Home / Washington / Battle Ground
510 North Parkway, Battle Ground, WA 98604 · Clark County · (360) 687-5141
83 certified beds, about 56 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1989
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 505331 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 4, 2026, inspectors cited 14 health deficiencies (the Washington average is 15.8, the national average 9.2).
Of 40 health citations since January 2024, 6 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $10,358 in the last three years; the largest was $10,358, and the latest is dated April 18, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.46 hours per resident per day, against 4.36 across Washington and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 1.03 of those hours.
65.9% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Washington average 45.1%).
CMS links it to Cascadia Healthcare, an affiliated group of 47 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 40 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who had personal fund accounts established received accrued interest in those accounts for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Residents 34 and 36) reviewed for Trust Funds interest accrued. This failure placed residents at risk not to receive, or have access to, monies owed to them.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete an AIMS (Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale) test (a rating scale used to assess the severity of involuntary movements that sometimes develop as a side effect of treatment with antipsychotic medications [drugs used primarily to treat symptoms such as hallucinations and delusions]) for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 51) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This failure placed residents at risk for adverse medication side-effects, medical complications, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a written Bed-Hold notice to residents and/or residents' representative at the time of transfer to the hospital for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Residents 39 and 3) reviewed for hospitalization. This failure placed residents at risk for lack of knowledge regarding their right to hold their bed while in the hospital.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool) was completed accurately to reflect a resident's health status and/or care needs for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 46) reviewed for activities of daily living; failed to identify Hospice services for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 14) reviewed for Hospice; and 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 52) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This failure placed residents at risk for unidentified and/or unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the state mental health authority coordinator of a significant change in physical condition, for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 7) reviewed for PASARR process (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review, a screening tool used to identify mental health needs). This failure placed the residents at risk for unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident care plans were revised to accurately reflect care needs for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 7) reviewed for hospice and 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident 39) reviewed for skin conditions. This failure placed residents at risk for unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure services provided met professional standards by not following physician's orders for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 51) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This failure placed residents at risk for unmet care needs, medical complications, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to obtain physician and/or treatment orders for skin and/or wound care for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident 39) reviewed for skin conditions. This failure placed residents at risk of injury, unmet care needs, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to obtain physician orders for oxygen and/or BiPAP (Bi-level Positive Airway Pressure, a non-invasive ventilator that delivers air and oxygen into the lungs using a mask to help people breathe more easily) use for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 39) and failed to change oxygen tubing as ordered for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Residents 60) reviewed for respiratory care. This failure placed residents at risk for worsening health complications, unmet care needs, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure monthly pharmacy review recommendations were addressed as indicated for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 51) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This failure placed residents at risk of inadequately monitored medications, adverse effects, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident's medical records were accurate and up to date for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 7) reviewed for hospice and 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 7) reviewed for pre-admission screening and resident review (PASARR, An assessment used to identify individuals [residents] with serious mental issues, intellectual disabilities, or related conditions are not inappropriately placed in nursing facilities for long term care). This failure placed residents at risk for unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to offer the Covid-19 (Coronavirus disease 2019, an infectious respiratory illness caused by a virus) vaccine and/or provide education regarding risks, benefits, and potential side effects associated with the vaccine, for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 52) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This failure placed residents at risk for contracting Covid-19 infections, related complications, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide eating assistance in a manner that promoted resident respect and dignity for 1 of 9 residents (Resident 14) reviewed for dining. This failure place residents at risk for diminished self-worth, embarrassment, and a deceased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a current Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA Waiver- also known as a Medical Test Site Certificate of Waiver License, a license that allows the facility to legally perform certain simple, low risk medical tests like blood glucose checks and COVID-19 [Corona Virus Disease 2019, a respiratory illness] tests). This failure placed residents at risk for substandard care, delayed diagnosis and incorrect medical treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from significant medication errors for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 1) reviewed for medication errors when another resident's medication(s) were left unattended and then taken by/ingested by the wrong resident. Resident 1 experienced harm when they became unresponsive and required intensive care level hospitalization and mechanical ventilation. This failure placed all residents at risk for medical complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to report a significant medication error to the State Survey Agency, as required for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for medication administration and resulted in hospitalization and ventilator support. The failure to report a serious incident delayed appropriate oversight and investigation, placing residents at risk for harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure bed placement and bed side rails were assessed, physician ordered and had an informed consent for 3 of 8 sampled residents (29, 47 & 250) reviewed for physical restraints. This failure placed residents at risk for injury, unmet care needs, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure medication carts were locked when without supervision for 3 of 4 medication carts (on 200 Hall and 300 Hall) reviewed for medication storage. This failure placed residents at risk of having access to medications, and/or misappropriation of narcotic medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's personal privacy was protected and maintained when a privacy curtain was not installed for 1 of 2 sampled residents (200) reviewed for resident rights. This failure placed residents at risk for diminished self-worth, self-esteem and overall well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure personal privacy was maintained by not having a privacy curtain installed for 1 of 2 sampled residents (200) reviewed for personal privacy. This failure placed residents at risk for loss of privacy during personal care, embarrassment and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a thorough investigation was conducted for 1 of 3 sampled residents (35) reviewed for accident and incident investigations. This failure placed residents at risk for identified abuse and neglect, inappropriate corrective actions, recurrent falls, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident care plans were revised to accurately reflect care needs for 1 of 8 sampled residents (29) reviewed for care plan revisions. This failure placed residents at risk for unidentified and unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure physician orders were followed to obtain weights for 1 of 5 sampled residents (35), and failed to follow physician orders and resident's care plan to label intravenous (IV, a way to give a drug through a needle or tube inserted into a vein) bag and/or tubing for 1 of 1 sampled residents (250) reviewed for quality of care related to following physician orders and/or resident's care plan. This failure placed residents at risk for medical complications, inaccurate physician treatment plan and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a safe environment was maintained and free from hazards related to a bed and/or linens against a baseboard heater on the wall for 1 of 8 beds reviewed for accident hazards. This failure placed residents at risk for avoidable accidents and injuries, negative health outcomes, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure supplemental oxygen use was accurately documented in the Electronic Health Record (EHR) and oxygen tubing was changed for 1 of 2 sampled residents (47) reviewed for respiratory care. This failure placed residents at risk of not receiving accurate assessments, worsening health complications, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff properly donned (putting on) personal protective equipment for 1 of 2 sampled residents (37) reviewed for infection prevention and control. This failure placed residents at risk for the spread of infection transmission in the facility and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the pneumococcal vaccine was administered for 1 of 5 sampled residents (8) reviewed for immunizations. This failure placed residents at risk for developing pneumonia with potential negative outcomes and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from significant medication errors when medications were not administered in accordance with provider orders for 5 of 5 sampled residents (Residents 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5) reviewed for significant medication errors. This failure placed residents at risk of adverse medical conditions, a change in health condition, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from avoidable accidents during resident bed mobility assistance for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 1) reviewed for accident hazards. Resident 1 experienced harm when the resident was found to have a fractured femur (thighbone) after a fall that required medical intervention when facility staff did not use two-person assistance with bed mobility as indicated as necessary by the comprehensive care plan. This failure placed residents at risk for injury and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's representative was notified of a significant change of condition for 1 of 3 sample residents (Resident 1) reviewed for notification of change. This failure placed residents and their representatives at risk of not being able to participate in resident care decisions and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure issue and/or complete a Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage (SNF ABN) and/or a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) was completed and issued timely, at least two calendar days before Medicare services ended, for 3 of 3 sampled residents (33, 49, & 214) reviewed for SNF ABN and NOMNC notification. This failure placed residents and their representatives at risk for not having adequate information to make financial decisions related to a continued stay in the facility and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure grooming assistance was provided for 1 of 6 sampled residents (44) reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs). This failure placed residents at risk for unmet care needs, poor hygiene, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure policies and procedures were in place to reflect resident's choices and facility procedures failed to ensure residents' preferences and physician orders were accurately addressed and communicated for 4 of 6 sampled residents (Residents 8,10, 11 & 36) reviewed for code status documentation and facility wide communication. This failure placed residents at risk for increased harm and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow physician's orders and/or resident's care plan to label intravenous (IV, a way to give a drug through a needle or tube inserted into a vein) and tube feeding (TF) bags and/or tubing for 1 of 2 sampled residents (8) reviewed for TF and antibiotics, and failed to implement physician's orders when bowel protocol was not followed to address constipation for 2 of 5 sampled residents (10 & 23) reviewed for unnecessary medications. These failures placed residents at risk for inaccurate physician treatment plan, unrelieved constipation, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to assess and provide preventative equipment interventions to prevent further pressure injury development and deterioration for 1 of 6 sampled residents (Resident 1) reviewed for pressure injuries. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure timely laboratory services were provided for 1 of 6 sampled residents (1) reviewed for laboratory services. This caused harm to Resident 1 when STAT (immediate) lab tests were not completed timely (three days after the STAT order) and the resident required a hospital evaluation for high lab values. This failure placed residents at risk for delay in treatment, decline in medical conditions and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from sexual abuse by a staff member for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 1) reviewed for abuse. Resident 1 experienced harm when the facility failed to take timely action once allegations of potential staff to resident abuse were first identified and suspected by staff in order to protect the resident from the potential of further abuse. This failure placed residents at risk for abuse and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to timely initiate and complete an investigation of potential staff-to-resident abuse and put interventions in place to prevent further potential resident abuse at the time the alleged abuse was suspected for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 1) reviewed for investigation to prevent alleged abuse. This caused harm to Resident 1 when the facility's delay in investigation of potential sexual abuse allowed the alleged staff member, in a position of power (caregiver), to continue to have access to Resident 1 and did not protect the resident from further potential abuse after they were first aware of a pattern of questionable behavior. This failure placed residents at risk for abuse, having allegations of abuse not being responded to and thoroughly investigated, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure all staff reported multiple allegations of abuse immediately to the State Survey Agency causing a delay in investigating alleged staff to resident abuse for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 1) reviewed for reporting of allegations of abuse. This failure placed residents at risk for lack of protection from being abused and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure toileting was provided for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 2) reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs). This placed residents at risk for skin impairments, loss of dignity and a diminished quality of life.
29 fire safety citations on file: 7 on June 4, 2026, 9 on May 7, 2025, 13 on July 11, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| April 18, 2025 | Fine | $10,358 |
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 | Washington | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.46 | 4.36 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 1.03 | 0.94 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.93 | 3.80 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.78 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.64 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 65.9% | 45.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 47.1% | 45.4% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 3 |
CMS expects 3.43 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 3.67 on weekdays and 2.93 on weekends, 20% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 10.9% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.12 in April to June 2025 to 3.46 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 | 3.46 | 1.03 | 3.67 | 2.93 | 10.9% | 0 of 90 | 56 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.48 | 0.99 | 3.69 | 2.96 | 5.5% | 0 of 92 | 54 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.62 | 1.00 | 3.83 | 3.08 | 1.3% | 0 of 92 | 55 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.12 | 1.09 | 4.38 | 3.47 | 21.6% | 0 of 91 | 51 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Washington, Jan to Mar 2026 | 4.21 | 0.90 | 4.44 | 3.66 | 3.7% | 0.1% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Washington, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $23.65 | $22.59 to $27.85 | 30,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $39.98 | $36.98 to $45.18 | 6,780 |
| Registered nurses | $59.71 | $49.57 to $64.54 | 69,260 |
| 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 | Washington | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 12.0 | 14.2 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.3 | 1.0 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.2 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.2 | 2.6 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 19.6 | 17.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.6 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 13.9 | 15.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 25.4 | 19.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 4.1 | 13.4 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Brookfield Health and Rehab of Cascadia's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (59.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
59.6% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Washington: 71 better, 16 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. 131 eligible stays.
11.1% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Washington: 7 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. 126 eligible stays.
7.2% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Washington: 4 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. 58 eligible stays.
63.6% this home
Median of homes: Washington61.4% · 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. 22 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Washington0.0% · 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: Washington1.4% · 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. 39 residents counted.
95.0% this home
Median of homes: Washington98.3% · 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. 20 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: BATTLEGROUND OF CASCADIA LLC. CMS links this home to Cascadia Healthcare, a group of 47 nursing homes averaging 3.1 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cascadia Washington Operations LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 09/01/2017 | |
| Cascadia Hc Group LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/05/2025 | |
| Cascadia Healthcare LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 09/01/2017 | |
| Cascadia Holdco LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/05/2025 | |
| Hammond, Owen | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 06/05/2025 | |
| Laforte, Stephen | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 06/05/2025 | |
| Nelson, Timothy | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 06/05/2025 | |
| Battle Ground 510 Realty, LLC | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 06/05/2025 | |
| White Oak Healthcare Finance LLC | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 08/11/2022 | |
| Cascadia Healthcare LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 09/01/2017 | |
| Cascadia Services LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/16/2024 | |
| Cascadia Washington Operations LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 09/01/2017 | |
| Cavalli, Reahna | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/09/2025 | |
| Hammond, Owen | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/05/2025 | |
| Laforte, Stephen | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/05/2025 | |
| Morris, Christopher | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/01/2023 | |
| Nelson, Timothy | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/05/2025 | |
| Battle Ground 510 Realty, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/05/2025 | |
| Cascadia Services LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/16/2024 | |
| White Oak Healthcare Finance LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/24/2025 | |
| Cavalli, Reahna | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/03/2025 | |
| Morris, Christopher | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/14/2025 |
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 Washington. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.