NON-SKILLED HOME CARE REGULATIONS BY STATE | LEGAL COMPLIANCE GUIDE
Non-Skilled Home Care Regulations by State | Legal Compliance Guide
This Legal Compliance Guide provides a state-by-state overview of non-skilled home care regulations across the United States. It outlines licensure and registration requirements, permissible non-medical service scope, caregiver screening and training expectations, documentation standards, oversight agencies, and enforcement or complaint pathways. This resource is designed to support attorneys, compliance professionals, and risk teams in evaluating regulatory exposure, operational gaps, and jurisdiction-specific requirements applicable to non-skilled home care and personal care services.
These resources are used by plaintiff and defense counsel nationwide for early case assessment, regulatory analysis, and litigation strategy in medically complex matters.
| State | Primary Statute / Regulation | Complaint Filing Authority | Investigation Timeline | Required Facility Response | Reporting Triggers | Penalties / Enforcement | Documentation to Request | Operational Red Flags | Attorney Notes & Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | State non-medical home care rules + consumer protection | Adult Protective Services (APS) for abuse/neglect/exploitation; Attorney General/consumer protection for deceptive practices | Varies by channel; commonly 30–90 days | Internal investigation; written response to regulator/APS inquiry; corrective action as needed | Abuse/neglect/exploitation; unsafe transfers; theft/fraud allegations | Varies: administrative action; civil exposure; criminal referral when warranted | Service agreement, care plan/task list, schedules, caregiver screening, visit logs, incident reports | No care notes; inconsistent visit verification; undocumented incidents/refusals | Preservation letter + parallel APS/consumer track; document “promised vs delivered” services. |
| Alaska | State non-medical home care oversight + APS reporting framework | State health/human services oversight where applicable; APS for abuse/neglect/exploitation | Often weeks to months depending on allegation | Written response; documentation submission; corrective measures if deficiencies found | Abuse/neglect/exploitation; missed wellness checks; unsafe mobility assistance | Administrative sanctions where applicable; referral for criminal investigation if warranted | Service agreement, caregiver file, training, screening, visit logs, incident documentation | Scope creep into skilled tasks; lack of supervision documentation | Lock scope boundaries; use supervision/training gaps to prove foreseeability. |
| Arizona | State non-medical home care rules (personal care/companion) + consumer protection | State health oversight where applicable; APS; Attorney General for consumer fraud | Typically 30–90 days | Written response; internal investigation; corrective action plan if cited | Abuse/neglect/exploitation; unsafe transfers; medication assistance beyond reminders | Administrative sanctions; civil penalties; referral to APS/law enforcement | Service agreement, care plan, caregiver training, background checks, visit logs, incident reports | Undocumented incidents; inadequate supervision; scope creep | Negligent supervision + misrepresentation claims are frequent leverage points. |
| Arkansas | State rules governing personal care/companion services | State health oversight where applicable; APS | Often 30–90 days | Agency response; documentation production; corrective measures if required | Abuse/neglect/exploitation; unsafe environment; failure to follow service plan | Citations/corrective action; potential civil exposure | Client agreement, care notes, screening, schedules, incident documentation | Missing care notes; inconsistent visit delivery | Reconstruct timeline from schedules + visit logs + family communications. |
| California | Home Care Services Consumer Protection Act + related HCO compliance requirements | CA Dept. of Social Services (Home Care Services Bureau) + APS | Varies; triage then investigation | Written response; proof of compliance; corrective action plan if required | Abuse/neglect/exploitation; unqualified/uncleared caregiver; supervision failures | Civil penalties; licensing action; referral to law enforcement | HCO license/registration proof, caregiver clearance, training records, care notes, incident logs | Uncleared caregivers; poor monitoring; late incident reporting | Request clearance/registry documentation early—often the decisive compliance leverage point. |
| Colorado | State non-medical home care oversight + consumer protection standards | State health oversight where applicable; APS | Typically 30–90 days | Written response; compliance review; corrective action if deficiencies identified | Abuse/neglect/exploitation; unsafe transfers; missed check-ins | Administrative enforcement where applicable; referral if warranted | Care plan, visit logs, caregiver screening/training, supervision notes, incident reports | Inconsistent documentation; failure to escalate condition changes | Use prior incidents + lack of service plan updates to prove notice and breach. |
| Connecticut | Homemaker-Companion Agency registration framework + consumer protection | CT Dept. of Consumer Protection + APS | Varies by channel; commonly weeks to months | Written response; compliance verification; corrective measures | Abuse/neglect/exploitation; deceptive marketing; theft | Registration enforcement; fines; AG referral where appropriate | Client contract, caregiver screening, schedules, care notes, incident reports | Marketing implies skilled services; weak screening/supervision | DCP complaints pair well with deceptive trade practice theories + negligent hiring. |
| Delaware | State rules governing personal care/companion services | State oversight where applicable; APS | Typically 30–90 days | Written response; internal review; corrective action if needed | Abuse/neglect/exploitation; unsafe home environment | Administrative sanctions where applicable; civil exposure | Service agreement, care notes, caregiver screening, visit logs, incident reports | Incomplete documentation; inconsistent visit verification | Use documentation gaps to support breach + causation narrative. |
| Florida | AHCA-regulated home care framework (non-skilled services) + state reporting rules | AHCA (where applicable) + APS | Varies; often weeks to months depending on triage | Written response; corrective action plan if cited; staff remediation | Abuse/neglect/exploitation; unsafe care delivery; unqualified caregivers | Deficiencies; fines; licensure action; referral if warranted | Care plan, caregiver training/screening, supervision notes, incident logs, client contract | Inadequate supervision; scope creep; missing incident documentation | Parallel AHCA complaint + preservation letter strengthens early leverage. |
| Georgia | State non-medical home care oversight + consumer protection standards | State health oversight where applicable; APS | Typically 30–90 days | Written response; documentation production; corrective measures | Abuse/neglect/exploitation; unsafe transfers; failure to follow service plan | Administrative sanctions; potential fines; civil exposure | Service agreement, caregiver screening/training, visit logs, incident reports | Missed visits; inadequate training; weak supervision | Training gaps + repeat schedule failures support negligent supervision/retention claims. |
| Hawaii | State non-medical home care oversight and consumer protection statutes | Hawaii Department of Health; Adult Protective Services (APS) | Typically several weeks to months depending on complaint severity | Written response; internal review; corrective action if deficiencies identified | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe home environment; missed safety checks | Administrative sanctions; potential civil exposure | Service agreement, care notes, caregiver screening, visit logs, incident reports | Scope creep into skilled tasks; lack of documented supervision | Confirm licensure category and scope boundaries early to frame liability. |
| Idaho | State personal assistance and companion service regulations | Idaho Department of Health & Welfare; APS | Often 30–90 days | Written response; documentation submission; corrective measures if required | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; missed wellness checks | Administrative action where applicable; referral if warranted | Client agreement, care notes, schedules, caregiver screening, incident documentation | Schedule discrepancies; undocumented refusals of care | Use schedules and communications to establish nonperformance. |
| Illinois | State home services and companion care regulations | Illinois Department of Public Health; APS; Attorney General (consumer complaints) | Typically 30–90 days | Agency response; corrective action plan if cited | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe conditions; failure to follow service plan | Citations, fines, licensure action where applicable | Service plan, caregiver screening, training records, visit logs | Policy noncompliance; inconsistent documentation | Clarify regulatory classification—misclassification strengthens claims. |
| Indiana | State health department rules affecting personal care services | Indiana Department of Health; APS | Often 30–60 days for initial review | Written response; internal investigation; corrective measures | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe transfers | Deficiencies; corrective action requirements | Care plans, caregiver files, training, incident reports | Incomplete caregiver files; lack of supervision | Training and supervision gaps support negligent retention theories. |
| Iowa | State non-medical personal care service regulations | Iowa Dept. of Inspections, Appeals & Licensing; APS | Generally 30–90 days | Written response; corrective action if deficiencies found | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; failure to provide ADL assistance | Administrative sanctions; potential fines | Service agreement, care notes, schedules, caregiver screening | Inconsistent ADL documentation | Compare contracted ADLs with documented delivery. |
| Kansas | State aging and disability services regulations | Kansas Dept. for Aging & Disability Services; APS | Often 30–90 days | Agency response; corrective plan if required | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe living conditions | Citations; corrective action mandates | Client contracts, care plans, visit logs | Missed visits; failure to document condition changes | Use schedule variance to show breach and notice. |
| Kentucky | State statutes governing personal care services | Kentucky Cabinet for Health & Family Services; APS | Typically 30–60 days | Written response; staff remediation if cited | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe mobility assistance | Administrative sanctions; civil exposure | Care plans, caregiver training, supervision notes | Scope creep; weak oversight | Confirm non-skilled boundaries to support negligence per se arguments. |
| Louisiana | State health department regulations for non-medical home care | Louisiana Department of Health; APS | Often 30–90 days | Formal response; corrective action plan if required | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe home environment | Deficiencies, fines, licensure action | Client agreements, care notes, screening, incident documentation | Failure to escalate safety concerns | Negligent supervision claims supported by prior warnings. |
| Maine | State personal care and companion service regulations | Maine DHHS; APS | Typically weeks to months | Agency response; compliance verification | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe conditions | Administrative enforcement; civil exposure | Care plans, visit notes, caregiver screening | Documentation gaps | Consumer protection claims may apply if services were misrepresented. |
| Maryland | State regulations governing non-medical home care agencies | Maryland Department of Health; APS | Generally 30–90 days | Written response; corrective action if cited | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe ADL assistance | Citations, fines, possible licensure action | Service agreements, care notes, caregiver training/screening | Inadequate screening or supervision | Background check and training failures are key leverage points. |
| Michigan | State statutes and administrative rules governing non-medical personal care services | Michigan Department of Health and Human Services; Adult Protective Services (APS) | Typically 30–90 days depending on complaint severity | Written response; internal investigation; corrective action if deficiencies identified | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe transfers; missed wellness checks | Administrative sanctions; potential civil liability | Service agreement, care plan, visit logs, caregiver screening and training records | Documentation gaps; inconsistent caregiver assignments | Establish notice through prior incidents and failure to revise the service plan. |
| Minnesota | State home care statutes and PCA-related administrative rules | Minnesota Department of Health; Adult Protective Services | Often 30–90 days | Formal written response; corrective action plan if cited | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe ADL assistance; missed visits | Administrative penalties, fines, possible license action | Service agreement, EVV/visit logs, caregiver training, incident reports | Visit verification discrepancies; inadequate supervision | EVV data is powerful evidence—request early and reconcile with billing. |
| Mississippi | State health department regulations applicable to personal care services | Mississippi State Department of Health; Adult Protective Services | Typically 30–60 days for initial review | Written response; documentation submission; staff remediation if required | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe living conditions | Citations, corrective action requirements, potential civil exposure | Client agreement, care notes, caregiver screening, incident documentation | Under-documentation; failure to escalate safety concerns | Use documentation gaps to establish breach and failure to intervene. |
| Missouri | State statutes and regulations governing in-home personal care services | Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services; Adult Protective Services | Generally 30–90 days | Written response; corrective action plan if deficiencies identified | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; failure to monitor condition changes | Administrative sanctions; possible fines | Care plans, visit notes, caregiver training and screening records | Missed visits; inconsistent staffing | Pattern failures support notice and negligent retention arguments. |
| Montana | State health regulations applicable to non-medical home care providers | Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services; APS | Typically weeks to months | Agency response; compliance verification | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe mobility assistance | Administrative sanctions where applicable | Service agreements, care notes, caregiver screening, incident reports | Scope creep; lack of documented supervision | Confirm non-skilled scope boundaries to frame liability. |
| Nebraska | State statutes and administrative rules governing personal care services | Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services; APS | Often 30–90 days | Written response; corrective measures if deficiencies found | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe care delivery | Citations, fines, possible licensure action | Client agreements, care notes, caregiver training and screening records | Incomplete documentation; inconsistent care delivery | Training and screening deficiencies often drive liability. |
| Nevada | State health department regulations governing personal care and companion services | Nevada Department of Health and Human Services; APS | Typically 30–90 days | Formal response; corrective action plan if cited | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe ADL assistance | Administrative penalties; potential civil liability | Care plans, visit logs, caregiver screening, incident documentation | Weak supervision; delayed incident reporting | Incident-reporting failures strengthen negligence claims. |
| New Hampshire | State statutes and rules governing non-medical home care services | New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services; APS | Typically weeks to months | Agency response; documentation production | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe home environment | Administrative sanctions where applicable | Service agreements, care notes, caregiver screening, incident reports | Missing or inconsistent documentation | Early preservation letters are critical due to limited record retention. |
| New Jersey | State statutes and regulations governing personal care and homemaker services | New Jersey Department of Health; Adult Protective Services | Generally 30–90 days | Written response; corrective action plan if deficiencies identified | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unqualified or uncertified aides | Citations, fines, licensure sanctions | Care plans, aide certification proof, training records, visit logs | Uncredentialed caregivers; poor supervision | Credential compliance is often a decisive leverage point. |
| New Mexico | State statutes and administrative rules governing non-medical home care services | New Mexico Department of Health; Adult Protective Services | Typically 30–90 days | Written response; internal investigation; corrective action if required | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe assistance with mobility or hygiene | Administrative sanctions; referral to APS or law enforcement when warranted | Service agreement, care plan, caregiver screening and training, visit logs | Documentation gaps; failure to escalate safety concerns | Use preserved communications to establish notice and failure to act. |
| New York | State home care statutes and regulations governing non-medical personal care services | New York State Department of Health complaint process; Adult Protective Services (APS) for abuse/neglect/exploitation | Varies by complaint; triage then investigation, often weeks to months | Agency response to DOH inquiry; corrective action plan if required; staff remediation | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe care practices; unqualified aides | DOH enforcement actions, fines, license sanctions; referral as warranted | Agency license/registration proof, aide training/credentialing, care notes, schedules, incident logs | Failure to document ADLs; inconsistent staffing; poor supervision | Request credentialing and supervision records early; DOH complaint can run parallel to preservation demands. |
| North Carolina | State statutes and administrative rules governing in-home aide and companion services | North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services; Adult Protective Services | Typically 30–90 days depending on investigation scope | Written response; documentation submission; corrective action where deficiencies exist | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe transfers; failure to follow service plan | Administrative citations, potential fines, license action if applicable | Client agreement, service plan, visit logs, caregiver screening/training, incident reports | Missed visits; incomplete documentation; lack of escalation for safety concerns | Prove breach through schedule variance and failure to update the service plan after warning signs. |
| North Dakota | State health and human services rules applicable to non-medical home care providers | North Dakota Department of Health and Human Services; Adult Protective Services | Often weeks to months depending on triage | Agency response; internal review; corrective action if cited | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe home environment; inadequate supervision | Administrative sanctions where applicable; referral if warranted | Service agreements, care notes, caregiver screening, schedules, incident documentation | Documentation gaps; failure to report incidents promptly | Confirm provider classification and oversight lane; scope and documentation failures drive exposure. |
| Ohio | State statutes and administrative code governing non-medical home care/personal care services | Ohio Department of Health; Adult Protective Services; Attorney General for consumer complaints as needed | Typically 30–90 days depending on complaint type | Written response; corrective action plan if deficiencies identified | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe ADL assistance; missed wellness checks | Citations, fines, licensure enforcement action | License proof, care plan, visit verification, caregiver screening and training records | Visit/billing mismatches; inadequate supervision | Compare visit verification to billing; mismatches can support fraud/nonperformance theories. |
| Oklahoma | State health department rules applicable to personal care and companion services | Oklahoma State Department of Health; Adult Protective Services | Generally 30–90 days depending on findings | Agency response; documentation submission; corrective measures if cited | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe transfers; failure to follow service plan | Administrative sanctions, fines, possible license action | Client agreement, care notes, schedules, caregiver screening and training, incident logs | Pattern of missed visits; poor incident reporting | Pattern evidence (repeat failures) supports notice + negligent retention arguments. |
| Oregon | State statutes and administrative rules governing in-home care and personal care services | Oregon Health Authority / applicable oversight entity; Adult Protective Services | Typically weeks to months | Written response; compliance review; corrective action plan if required | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe ADL assistance; failure to escalate safety concerns | Administrative enforcement actions; possible fines | Service agreement, care plan, caregiver training/screening, visit logs, incident documentation | Scope creep; inadequate documentation of ADL/IADL tasks | Lock scope-of-service and use documentation gaps to establish breach and causation. |
| Pennsylvania | State statutes and regulations governing in-home personal care services and consumer protection standards | Pennsylvania Department of Health / applicable oversight; Adult Protective Services | Often 30–90 days depending on triage and evidence | Agency response; corrective action plan if deficiencies identified | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe care delivery; failure to follow service plan | Citations, fines, licensure action where applicable | Care plans, caregiver screening/training, visit notes, incident reports | Incomplete records; inconsistent staffing; poor supervision | Request caregiver personnel file early; training and supervision gaps are central. |
| Rhode Island | State statutes and administrative rules governing homemaker and companion services | Rhode Island Department of Health / applicable oversight; Adult Protective Services | Typically weeks to months | Written response; compliance verification; corrective measures if required | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe assistance with ADLs | Administrative sanctions; potential civil penalties | Service agreements, care notes, caregiver screening, training records, incident documentation | Under-documentation; failure to escalate safety risks | Compare contracted services to delivered logs to support nonperformance claims. |
| South Carolina | State statutes and regulations governing in-home personal care and companion services | South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control; Adult Protective Services | Often 30–90 days depending on complaint type | Agency response; internal investigation; corrective action plan if cited | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe transfers; missed safety checks | Citations, fines, licensure action where applicable | Care plan, visit logs, caregiver screening/training, supervision notes, incident reports | Poor incident reporting; inconsistent caregiver assignments | Scheduler notes and call logs often provide best notice evidence—preserve early. |
| South Dakota | State statutes and administrative rules governing non-medical personal care services | South Dakota Department of Health; Adult Protective Services (APS) | Typically weeks to months depending on complaint severity | Written response; documentation submission; corrective action if deficiencies identified | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe ADL assistance; missed wellness checks | Administrative sanctions; potential civil liability | Client agreement, care notes, caregiver screening and training, incident reports | Documentation gaps; inconsistent visit delivery | Use care note inconsistencies and schedule gaps to establish breach and causation. |
| Tennessee | State statutes and rules governing personal care and companion services | Tennessee Department of Health; Adult Protective Services | Often 30–90 days depending on complaint severity | Formal written response; corrective action plan if cited | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe transfers; failure to monitor condition changes | Citations, fines, licensure action where applicable | Care plans, visit logs, caregiver training and screening, incident documentation | Missed visits; lack of escalation for safety concerns | Establish notice through prior complaints and failure to update service plans. |
| Texas | State statutes and administrative code governing non-medical home and personal assistance services | Texas Health and Human Services Commission; APS; Attorney General for consumer complaints | Typically 30–90 days depending on investigation scope | Written response; corrective action plan; staff remediation if required | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe care delivery; visit or billing discrepancies | Administrative penalties, fines, license action, referral as warranted | Service agreement, care plan, visit verification, caregiver screening/training, incident logs | Visit/billing mismatches; inadequate supervision | Billing and visit verification inconsistencies are strong leverage points in Texas cases. |
| Utah | State statutes and administrative rules governing personal care and companion services | Utah Department of Health and Human Services; Adult Protective Services | Generally weeks to months | Agency response; documentation review; corrective action if required | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe assistance with mobility or hygiene | Administrative sanctions; potential civil exposure | Care plans, caregiver screening/training, visit notes, incident documentation | Scope creep; weak supervision | Confirm licensing classification and scope boundaries to frame liability. |
| Vermont | State statutes and rules governing homemaker and personal care services | Vermont Department of Disabilities, Aging & Independent Living; APS | Typically weeks to months | Written response; compliance verification | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe living conditions | Administrative enforcement actions; possible fines | Service agreements, care notes, caregiver screening and training, incident reports | Incomplete documentation; lack of supervision | Training and oversight documentation are central to negligence analysis. |
| Virginia | State statutes and administrative code governing personal care and companion services | Virginia Department of Health; Adult Protective Services | Often 30–90 days depending on complaint type | Agency response; corrective action plan if deficiencies identified | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe transfers; failure to follow service plan | Citations, fines, licensure action where applicable | Care plans, caregiver screening/training, visit logs, incident documentation | Missed visits; inadequate supervision | Service plan deviations and staffing gaps support negligent supervision claims. |
| Washington | State statutes and administrative rules governing in-home personal care services | Washington State Department of Health; Adult Protective Services | Typically weeks to months | Written response; compliance review; corrective action if required | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe ADL assistance | Administrative sanctions, fines, potential licensure action | Care plans, caregiver credentialing/training, visit notes, incident reports | Under-documentation; delayed incident reporting | Credential and training records are key pressure points in Washington cases. |
| West Virginia | State statutes and health department rules governing non-medical home care services | West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources; APS | Typically weeks to months | Agency response; corrective measures if deficiencies identified | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe home environment | Administrative sanctions; potential civil liability | Service agreements, care notes, caregiver screening, incident documentation | Documentation gaps; failure to escalate safety concerns | Use notice and failure-to-intervene framework supported by communications. |
| Wisconsin | State statutes and administrative code governing personal care and supportive home services | Wisconsin Department of Health Services; Adult Protective Services | Typically 30–90 days depending on findings | Written response; corrective action plan if cited | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe assistance with ADLs | Citations, fines, possible licensure action | Care plans, visit logs, caregiver training and screening, incident reports | Missed visits; inconsistent documentation | Establish breach through schedule variance and uncorrected care failures. |
| Wyoming | State statutes and administrative rules applicable to non-medical home care services | Wyoming Department of Health; Adult Protective Services | Generally weeks to months | Agency response; documentation review; corrective action if required | Abuse, neglect, exploitation; unsafe living conditions | Administrative sanctions where applicable; referral if warranted | Service agreements, care notes, caregiver screening and training, incident documentation | Limited documentation; weak oversight | Confirm oversight lane early; documentation failures often drive liability. |
Back to Top ↑
How to use this state-by-state table (non-skilled home care)
Use this reference to identify typical complaint pathways, documentation targets, and operational red flags for private duty / companion / personal care cases. Regulatory oversight and terminology vary by state and by the agency’s licensing classification.
Important: This page is informational and not legal advice. Always validate jurisdiction-specific rules and agency classification before filing complaints or alleging regulatory noncompliance.
Common Failure Patterns in Non-Skilled Home Care Compliance
Across jurisdictions, regulatory exposure in non-skilled home care settings most often arises from operational execution failures rather than unclear statutory language. The patterns below frequently surface during investigations, audits, litigation, and licensing reviews.
- Unlicensed or Misclassified Operations: Agencies providing personal care services without proper state licensure or operating under an incorrect regulatory category.
- Scope Creep Into Skilled Services: Caregivers performing tasks that exceed non-medical authority (medication administration, clinical monitoring, health assessments).
- Inadequate Caregiver Screening and Training: Missing background checks, incomplete onboarding documentation, or lack of role-specific training tied to assigned tasks.
- Deficient Care Plans or Service Agreements: Vague or generic service plans that fail to define task limits, escalation procedures, or supervision responsibilities.
- Poor Documentation and Record Retention: Incomplete visit logs, missing incident reports, inconsistent client files, or inability to produce records during investigation.
- Complaint Handling Breakdowns: Failure to log, investigate, escalate, or respond to client complaints in accordance with state oversight expectations.
- Supervision Gaps: Lack of documented supervisory oversight, periodic reviews, or compliance monitoring of caregiver performance.
Popular litigation-ready deliverables
Medical Record Review + Red Flag Screening
Identify scope-of-service issues, supervision gaps, incident handling failures, and documentation weaknesses.
Request Review
Medical Chronology
Clear timelines of care delivery, missed visits, condition changes, and escalation failures — formatted for litigation.
Get a Chronology
Demand Support + Narrative Summary
Convert care failures and documentation gaps into a clear liability story with damages framing and record citations.
Build the Demand
Want case-specific strategy for a non-skilled home care matter?
Upload the key records and identify the jurisdiction. Our team will isolate regulatory leverage points, scope-of-service violations, supervision gaps, and documentation failures — then recommend next steps aligned to your case posture.
Standard turnaround: 7 days • Rush options available • HIPAA-aligned handling