4515 Sunnyside Road Se, Salem, OR 97302 · Marion County · (503) 370-8284
88 certified beds, about 75 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1989
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 385189 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 6, 2025, inspectors cited 7 health deficiencies (the Oregon average is 9.2, the national average 9.2).
None of its 52 health citations since November 2022 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 5.22 hours per resident per day, against 5.03 across Oregon and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.45 of those hours.
42.1% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Oregon average 47.4%).
CMS links it to Avamere, an affiliated group of 27 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 52 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure qualified staff administered medications for one of one facility reviewed for medication administration. This placed residents at risk for receiving medication errors.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure narcotic drug records were in order, and an account of all controlled drugs was maintained for 4 of 4 medication carts reviewed for medication administration. This placed residents at risk for drug diversion.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were able to be fully informed in language that she/he can understand of her/his health status and participate in health care decisions for 1 of 7 sampled residents (#39). This placed residents at risk for not being able to fully participate in their own health care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide a written grievance resolution or communication with a resident regarding the resolution of a resident's grievance for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#69) reviewed for dignity. This placed residents at risk for unaddressed concerns and grievances.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide residents with a written bed hold notification, including reserved bed hold payment, at the time of transfer to the hospital for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#18) reviewed for hospitalization. This placed residents at risk for lack of knowledge regarding their choices and potential financial responsibilities.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to provide respiratory care and services under physician orders for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#47) reviewed for respiratory services. This placed residents at risk for unmet respiratory needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate pain management for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#55) reviewed for pain. This placed residents at risk for uncontrolled pain.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure sufficient supplies were available to ensure a functional and comfortable environment for one of two floors reviewed for environment. This placed residents at risk for an uncomfortable living environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff to ensure residents attained or maintained their highest practicable mental, physical, and psychosocial well-being for 4 of 7 sampled residents (#s 1, 2, 3, and 13) and 2 of 2 floors reviewed for call light wait times and staffing. This placed residents at risk for lack of ADL care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to accommodate residents with the correct fit of incontinence briefs for 4 of 13 sampled residents (#s 1, 6, 13 and 15) reviewed for dignity and respect and accommodation of need. This placed residents at risk skin breakdown and discomfort.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents' rights to a dignified existence for 2 of 5 sampled residents (#s 3 and 15) reviewed for dignity and respect. This placed residents at risk for diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to notify the physician regarding a change in condition for 1 of 4 sampled residents (#5) reviewed for change of condition. This placed residents at risk for lack of physician involvement.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents food preferences were honored for 1 of 3 sampled resident (#3) reviewed for food. This placed residents at risk for food lessened quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to store and handle food in a sanitary manner for 1 of 1 facility kitchen reviewed for sanitary food storage and handling. This placed residents at risk for food-borne illness and contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to promptly respond to grievances and recommendations from the resident council for 4 of 4 months reviewed and ensure clothing and missing personal property were addressed timely for 2 of 3 sampled residents (#s 53 and 56) reviewed for personal property. This placed residents at risk for unresolved quality of life and care issues.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure sufficient staffing to meet resident care needs for 4 of 4 halls reviewed for staffing. This placed residents at risk for delayed and unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure appropriate medication storage temperatures were logged and maintained for 2 of 2 medication storage refrigerators reviewed for safe medication storage. This placed residents at risk for receiving medications with reduced efficacy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents' rights to a dignified existence and self-determination for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#56) reviewed for dialysis. This placed residents at risk for a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to report results of abuse investigations to the State Survey Agency within the required time frame for 2 of 4 sampled residents (#s 34 and 49) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide bowel medications as ordered for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#16) reviewed for bowel care. This placed residents at risk for constipation.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to address recommendations to promote wound healing for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#37) reviewed for pressure ulcers. This placed residents at risk for delayed healing and worsening of wounds.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to put services in place to eliminate the risk of elopement for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#48) reviewed for accidents. This placed residents at risk for elopement from the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure physician orders related to an ileostomy were followed and implemented for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#53) reviewed for ostomy care. This placed residents at risk for skin breakdown.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure oxygen equipment was properly maintained for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#265) reviewed for respiratory care. This placed residents at risk for respiratory complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than five percent for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#14) reviewed for medication administration. The facility's medication error rate was 6.67%. This placed residents at risk for adverse medication consequences.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure proper placement of a resident's urinary catheter bag and appropriate infection control practices were in place for 2 of 2 sampled residents (#s 2 and 53) reviewed for infection control. This placed residents at risk for cross-contamination and infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to have the required Long Term Care Ombudsman (LTCO) poster posted for 1 of 2 floors observed for the LTCO poster. This placed residents and visitors at risk for not knowing how to reports concerns.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure enough dietary personal was assigned each shift for 31 of 31 days reviewed for dining. This placed residents at risk for not getting preferences honored, being served the incorrect food and incorrect food textures.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow posted menu's for 2 of 2 meals observed for dining. This placed residents at risk for unmet dietary needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide a safe, comfortable and homelike environment for 2 of 2 floors reviewed for environment. This placed residents at risk for an unclean and unsafe environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to maintain the exterior safety railing for 1 of 1 buildings reviewed for accident hazards. This placed residents, visitors and staff at risk for serious injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure clean, safe drinking water was served to the residents on 1 of 2 floors (2nd floor) observed for dining services. This placed residents at risk of food-borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to notify the resident representative of a hospital transfer for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#1) reviewed for notifications. This placed resident representatives at risk for being uninformed of current resident status.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free from misappropriation for 4 of 6 sampled residents (#s 2, 16, 17 and 18) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for financial abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to revise a residents plan of care for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#18) reviewed for dining. This placed residents at risk for lack of food.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure services provided met professional standards of quality for 5 of 7 sampled residents (#s 2, 3, 16, 17 and 18) reviewed for medications and abuse. This placed residents at risk for missed medications and financial abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to administer medications as ordered for 2 of 3 sampled residents (#s 1 and 3) reviewed for medications. This placed residents at risk for worsening medical symptoms.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview it was determined the facility failed to serve residents the correct texture food for 1 of 1 kitchens reviewed for dining. This placed residents at risk for aspiration.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a residents food preferences were honored for 2 of 3 sampled residents (#s 6 and 18) reviewed for dining. This placed residents at risk for weight loss and malnutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to accurately document in the medical record for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#3) reviewed for medications. This placed residents at risk for inaccurate medical records.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and interview it was determine the facilty failed to ensure resident equipment was in good working order for 2 of 2 floors reviewed for equipment. This placed residents at risk for accidents and injuries.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure sufficient staffing to ensure call lights were answered timely and bathing was completed for 1 of 2 floors (first floor) reviewed for staffing. This placed residents at risk for lack of hygiene and delayed care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to keep a bathroom call light at accessible length for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#40) reviewed for environment. This placed residents at risk for not being able to call for assistance in the event of a fall.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide a written notification to 2 of 4 sampled residents (#s 53 and 264) reviewed for Beneficiary Protection Notices. This placed residents at risk for unknown financial liabilities.
Inspectors wrote1. Based on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure comfortable sound levels were maintained in 1 of 2 halls (North Hall) for 3 residents (#s 13, 29 and 44) reviewed for environment. This placed residents at risk for an unhomelike environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to accurately code the MDS for 2 of 3 sampled residents (#s 19 and 62) reviewed for hospitalizations and vision. This placed residents at risk for inaccurate assessments.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to address vision needs in a timely manner for 1 of 2 sample residents (#19) reviewed for vision needs. This placed residents at risk impaired interaction with staff and the environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure the facility applied a splint for a resident with impaired ROM for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#28) reviewed for ROM. This placed residents at risk for pain.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident received sufficient fluid intake and failed to follow RD recommendations for nutritional supplements for 3 of 4 sampled residents (#s 1, 25 and 49) reviewed for hydration and nutrition. This placed residents at risk for dehydration and weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to re-evaluate, assess and implement interventions of behavioral needs for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#21) reviewed for behavior/emotional health. This placed residents at risk for unmet psychosocial well being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident was assisted in obtaining timely dental services for 2 of 4 sampled residents (#s 19 and 32) reviewed for dental services. This placed residents at risk for worsening dental status.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents' medical records were complete and accurate for 2 of 7 sampled residents (#s 15 and 19) reviewed for care planning and unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for inaccurate medical records.
13 fire safety citations on file: 7 on June 6, 2025, 2 on January 26, 2024, 4 on November 7, 2022.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Oregon | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 5.22 | 5.03 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.45 | 0.72 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 4.79 | 4.51 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 3.50 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.28 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 42.1% | 47.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 71.4% | 51.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 3.44 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 5.40 on weekdays and 4.79 on weekends, 11% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.1% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 5.65 in April to June 2025 to 5.22 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 5.22 | 0.45 | 5.40 | 4.79 | 0.1% | 0 of 90 | 75 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 5.13 | 0.44 | 5.27 | 4.76 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 77 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 5.28 | 0.53 | 5.48 | 4.75 | 0.5% | 0 of 92 | 74 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 5.65 | 0.52 | 5.93 | 4.97 | 2.2% | 0 of 91 | 68 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Oregon, Jan to Mar 2026 | 4.91 | 0.64 | 5.12 | 4.40 | 6.2% | 0.4% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oregon, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $23.96 | $22.83 to $28.40 | 14,800 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $38.69 | $35.11 to $43.60 | 4,260 |
| Registered nurses | $62.02 | $51.55 to $64.63 | 39,730 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Oregon | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 17.2 | 14.9 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 1.4 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.5 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 28.0 | 20.6 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.5 | 5.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 11.5 | 13.9 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 23.1 | 21.4 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 21.3 | 16.1 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Avamere Transitional Care at Sunnyside's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (57.8% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
57.8% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Oregon: 52 better, 3 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 33 eligible stays.
10.7% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Oregon: 3 better, 0 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 34 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
US median of homes 7.1% · Oregon: 0 better, 0 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 21 eligible stays.
64.0% this home
Median of homes: Oregon59.2% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 25 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Oregon0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 39 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Oregon2.6% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 38 residents counted.
95.2% this home
Median of homes: Oregon98.5% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 21 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: SUNNYSIDE OPERATIONS LLC. CMS links this home to Avamere, a group of 27 nursing homes averaging 3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ariso LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 06/01/2014 | |
| Ari Operations, LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/01/2014 | |
| Avamere Group LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/01/2014 | |
| Karl Rickard Miller Jr Revocable Trust | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/01/2014 | |
| Miller, Karl | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 06/01/2014 | |
| Midcap Finco LLC | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 05/30/2014 | |
| Cavallo, Glen | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Feakin, Cody | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Funderberg, Michelle | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Garcia, Roberto | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 02/01/2026 | |
| Inskeep, Todd | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Kofstad, Mary | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Reid, Misty | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Staples, Carolyn | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 10/01/2025 | |
| Strunk, Colby | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Vanderzanden, Carrie | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Avamere Health Services LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 06/01/2014 | |
| Avamere Skilled Advisors LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 06/01/2014 | |
| Midcap Finco LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 05/30/2014 | |
| Dana, Jennifer | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/01/2022 | |
| Fanunal, Loriel | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/02/2023 | |
| Garcia, Roberto | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/01/2026 | |
| Gibbins, Dustin | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2025 | |
| Hoskins, Tonia | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/19/2024 | |
| Kofstad, Mary | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/13/2024 | |
| Presley, Yolanda | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/06/2025 | |
| Reid, Misty | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/02/2025 | |
| Ruden, Nathan | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/01/2023 | |
| Seifert, Michael | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/14/2025 | |
| Vangorder, Diane | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2023 | |
| Avamere Health Services LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 07/13/2025 | |
| Avamere Skilled Advisors LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 07/14/2025 | |
| Consolidated Billing Services Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/01/2014 | |
| Incovate Solutions, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/21/2022 | |
| Moss Adams LLP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/01/2014 | |
| Rande Holdings, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/01/2024 | |
| Sabra Health Care Limited Partnership | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/17/2017 | |
| Sabra Health Care Reit Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/17/2017 | |
| Sabra Health Care, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/17/2017 | |
| Snapmedtech,inc. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/08/2025 | |
| Becerra, Shannon | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/01/2025 | |
| Dana, Jennifer | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/01/2022 | |
| Fanunal, Loriel | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/02/2023 | |
| Feakin, Cody | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Funderberg, Michelle | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Games, Kim | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/15/2024 | |
| Garcia, Roberto | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/01/2026 | |
| Gibbins, Dustin | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/01/2025 | |
| Hoskins, Tonia | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Inskeep, Todd | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/21/2022 | |
| Presley, Yolanda | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/06/2025 | |
| Reid, Misty | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/02/2025 | |
| Ruden, Nathan | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/01/2023 | |
| Scott, Debra | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/01/2025 | |
| Seifert, Michael | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/01/2026 | |
| Staples, Carolyn | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2025 | |
| Strunk, Colby | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/06/2022 | |
| Vanderzanden, Carrie | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Vangorder, Diane | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2023 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Oregon. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.