Living, was illegally providing services that required a state license, spokesman Anthony Cava said Friday.
“DHCS does not oversee sober living homes, and would only investigate sober living homes to determine if they are operating as an unlicensed treatment facility in violation of state law,” Cava said. He said no further information was available.
As a self-described “recovery residence,” the posh Resolutions Living home on Berkeley Street is not licensed by the DHCS — and would not need one as long as no addiction treatment is occurring at the facility or by staff. Sober living homes are supposed to provide only a place where people recovering from substance abuse disorder can live.
The home where Gerber was admitted is valued at $7.7 million, with seven bedrooms and nine bathrooms.
Resolutions Living has a sister operation, an outpatient treatment center on Wilshire Boulevard in Santa Monica called Resolutions Therapeutic Services. Both were founded by psychologist Reza Nabavi. Resolutions Therapeutic also is not licensed by DHCS and it is unclear whether the operation needs one under state regulations that reformists say are confusing and filled with loopholes.
Nabavi did not return multiple emails and voicemails seeking comment.
The complaint that triggered the probe into Resolutions Living was filed by reform advocate Jennifer Turner, whose daughter was injured at an unrelated mental health treatment center in 2016.
In her complaint, Turner wrote: “A 27-year-old man entered this environment seeking help and was dead the following morning. Regardless of the ultimate cause of death, the circumstances warrant a thorough regulatory investigation into the facility.”
The death of the son of supermodel Cindy Crawford and businessman Rande Gerber has thrown the Resolutions operation under a harsh spotlight and raised questions about whether state regulators are doing enough to protect people suffering from substance abuse who come to the businesses battling addiction.
Turner’s complaint peppered state officials with questions about Resolutions Living that she said need investigating.
For one thing, she asked whether Gerber required a higher level of care and was accepted into a facility not authorized to provide detoxification, withdrawal management, residential substance-use treatment or other clinical services.
“My concern is that the activities taking place at this location may have crossed the legal boundary between sober housing and licensed residential treatment,” Turner wrote.
She also urged the state to investigate Resolutions Living’s marketing campaign and whether it pitched itself as providing residential addiction recovery or treatment services beyond what is permitted at an unlicensed sober living residence.
“The company’s own website uses terms including ‘mental health recovery residence,’ ‘recovery program,’ ‘individual recovery plans,’ ‘three-phase recovery program,’ ‘addiction and mental health support, ‘ ” the complaint said, adding that it also describes “24/7 onsite staff.”
Angela McMahon, a licensing and accreditation consultant, said the treatment arm of the Resolutions operation, Resolutions Therapeutic Services, also “sits in a gray area” with its advertising. McMahon said the businesses appears to primarily operate as a mental health center, which would not likely require a DHCS license.
“It presents itself as a mental health program … but its website headline is ‘Mental Health, Trauma, and Addiction Treatment,’ ” McMahon said. “It has a dedicated Substance Use Disorder page and advertises relapse prevention. The way SUD treatment is promoted could be argued as treating it as a primary diagnosis,” which could require a DHCS license.
Turner’s complaint argues that if group sessions are being held at Resolutions Living, then the sober home would be subject to regulation.
The complaint also questioned why Gerber would be accepted at Resolutions Living if he was visibly intoxicated or under the influence when he arrived, rather than being referred to an appropriately licensed withdrawal-management, detoxification, emergency medical or residential treatment setting.
Turner asked DHCS to find out what assessment was conducted, who made the decision to admit Gerber, what that person’s qualifications were and what procedures were followed.
“If Mr. Gerber required withdrawal management or detoxification, I ask DHCS to determine whether (Resolutions) was authorized to provide that service and, if not, why he remained there,” Turner wrote.
She also questioned whether staff was monitoring Gerber’s medical condition, monitoring withdrawal, supervising or managing medications, conducting detox-related observations, administering or overseeing medications, or performing any other medical services requiring DHCS approval.
“Was an individual reportedly under the influence admitted to a sober living residence that was not authorized to provide the level of care he required, and was Resolutions Living actually providing regulated addiction treatment, detoxification, clinical monitoring, or recovery services beyond the lawful scope of sober housing?” the complaint asked.
(Staff writer Teri Sforza contributed to this article.)