3505 S Buckner Blvd Bldg 4, Dallas, TX 75227 · Dallas County · (214) 381-1815
120 certified beds, about 100 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1994
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675352 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 19, 2026, inspectors cited 6 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 24 health citations since November 2023, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $8,281 in the last three years; the largest was $8,281, and the latest is dated February 6, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 2.58 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.32 of those hours.
39.4% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Opco Skilled Management, an affiliated group of 68 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 24 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure in accordance with applicable state and federal requirements: fire, alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours if the alleged violation involved abuse or neglect and resulted in bodily injury, to other officials (including the state Agency) and the administrator of the facility for 1 of 1 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for reporting abuse, in that: The Administrator (Abuse preventionist) and the DON failed to follow the facility's abuse policy by not reporting Resident #1's phone catching on fire while he was in his bed on 05/28/26 to HHS. This failure could place residents at risk for abuse and neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide the Resident Council group a private space for monthly resident council meetings for the facility's only resident council, for 18 of 18 confidential residents reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure resident council meetings were held in a private meeting space during their monthly scheduled March Resident Council meeting, when staff continued to enter the dining room while the resident council meeting was being held. This failure could place residents at risk of not being able to fully exercise their rights in the facility, which could lead to a lack of trust for staff working in their living environment, and emotional distress.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food safety in the facility's only kitchen reviewed for food safety.1. The facility failed to ensure the stand-by freezer food items were dated and labeled.2. The facility failed to ensure the stand-by refrigerator food items were dated, labeled, and sealed.3. The facility failed to ensure that serving utensils were used when handling food items. These failures could place residents at risk for foodborne illness and foodborne intoxication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to respect and value resident's dignified existence for 1 of 6 halls (hall 300) reviewed for resident rights. The CNA failed to knock on residents' doors and introduce themself before entering the room for 4 of 10 rooms on 300 hall. This failure could please residents at risk for a negative psychosocial outcome and impact overall quality of life for residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident's right to personal privacy and confidentiality of personal records for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to protect Resident #1's confidential record by placing the resident's pharmacy receipt on top of a treatment cart which was sitting in hall 100 unattended. This failure could place residents at risk of their confidential information exposed to unauthorized personnel.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received adequate supervision 1 of 1 (Resident #2) residents reviewed for microwave use. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 was not alone in the staff conference room using the microwave to warm up his coffee. This failure could place residents at risk of burning themselves when trying to consume microwaved food and beverages.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store drugs and biologicals in locked compartment for 1 of 4 carts reviewed for medication and biological storage. The facility failed to ensure a bottle of wound cleaner was not sitting on the side of an unoccupied cart in hall 100. This failure could place residents at risk of adverse reaction and injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for elopement. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was adequately supervised when Resident #1 left the faciity on [DATE] and climbed through the fence and walked blocks away from the facility. Resident #1 contacted 911 and was transported to a nearby hospital. Resident #1 was located at a nearby hospital after the previous SW had called around to the closest hospital trying to find Resident #1. Staff did not know what time he left but were aware of his exit-seeking behavior and previous elopement attempt from the facility. An IJ was identified on 02/05/2026. The IJ template was provided to the ADM on 02/05/2026 at 11:29 A.M. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified of changes for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for elopement behaviors. The facility failed to inform the MD of Resident #1's elopement behaviors when requesting to discontinue his medical diagnosis of dementia. The failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the necessary care and treatment to meet their physical, mental, and psychosocial needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure alleged violations of neglect were immediately reported to the State Agency within 24 hours for 1 of 5 (Resident #1) reviewed for elopement reporting. The facility failed to report Resident #1's subsequent and actual elopements from the facility on 11/02/2025 and 11/26/2025. This failure could place residents at risk of neglect and lack of oversight by the State Agency.
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 resident rights, that included measurable objectives to meet the resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to develop and implement the care plan for Resident #1's risk of elopement since his initial elopement attempt on 10/24/2025 and subsequent elopement attempt and actual elopement on 11/02/2025 and 11/26/2025. The facility failed to revise the care plan for Resident #1 to reflect his medical diagnosis of dementia. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving proper care and services.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medical records were complete, accurately documented, readily accessible, and systematically organized for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for medical record accuracy. The facility failed to ensure there was not a discrepancy in Resident #1's dementia diagnosis that was discontinued, while his records (care plan, orders, psychiatric visits, and MAR) indicated Resident #1 was actively treatment for dementia. The facility failed to document the verbal conversation with Resident #1's MD regarding the discontinuation of dementia diagnosis. The facility failed to accurately and consistently complete Resident #1's Elopement Risk Evaluations when evaluating Resident #1's risk of elopement. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to, in accordance with State and Federal laws, the facility must store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments under proper temperature controls and permit only authorized personnel to have access for four (Resident #1) of ten residents reviewed for medication storage. The facility failed to ensure there was no nasal spray inside Resident #1's room on 10/21/2025. This failure could place residents at risk of misuse of medications that could lead to overdosing or underdosing.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary services for residents who are unable to carry out activities of daily living to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene for 1 (Resident #1) of 6 residents reviewed for ADL's. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 had his fingernails trimmed and cleaned. These failures could place residents who were dependent on staff for ADL care at risk for loss of dignity, risk for infections and a decreased quality of life. Record review of Resident #1's annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of lack of coordination, unsteadiness on feet, muscle weakness, and hypertension (elevated blood pressure). He had a BIMS of 10 indicating his cognition was moderately impaired. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to establish and 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 one of three (CNA A) staff members and eight of eight residents (Resident #81, #30, #10, #50, #62, #52, #91 and #73) reviewed for infection control procedures. CNA A failed to perform hand hygiene after direct contact with residents #81, #30, #10, #50, #62, #52, #91, and #73 while serving meals on Hall 600. This failure could place residents at risk for healthcare associated cross contamination and infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the right to be free from abuse for one (Resident #36) of seven residents reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to ensure Resident #36 was free from abuse. On 3/07/2024 Hospitality Aide B called Resident #36 trash and used profanity when speaking to Resident #36. The noncompliance was identified as past noncompliance (PNC). The noncompliance began on 3/07/2024 and ended on 3/12/2024. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the investigation began. This failure could place residents at risk for abuse and psychological harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected the resident's status for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #1 and Resident #3) reviewed for accuracy of assessments. 1. Resident #1's discharge MDS assessment dated [DATE] did not address his BIMS (Section C), his Mood (Section D), Behaviors (Section E), The MDS did not address the resident's Pain (Section J) to accurately reflect his current MD order for pain management. 2. Resident #1's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] did not address Mood (Section D), Behaviors (Section E), The MDS did not address the resident's Pain (Section J) to accurately reflect his current MD order for pain management. 3. Resident #3's admissions MDS assessment dated [DATE] did not address Section I medical diagnosis of anxiety and depression, Section N did not address active diagnosis for depression and anxiety. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior for two (300 and 600 hall shower rooms) of three shower rooms reviewed for environmental conditions. The facility failed to ensure the shower rooms on the 300 hall and 600 hall were free of a black substance in between the tiles. This failure could place residents at risk of living in an unsafe, unsanitary, and uncomfortable environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain nutrition, grooming and personal and oral hygiene for one (Resident #1) of six residents reviewed for ADLs. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was provided incontinent care in a timely manner, resulting in the resident smearing fecal matter on his mattress, bed linens, window ledge and throwing the fecal matter on the floor of his bedroom. This failure could place residents at risk for discomfort, infection, and dignity issues.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure all patient care equipment was in safe, clean, comfortable environment and maintainance services for six (Residents #52, #85, #38, #11, #16 and #27) of 18 residents reviewed for essential equipment. The facility failed to properly maintain wheelchairs for Residents #52, #85, #38, #11, #16, and #27. These failures could place residents at risk for equipment that is in unsafe operating condition.
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. 1. The facility failed to ensure the ice machine filter and vent were free from dirt and dust and disrepair. 2. The facility failed to ensure the ice machine chute guard and outer surface was clean. 3. The facility failed to ensure food items in the refrigerator (1 of 3), freezer (2) and dry storage room were labeled and stored in accordance with the professional standards for food service. 3. The facility failed to discard items stored in refrigerator, freezers and dry storage that were not properly labeled or past the 'best buy', consume by or expiration dates. 4. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program so that the facility was free of pests for four (Halls 200, 400, 500, 600, nurse's station, lobby, conference room and the main dining rooms), of six halls reviewed for pest control program. The facility had live common house flies and gnats in areas of the facility including the lobby, nurses station, halls 200, 400, 500 and 600 , conference room and the dining room. This failure could place residents at risk for spread of infection, cross-contamination, and decreased quality of life. Findings Include: Observation and interview 11/13/23 at 9:30 a.m., revealed 1-5 live house flies crawling on the bed covers of Resident #52 on Hall 200 There was a fly strip hanging on the resident's wall beside the window, with three dead flies and 15 dead gnats. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to review and revise the person-centered comprehensive care plan to reflect the resident's current status, for 2 of 5 residents (Resident #55 and Resident #88) reviewed for care plans. The facility did not update Resident #55's care plan to reflect specific instructions for hospitalization and antibiotics. The facility did not update Resident #88's care plan to reflect specific instructions for smoking. These failure could place residents at risk for not receiving appropriate care and interventions to meet their current needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biological were secure in locked compartments and permitted only to authorized personal and inaccessible to unauthorized staff and residents for (one medication cart for Hall 500) of six medication carts reviewed for medication storage. The facility failed to ensure medication supplies were all stored in locked compartments and permit only authorized personnel to have keys, when RN B's and LVN C's one medication cart for Hall 500 was left unlocked and unattended by RN B and LVN C. This failure could result in resident access and ingestion of medications leading to a risk for harm and possible drug diversion.
5 fire safety citations on file: 1 on March 19, 2026, 1 on January 8, 2025, 3 on November 16, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| February 6, 2026 | Fine | $8,281 |
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) | 2.58 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.32 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.24 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.64 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.62 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 39.4% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 44.4% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.31 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 2.71 on weekdays and 2.24 on weekends, 17% 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 2.48 in April to June 2025 to 2.58 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 | 2.58 | 0.32 | 2.71 | 2.24 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 100 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 2.50 | 0.29 | 2.63 | 2.14 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 102 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 2.64 | 0.35 | 2.77 | 2.31 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 99 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 2.48 | 0.34 | 2.62 | 2.11 | 0.3% | 0 of 91 | 101 |
| 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.
| 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 | 8.1 | 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 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.9 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.6 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 16.7 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Brentwood Place Three'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. 20 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 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. 24 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. 19 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. 10 residents counted.
0.0% this home
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. 20 residents counted.
5.3% this home
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. 20 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. 5 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: CORYELL COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AUTHORITY. CMS links this home to Opco Skilled Management, a group of 68 nursing homes averaging 2.3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coryell County Memorial Hospital Authority | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 12/01/2021 |
| Byrom, David | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/01/2015 | |
| Brentwood 1-3 Nursing and Rehab, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/01/2021 | |
| Garetz, David | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2021 | |
| Mirza, Muhammad | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/04/2026 | |
| Silva, Phillip | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2015 | |
| Gurwitz, Solomon | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 07/02/2025 | |
| Kaplan, Esther | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 07/02/2025 | |
| Kaplan, Mordechai | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 08/14/2025 | |
| Mindle, Adam | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 07/02/2025 | |
| Unger, Jeffrey | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 07/02/2025 | |
| 3505 S Buckner Blvd, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2021 | |
| Continuum Rehab Group LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2021 | |
| Esdov Investments LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2021 | |
| Magnolia Realty, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2021 | |
| Opco Ca Skilled Mgmt Inc. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2021 | |
| Opco Texas Skilled Mgmt LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2021 | |
| Oregon Realty, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2021 | |
| Mirza, Muhammad | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/01/2026 | |
| Silva, Phillip | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/01/2015 |
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.