MANSFIELD, OHIO – Cornerstone Caregiving recently terminated an employee with over six months of tenure in regards to the publication of an article titled Caregiving Patient Nearly Dies Under Care of Drug Addict, Felon & Mentally Ill Caretaker. Jacqueline Vanek, Assistant Operating Director of Cornerstone, spoke via telephone today with an individual who provided the full audio recording and transcript of a conversation regarding this matter to Scumbagged. During the call, Ms. Vanek addressed inquiries concerning the employee, the patient, and the companies hiring practices, while consistently invoking HIPAA privacy regulations to protect the client.
“Such behavior is not condoned, nor does it reflect how Cornerstone Caregiving operates.” – J. Vanek
Regarding the employee’s termination, Vanek stated, “I led the investigation into the employee; she has been terminated for some time.” After considerable dialogue outlining the purpose of the contact to inform the company and protect the community from the caretaker’s actions – Vanek stated, “Such behavior is not condoned, nor does it reflect how Cornerstone Caregiving operates. We love our clients and strive to provide them with the utmost care.”
Vanek expressed concern regarding how the caller obtained detailed information about the February 3, 2026, incident, where a Cornerstone Caregiving client wandered away and required hospitalization due to prolonged exposure to the elements. She noted that the legal department was aware of the situation and that she had communicated with the police multiple times, adding that no criminal investigation was currently underway. If true, this lack of investigation is notable, given that the circumstances show clear elder abuse (drug use, drug research, being hungover at times, etc). Furthermore, the caller expressed that the employee violated HIPAA regulations by recording TikTok videos inside clients’ homes, exposing their personal effects and surroundings.
Vanek initially disputed the concerns regarding the employee’s background, asserting the company conducted a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional search prior to hiring through a background check company that they have used for some time. While she firmly denied hiring a felon, stating “We do not hire felon’s here at Cornerstone whatsoever” she maintained the employee cleared BCI, FBI, state, and federal checks upon being informed of the contrary. After being informed of the employee’s somewhat extensive criminal history across Ashland, Cuyahoga, and Lorain counties (to name a few), Vanek was urged and agreed to review both the employee’s under her watch and their background check provider. Detailed charges in regards to the terminated employee are listed below.
READERS NOTE: Vanek also cited that the company received numerous emails over time regarding the specific employee sent to care for Cornerstone’s patients. While the exact contents of these emails are unclear, they seem to reveal that the company was informed to some extent prior to the alleged elder abuse, suggesting the entire ordeal could have been prevented.
AËTOS Says: After listening to the lengthy conversation I have come up with my own understanding of the call. Initial focal point for Vanek was corporate concerns vs. genuine concern with the ladder being the first and foremost goal sprinkling in genuine concern here and there. The conversation ranged from defensive to offensive to an understanding of sorts. That is the best way to put it. A fishing expedition from both parties turned into one of understanding and genuine concern in it’s finality. Vanek and the legal department seem inclined to sweep under the rug issues and would prefer no such articles exist. Interestingly enough we have numerous receipts sent by Vanek herself to the employee, direct cash payments via digital apps as opposed to corporate checks, which makes one wonder as to why those payments were delivered in such a manner for caretaking purposes on a personal level as opposed to a corporate level. We sure wish the caller would have covered this subject a bit more, because once broached, there was a level of concern that grew with Vanek as to how the caller knew of such payments made (even though the caller didn’t intentionally divulge that he knew they were made by Vanek).
THE BOTTOM LINE
SCUMBAGGED Tip: Understandable to run a background check that doesn’t discover charges. Not understandable if the company was informed to the background and ongoing issues pertaining to their employee. Understandable due to HIPAA law’s not to know about past care issues with another company. Not understandable to not have their legal department tasked with determining if previous cases of abuse occurred with other providers. In a nutshell, if you receive numerous complaints about an employee – you should always look into them BEFORE something detrimental can ever occur to one of your clients.
