123 Pecan Blvd., Pittsburg, TX 75686 · Camp County · (903) 856-3633
102 certified beds, about 45 residents a day · Government - Hospital district · Medicare and Medicaid since 1992
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675037 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 11, 2026, inspectors cited 8 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 29 health citations since October 2023, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (3 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $15,119 in the last three years; the largest was $15,119, and the latest is dated July 3, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.47 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.29 of those hours.
70.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Avir Health Group, an affiliated group of 118 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 29 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident had the right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences for two of thirteen residents (Residents #3 and #8) reviewed for reasonable accommodations. The facility failed to ensure Resident #8 and Resident #38 had a call light within reach. This failure could place residents at risk of possible falls, major injuries, hospitalization, and unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected the status for 1 of 14 residents reviewed for assessments. (Resident #44). The facility failed to complete an accurate resident assessment for Resident #44 by indicating the resident did not have any broken or missing teeth. This failure could place residents at risk of not having individual needs met and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 3 of 14 residents (Residents #4, #40, and #44) reviewed for comprehensive person-centered care plans.1. The facility failed to develop and implement the comprehensive person-centered care plan for Resident #4 by not documenting he was on enhanced barrier precautions.2. The facility failed to develop and implement the comprehensive person-centered care plan for Resident #40's use of anticonvulsant medications, seizure disorder, altered diet, and impaired ADL performance.3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who need respiratory care are provided with such care, consistent with professional standards of practices for 1 of 13 residents (Resident #12) reviewed for quality of care.1. The facility failed to change the oxygen tubing and water reservoir for Resident #12's oxygen concentrator.2. The facility failed to ensure that oxygen filters were clean for Resident #12's oxygen concentrator. These failures could place residents who receive respiratory care at risk of developing respiratory complications and a decreased quality of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments for 1 of 13 residents reviewed for pharmacy services. (Resident #26)The facility failed to ensure wound care treatment chemicals were not improperly stored in Resident #26 room. This failure could place residents at risk for adverse reactions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to provide each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs for 1 of 13 residents (Residents #26) reviewed for receiving meals as prescribed. The facility failed to honor Resident #26's food preference of large portions according to his care plan and meal ticket. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not receiving their meal to meet their needs for allergy aversions, unwanted weight loss, and meal textures and/or consistencies.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 13 residents (Residents #4) reviewed for infection control practices. The facility failed to ensure LVN A and CNA B applied enhanced barrier precautions when they washed Resident #4's hair on 02/10/26. This failure could place residents at risk for cross contamination and the spread of infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure nurse staffing data was posted daily and readily accessible to residents and visitors with all required information for 3 of 3 days reviewed (02/06/26, 02/07/26 and 02/08/26) for nursing services. The facility failed to post the required current daily staffing information on 02/06/26, 02/07/26 and 02/08/26. This failure could place residents, families, and visitors at risk of not being informed of the census and number of staff working each day to provide care on all shifts.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services, including procedures that assure the accurate dispensing and administering of all drugs and biologicals to meet the needs of each resident and determined that drug records were in order and that an account of all controlled drugs was maintained and periodically reconciled for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's baclofen (muscle relaxant) was administered as ordered on 10/23/2025 and 10/24/2025. This failure could place the residents at risk of not having medications available for use and medications errors.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident had the right to be free from abuse for 1 of 8 (Resident #1) residents reviewed for abuse. 1. The facility failed to prevent MA A from physically abusing Resident #1 on 5/23/25 witnessed by Resident #2's family member. 2. The facility failed to protect other residents in the building from potential abuse when on 05/23/2025 the facility did not suspend MA A for 1 month after the incident leading to MA A's termination on 06/27/2025. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The IJ began on 5/23/25 and ended on 6/30/25. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure could place residents at risk for physical and verbal abuse, psychosocial harm, and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately, but , but not later than 2 hours after forming the suspicion, if the events that cause the suspicion result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the suspicion do not result in serious bodily injury for 1 of 8 (Resident #1) residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. The facility failed to ensure an allegation of abuse on 05/23/2025 was reported within 2 hours to the abuse coordinator on 5/27/25 when Resident #2's family member reported the abuse of Resident #1 to the former ADON. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, in response to allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, the facility failed to prevent further potential abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment while the investigation is in progress from 1 of 11 staff members (MA A) and 1 of 8 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to protect residents from potential abuse when MA A was not suspended after an allegation of physical abuse was reported to the former ADON on 05/27/25. This failure to report resulted in MA A continuing to work with residents and being assigned to Resident #1's unit again on 06/20/2025. MA A continued to work until the family member reported the incident to the Administrator on 06/23/2025. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The IJ began on 5/27/25 and ended on 6/30/25. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received mail delivered to the facility for 5 of 5 confidential residents reviewed for right to communication. The facility failed to ensure residents received their mail within 24 hours of delivery by the postal service. This failure could place residents at risk of potentially being denied their right and to receive and open mail in a timely manner and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to use the services of a registered nurse for at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for RN coverage. The facility failed to provide RN coverage for 8 consecutive hours daily on 04/07/24, 04/14/24, 04/20/24, 04/21/24, 06/01/24, 06/02/24, 06/29/24, and 06/30/24. This failure had the potential to place residents at risk by leaving staff without supervisory coverage for RN specific nursing activities and for coordination of events such as emergency care and disasters.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for kitchen sanitation in that: 1. Expired food, milk, and beef flavoring, was not disposed of. 2. Frozen chicken was not labeled or dated. 3. Chicken, turkey, and ham was being thawed without being submerged under water or without water running. These failures could place residents who received meals from the kitchen at risk for food borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level I assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #32) reviewed for PASRR Level I screenings. The facility failed to ensure the accuracy of the PASRR Level 1 screening for Resident #32. The PASRR Level 1 screening did not indicate a diagnosis of mental illness, although the diagnoses (major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder) were present upon Resident #32's re-admission date on 04/20/23. This failure could place residents who had a mental illness at risk of not receiving a needed assessment (PASRR Evaluation), individualized care, or specialized services to meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident who was incontinent of bladder received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections for 1 of 1 residents (Resident #33) reviewed for appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections (an infection in any part of the urinary system, the kidneys, bladder, or urethra (is a hollow tube that lets urine leave your body). The facility failed to ensure Resident #33's indwelling catheter (drains urine from your bladder into a bag outside your body) had a catheter securement device to anchor the catheter to his leg on 11/19/24. These failures could place residents at risk for urinary tract infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide separately locked, permanently affixed compartments for storage of controlled drugs in 1 of 1 medication rooms reviewed for storage of medication (Front Medication Room). The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's lorazepam medication (controlled anti-anxiety medication) was locked behind 2 separate locks. The medication room was locked but the medication refrigerator and the lockbox inside the medication refrigerator were both unlocked. This failure could place residents who take narcotics that required refrigeration at risk of misappropriation of drugs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the facility's only kitchen reviewed for food safety requirements. The facility failed to ensure plaster on the ceiling in the kitchen was not peeling and loose piece hanging down over prep tables. The facility failed to ensure [NAME] A did not prepare pureed items near a trash can barrel with the lid partially open. These failures could place residents at risk of foodborne illness, food contamination, and ingestion of harmful material.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure the residents had the right to be informed of the risks, and participate in, his or her treatment which included the right to be informed in advance, by the physician or other practitioner or professional, of the risks and benefits of proposed care, of treatment and treatment alternatives or treatment options and to choose the alternative or option he or she preferred, for 3 of 15 residents ( Resident #12, Resident #37, Resident #40) reviewed for resident rights . 1. The facility failed to completely fill out the psychotropic consent for Resident #12's Zyprexa (is an antipsychotic that can treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (is a mental illness that causes unusual shifts in a person's mood, energy, activity levels, and concentration)) to give informed consent. 2. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to use the services of a registered nurse for at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for RN coverage. The facility failed to provide RN coverage for 8 consecutive hours daily on 04/01/2023,04/02/2023,04/09/2023, and 04/10/2023. The deficient practice had the potential to affect residents in the facility by leaving staff without supervisory coverage for RN specific nursing activities and for coordination of events such as an emergency care and disasters.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to employ or contract a qualified social worker for a facility of 120 beds or less for 1 of 1 facility in that: The facility failed to ensure an employed or contracted social worker visited the facility as needed. This failure could place all residents at risk for not receiving necessary social services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an antibiotic stewardship program that included a system to monitor antibiotic use, for 3 (Resident #37, Resident #1, and Resident #25) of 7 residents reviewed for antibiotic use. 1. Resident #37 was treated with antibiotics per resident requests with no diagnostic testing. 2. Resident #1 was treated with antibiotics from a contaminated urine sample returned by the lab. 3. Resident #25 was treated with antibiotics for a urinary tract infection. Resident #25 had a urinalysis with no UTI indicated. These failures could place residents receiving antibiotics at risk for unnecessary antibiotic use, inappropriate antibiotic use, and increased antibiotic-resistant infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for 1 of 15 resident (Resident #1) and 1 of 3 halls (Hall 100) reviewed for environment. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 did not have a loose privacy curtain railing from the ceiling, missing plaster from the corner of the wall, and no corner covering. The facility failed to ensure Hall 100 drainage cap was not loose and flush with the floor. These failures placed resident at risk for diminished quality of life, harm, injury, and falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the right to be free from abuse was provided for 1 of 15 reviewed for abuse. (Resident #15) The facility failed to ensure Resident #15 was free from abuse when CNA K grabbed her by the wrist on 09/12/23. This failure could place residents at risk for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, or mistreatment, including a missing resident are reported immediately or not later than 24 hours for 1 of 15 residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. (Resident #27) The facility failed to report that Resident #27 had been missing within 24 hours of the resident being missing the morning of 10/07/23. This failure could place residents at risk for abuse and neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected the status for 1 of 15 residents reviewed for assessments. (Resident #37) The facility failed to ensure to code Resident #37's diagnosis of Depression (is a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), Anxiety (persistent and excessive worry that interferes with daily activities), and colostomy (is an operation that creates an opening for the colon, or large intestine, through the abdomen) on his MDS. This failure could place residents at risk of not having individual needs met.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a baseline care plan for each resident that included the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for baseline care plans. (Resident #37) The facility failed to address Resident #37's stage IV pressure ulcers, colostomy, and indwelling catheter on his baseline care plan. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving care and services to meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide food prepared that conserved nutritive value, flavor, and appearance for 5 of 5 pureed diets, reviewed for nutritive value, in that: Cook A did not follow the recipe for the pureed (is cooked food, usually vegetables, fruits, or legumes, that has been ground, pressed, blended, or sieved to the consistency of a creamy paste or liquid) chicken served on 10/09/23. This failure could place residents at risk of weight loss, altered nutritional status, and diminished quality of life.
13 fire safety citations on file: 4 on February 11, 2026, 4 on November 20, 2024, 5 on October 11, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| July 3, 2025 | Fine | $15,119 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
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 | Texas | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.47 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.29 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.13 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.22 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.96 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 70.2% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | not reported | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 3.14 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 3.61 on weekdays and 3.13 on weekends, 13% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.48 in April to June 2025 to 3.47 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 | 3.47 | 0.29 | 3.61 | 3.13 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 45 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.41 | 0.31 | 3.54 | 3.08 | 6.6% | 1 of 92 | 45 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.25 | 0.30 | 3.42 | 2.82 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 43 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.48 | 0.20 | 3.58 | 3.23 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 44 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Texas, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.33 | 0.40 | 3.50 | 2.93 | 2.2% | 0.7% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Texas, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $18.03 | $16.97 to $20.71 | 88,680 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $29.92 | $27.46 to $32.89 | 57,560 |
| Registered nurses | $46.14 | $38.06 to $50.53 | 271,380 |
| 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 | Texas | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 15.3 | 15.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.2 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.3 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.0 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.3 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.6 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 27.4 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 14.0 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.4 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.8 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Avir at Pittsburg's Medicare short-stay residents. How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
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 51.5% · Texas: 116 better, 50 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. 14 eligible stays.
12.8% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Texas: 0 better, 9 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. 35 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% · Texas: 4 better, 11 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. 15 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.
Median of homes: Texas57.3% · 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. 6 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Texas0.0% · 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. 10 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Texas1.3% · 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. 10 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Texas98.5% · 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. 3 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: TITUS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to Avir Health Group, a group of 118 nursing homes averaging 2.3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Titus County Hospital District | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 08/01/2025 |
| Boechmann, Patricia | Corporate officer | Individual | 08/01/2025 | |
| 123 Pecan Grove Opco LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 08/01/2025 | |
| Corrigan, Lori | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2025 | |
| Hekimian, Khoren | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2025 | |
| Dagan, Amitai | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 08/26/2025 | |
| Freund, Nochum | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 08/26/2025 | |
| Goldberger, Abraham | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 08/26/2025 | |
| Goldberger, Faigy | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 08/26/2025 | |
| Travitsky, Aaron | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 08/26/2025 | |
| 123 Pecan Grove Opco LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/26/2025 | |
| 123 Pecan Grove Property Owner LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2025 | |
| Welltower Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2025 | |
| Welltower Nnn Group, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2025 | |
| Welltower Op, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2025 | |
| Corrigan, Lori | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/01/2025 | |
| Hekimian, Khoren | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/01/2025 |
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 Texas. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.