Home health aide and boyfriend arrested for using credit card belonging to disabled client
Staff report
GAINESVILLE, Fla. – Malaysia Uynalyse Rushing, 23, and Jeffrey Jarreau Frisbey, 33, were arrested yesterday for allegedly using a credit card taken from a disabled woman while Rushing was providing in-home healthcare for her.
Rushing’s first day with the victim was September 30, and she was at the victim’s home from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. on that date; she was the only caregiver assigned to the victim and was alone with the victim during that period.
The victim told a Gainesville Police Department (GPD) officer that she went to the bathroom several times during that period, leaving her purse on a chair in the kitchen. Several hours after Rushing left the victim’s home, the victim began receiving fraud alerts for her credit card, and when she checked her wallet, the card was missing. She immediately canceled her card, but 10 purchases totaling $1,510.03 had already been made.
One of the fraudulent purchases was made at Target in Gainesville, where a Loss Prevention Officer found surveillance video of the transaction. The video reportedly showed Rushing and a man making the purchase; the man, later identified as Frisbey, used the card while Rushing watched. The GPD detective who investigated the case reported that the video showed Rushing and Frisbey in “excellent, crystal-clear surveillance video” and their faces were fully exposed.
The pair can be seen getting into a car, and the detective reported that the license plate is registered to Rushing.
The card was also used at Bath & Body Works in Butler Plaza, and again, the detective reported that there was high-quality surveillance video showing Frisbey using the card while Rushing watched.
Frisbey also allegedly made a purchase at Oaks South pawn shop, and the pair allegedly purchased an Apple Watch at TB Goods (Frisbey again allegedly used the card while Rushing watched). Frisbey reportedly provided his name at TB Goods to take advantage of their customer loyalty program.
A representative from Rushing’s employer went to GPD Headquarters on October 2 and said the business placed Rushing on suspension after the victim reported the theft. Rushing’s employer gave the detective evidence from the company’s internal investigation and said Rushing had denied taking the credit card or using it.
Rushing was arrested yesterday and brought to GPD Headquarters for an interview. Post Miranda, she reportedly identified herself in surveillance video from Target, Bath & Body Works, and TB Goods Pawn Shop. The detective reported that she was still wearing the same clothes she had worn in the stores. Rushing also reportedly identified Frisbey as the male who was with her in each store. However, when she was asked why she took the victim’s card, she continued to deny taking the card.
Rushing confirmed that she and the victim were the only people at the victim’s house during the period when the card went missing, and she reportedly had no explanation for how Frisbey ended up with the victim’s credit card.
Frisbey was arrested while Rushing was being interviewed, and he was also taken to GPD Headquarters. Post Miranda, he did not admit or deny obtaining the credit card from Rushing; he reportedly nodded his head, “No,” and said, “It was a mistake.” When asked why he had used the victim’s card in multiple stores when Rushing had taken it, he reportedly said again, “It was a mistake.”
Rushing has been charged with grand theft, exploitation of an elderly or disabled adult, and fraudulent use of a credit card. She has no criminal history, and Judge Jonathan Ramsey set bail at $20,000.
Frisbey has been charged with grand theft and fraudulent use of a credit card. He has two felony convictions (non-violent) and two misdemeanor convictions (non-violent) and has served two state prison sentences, with his most recent release in 2018. Judge Ramsey set bail at $15,000.
Articles about arrests are based on reports from law enforcement agencies. The charges listed are taken from the arrest report and/or court records and are only accusations. All suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
I hate it when people act stupid, and that is their complete defense. “I don’t know how my boyfriend got the card I stole from the client today”….c’mon – idiots!!
These care agencies need to better vet their caregivers. These type of crimes against the elderly are despicable.
The “agencies” in the context of caregiving are mostly groups of people who take half the going rate for doing little more than vouching for individuals without practical experience. In other words, if you hire someone from an agency for $30 per hour, you get a mash-up of formally educated but inexperienced caregivers, none of whom will be around enough to get to know any one client or the client’s needs, and who have no incentive because they are getting paid barely above minimum wage. If, like me, a caregiver has any experience, he or she will have previous clients vouching for them and will have no need for an agency. The thing about doing it on your own, though, is you have to be good at what you do. Since there are more people who need care than there are competent caregivers, agencies (the McDonald’s of caregiving) are clamoring to fill in the gaps. Rarely when dealing with a caregiving agency do you get what you pay for.
Licensed agencies are required to conduct background checks through utilization of State of Florida Agency for Healthcare Administration (AHCA) Background Screening Portal, which includes a level 2 fingerprinted background screening. Agencies provide an additional layer of accountability and oversight to ensure reliable and screened caregivers. Additionally, licensed agencies are insured, routinely surveyed the state licensing authority (AHCA) and manage earning of its caregivers, ensuring taxes and withholdings of its employees. Statistically, the majority of abuse, neglect and exploitation cases are committed by family members and independent caregivers who are not employed by licensed agencies.
That’s a lot of words to say “vouch for,” which I already said. All of the specific degrees of vouching you cite are strawmen. None of what you have said negates the fact that these “agencies” send formally educated but inexperienced employees (of the company, not the clients) willy-nilly at clients without any consideration of the idiosyncrasies or long-term needs of the clients. Statistically, if you like statistics, “there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Your cited majority necessarily excludes all the family and independent caregivers who don’t show up on the radar, because they’re competent and haven’t committed crimes—another strawman argument.
@Misty — The story states she had no criminal history. She would have passed a criminal background check.
Why does stealing come so naturally in certain subcultures?
ACLUSPLCDNC 💩👺🤡👿👹
Why does stereotyping and parrot imitation come so naturally to you?