520 Kerr Avenue, Denton, MD 21629 · Caroline County · (410) 479-2130
87 certified beds, about 85 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1971
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215083 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on November 22, 2024, inspectors cited 13 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
None of its 42 health citations since May 2018 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 3.33 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.58 of those hours.
44.4% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Maryland average 40.2%).
CMS links it to Key Health Management, an affiliated group of 7 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 42 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide activities of daily living (ADL) care by ensuring timely assistance with toileting. This is evident for 1 (Resident #96) of 7 residents reviewed for ADL care.
Inspectors wroteBased on the investigation of complaints, reviews of medical records, and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to 1) appropriately manage narcotic medications, and 2) give medications as ordered by a Physician. This was evident for 4 (Resident #4, #8, #9, and #12) of 14 residents reviewed during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the discharge of a resident was documented in the medical record that included the resident's status at the time of discharge and the reason for the discharge. This was identified for 1 (Resident #12) of 3 residents reviewed for discharge during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of Intakes, medical record review, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to 1) properly monitor a resident's status after a significant medication error, 2) Notify the physician before withholding a medication used to regulate blood sugar, and 3) ensure that a resident's medications were administered as ordered. This was evident for 2 (Resident #13 and #4) of 2 residents reviewed for medication administration during this complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on the investigation of complaints, record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to document the administration of medication in a resident's Medication Administration Record (MAR). This was evident for one (Resident #4) of the four residents reviewed for medication administration during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed medical record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's drug regimen was free from an unnecessary drug (Resident #1). This was evident for 1 of 4 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all nursing staff had competency evaluations. This was evident for six (Licensed Practical Nurses #19, #40, #41, Geriatric Nursing Aides #42, #43, and #44) of the six randomly selected nursing staff reviewed for competencies.
Inspectors wroteBased on complaint #MD00206921, complaint #MD00199493, resident interviews and staff interviews, it was determined that 1) the facility failed to provide sufficient food of adequate quality to meet residents' dietary needs and preferences which has the potential to affect all residents in the facility, and 2) the facility failed to ensure diabetic residents received snacks to meet their dietary needs which was evident in 1 (anonymous resident) of 3 Residents reviewed for meal accuracy during the recertification survey. The Findings Include: 1)On 11/12/2024 11:49 AM, in an interview with Resident#19, the resident stated that when he/she does not like the food served at the facility, he/she orders a salad or grilled cheese sandwich, but it was not always available. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on the kitchen tour and staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that stored food items were labeled and were not expired. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents in the facility. The Findings Include: During the initial kitchen tour on 11/12/24 with the Food Service Director (FSD, Staff #12), the following deficient practices were revealed: On 11/12/24 at 9:23 AM, observation of the walk-in refrigerator revealed: a large open container of salsa was dated 8/12/2024 but also had a handwritten facility label of 9/28/2024; a large open container of sour cream best-by date of 10/22/2024; a 5lb bag of cubed potatoes unlabeled; a 2lbs of open pasteurized liquid eggs undated; and a bag of mixed salad open and undated. On 11/12/2024 at 9:30 AM, observation of the walk-in freezer revealed the following items that lacked labels and were not dated: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all Geriatric Nursing staff had competency evaluations. This was evident for three (Geriatric Nursing Aides #42, #43, and #44) of the three randomly selected nursing staff reviewed for competencies.
Inspectors wroteBased on complaints, observation, record review, and interview, it was determined the facility staff: 1) failed to revise and update resident care plans to reflect accurate and current interventions, and 2) failed to have timely care plan meetings with a resident and/or resident representative. This was evident for 6 (#38, #68, #63, #19, #37, #241) of 38 residents reviewed during a recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on an interview with a resident, a record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure comprehensive care plans were developed and implemented. This was evident for 3 residents (Resident #11, Resident # 57 and Resident # 247) out of 38 residents reviewed for developing the comprehensive care plans during the Medicaid/Medicare recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview with the facility staff and residents, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide an activities program to meet the needs and preferences of residents. This was evident for 1 (Resident #11) of 6 residents reviewed for activities during the Medicare/Medicaid Recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on the medical record review, resident interview, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to 1) ensure that a resident (Resident #244) received appropriate care regarding dysphagia by failing to supervise and/or assist with feeding, and additionally develop a care plan for dysphagia and 2) ensure adherence to the prescribed frequency and medication administration time (Resident #37, #14). This was evident for 3 (Resident #244, #37, #14) of 38 residents reviewed during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on a complaint, observation, resident and facility staff interviews, and medical record review, the facility failed to prevent new pressure ulcers and document weekly skin and wound assessments for residents with pressure ulcers. This was evident for 1 (Resident # 246) out of 2 residents who were reviewed for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to date and label oxygen administration equipment and maintain a nasal cannula in a sanitary manner to prevent potential infection . This was evident for 2 (#39, #74) of 3 residents reviewed for respiratory care during a recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of employee records and interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to conduct performance reviews of Geriatric Nursing Assistants (GNAs) and Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN) at least once every 12 months. This was evident for 3 (GNA #42, #43, #44) and 2 Licensed Practical Nurses (#19, #41) of 6 randomly selected nursing staff records reviewed for annual training requirements during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined facility staff failed to remove expired medications and patient supplies. This was evident on 2 of 4 nursing units and a central supply room observed during a recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of resident medical records, review of facility policy, and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that 1) physician's order for appropriate infection control signage with a COVID-19 positive resident was implemented, 2) follow-up tests were conducted for residents exposed to COVID-19, and 3) failed to ensure that a resident known to be positive for Covid-19 was isolated upon readmission as the resident was readmitted directly into original room with roommate. This was evident for 1 resident(Resident #55) out of 2 residents reviewed for Isolation precautions during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on the record reviews and interviews, and observations, it was determined that the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an abuse allegation. This is evident for 5 (Resident#232, #235, #63, #32, #7) of 38 residents reviewed during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on a complaint, review of medical records, and staff interview, it was determined facility staff failed to notify a resident's representative when a resident had a medication change. This was evident for 1 (Resident #7) of 15 residents reviewed for complaints during a Recertification/Complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the facility self-report, record reviews, resident interview, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents were free from verbal abuse. This is evident for 1(Resident #63) of 10 residents reviewed for abuse during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to timely report verbal abuse to the State Survey Agency and other agencies as required by law. This is evident for 1 (Resident #63) of 9 residents reviewed for facility reported incidents during the recertification/complaint survey. Findings Include: On 11/15/2024 at 10:50 AM, a review of a Facility Reported Incident submitted to the Office of Health Care Quality (OHCQ) revealed that a self-report for verbal abuse against Resident #63 was submitted to OHCQ on 8/22/2024 at 4:09 PM; however, this alleged incident was witnessed by another resident's family member who notified the supervisor of the incident on 8/21/2024 at 6:35 PM. On 8/21/24, it was alleged that Resident #63 was verbally abused by a Geriatric Nurse Aide (GNA). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the resident medical records and an interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to address a significant weight loss for the resident. This was evident for 1 (Resident #238) of 7 residents reviewed for nutrition during this survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure access to the nurse call bell for residents who were totally dependent on nursing staff due to impaired mobility. This was evident for 4 (#73, #28, #22, #64) of 20 residents reviewed during the initial pool process.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement infection control policies and procedures to prevent resident exposure to tuberculosis and childhood communicable diseases. This was evident for 5 (#13, #14, #15, #16, and #17) of 5 employee files reviewed for immunity of communicable diseases and screening for tuberculosis.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, resident interview, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to keep an alleged abuser away from the resident during the investigation. This was evident for 1 (Resident #31) of 3 residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments accurately reflected the residents status as evidenced by the failure to assess the presence of cracked teeth and failed to assess the use of a wanderguard device. This was found to be evident for one of one resident (Resident #55) reviewed for dental and one of six residents (Resident #4) reviewed for accidents. MDS is a federally-mandated assessment tool used by nursing home staff to gather information on each resident's strengths and needs. Information collected drives resident care planning decisions. MDS assessments need to be accurate to ensure that each resident receives the care they need.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the baseline care plan included instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident that meets professional standards as evidenced by failure to include interventions for actual skin breakdown in the baseline care plan. This was found to be evident for one of three residents (Resident #135) reviewed for possible pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility 1) failed to follow a resident's care plan related to activities of daily living (ADL), 2a) failed to follow a resident care plan related to monitoring for psychotropic drug side effects, 2b) failed to develop and implement comprehensive, person-centered care plans with non-pharmacological approaches to care for a resident receiving psychotropic medication, and 3) failed to implement the use of fall mats as indicated in the resident's fall care plan. This was evident for one (Resident #132) of two residents reviewed for discharge; one (Resident #17) of five resident's reviewed for unnecessary medications; and one of six residents (Resident #64) reviewed for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide Activities of Daily Living (ADL) for a resident who required assistance from staff for bathing. This was evident for 1 (Resident #132) of 2 residents reviewed for discharge.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, family interview, record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide activities for a resident who required individual activities in their room. This was evident for 1 (Resident #22) of 2 residents reviewed for activities.
Inspectors wrote2) On 10/09/19 at 10:14 AM, Resident #4 was observed to be wearing a wanderguard. Review of the resident's medical record revealed diagnosis of dementia and delusions. A wanderguard is a device, that the resident wears like a braclet on either the writst or ankle, that alarms when the resident is within a certain distance from an exit. On 10/11/19 at 9:20 AM, review of the resident's medical record revealed orders to check the Wanderguard function every morning and to check the placement every shift. Both of these orders were in effect since June 2018. Review of the treatment administration record (TAR) revealed the order to Check Wanderguard function in the morning was scheduled for 6:00 AM indicating this check should be completed by the night shift nurse. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure that a resident's medication regimen was free from unnecessary medication by failing to ensure that 1) psychotropic medication prescribed as needed included the frequency the medication could be administered and 2) that the psychotropic order was limited to 14 days or had a specific duration, with rationale for an extended time period documented in the medical record, and 3) failed to monitor a resident for side effects related to the use of antidepressant medications. This was evident for 1 (Resident #17) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to keep complete and accurate medical records as evidenced by having two conflicting Maryland Medical Order for Life Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) forms in the electronic health record. This was evident for 1 (Resident #83) of 3 closed records reviewed. The MOLST documents a person's wishes regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and other life-sustaining treatments.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of employee files and interview with staff it was determined that the facility failed to have a system in place to ensure that all geriatric nursing assistants (GNA) and certified medicine aides (CMA) were able to demonstrate competency in skills and techniques necessary to care for residents This was evident for 7 of 15 GNA and CMA's records (#5, #6, #9, #10, #11, #12 and #13) selected for review.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that facility staff failed to initiate a Care Plan for a bowel regimen. This was true for 1 of 1 residents (#47) reviewed for bowel regimen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, medical record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined the facility failed to 1. apply Geri sleeves to the Bilateral Lower Extremities as ordered by the physician (#131) and 2. document a change in condition assessment (#81). This was evident for 2 of 37 residents reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to complete an annual nutritional assessment following a significant weight loss. This was evident for 1 of 5 residents (#12) reviewed for nutrition during this annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the physician's nurse practitioner failed to 1. document current medications accurately (Resident #1 and #55) and 2. have psychiatry visit notes available in a timely manner. This was evident for 3 of 37 residents reviewed in the final sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to indicate a rationale for the continued use of a cognitive-enhancing medication for Resident #65. This was evident for 1 of 37 residents reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review of facility documentation and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure and/or maintain accurate medical records for residents (#31 and #65). This was evident for 2 of 37 residents reviewed in the final sample.
35 fire safety citations on file: 5 on June 27, 2025, 19 on November 22, 2024, 10 on October 11, 2019, 1 on May 18, 2018.
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 | Maryland | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.33 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.58 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.05 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.04 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.71 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 44.4% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 40.0% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 4.25 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 3.44 on weekdays and 3.05 on weekends, 11% 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 3.41 in April to June 2025 to 3.33 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 | 3.33 | 0.58 | 3.44 | 3.05 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 85 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.23 | 0.62 | 3.32 | 3.01 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 83 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.34 | 0.69 | 3.37 | 3.28 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 80 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.41 | 0.64 | 3.54 | 3.09 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 76 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Maryland, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.73 | 0.74 | 3.88 | 3.34 | 8.0% | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maryland, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.79 | $18.46 to $22.00 | 27,720 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $35.89 | $31.40 to $38.30 | 9,560 |
| Registered nurses | $47.98 | $40.26 to $51.61 | 52,910 |
| 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 | Maryland | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 21.8 | 20.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.9 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.0 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.7 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 24.7 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.9 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 38.1 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 22.6 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 15.8 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Caroline Nursing and Rehab's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (54.9% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
54.9% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Maryland: 90 better, 29 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. 137 eligible stays.
11.3% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Maryland: 0 better, 41 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. 169 eligible stays.
7.8% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Maryland: 5 better, 6 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. 92 eligible stays.
69.3% this home
Median of homes: Maryland61.2% · 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. 75 residents counted.
1.9% this home
Median of homes: Maryland0.4% · 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. 108 residents counted.
1.4% this home
Median of homes: Maryland2.4% · 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. 108 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: Maryland98.1% · 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: 520 KERR AVENUE OPCO LLC. CMS links this home to Key Health Management, a group of 7 nursing homes averaging 1.7 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caroline Operations Holdco LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 08/01/2022 | |
| Md2 Investors LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 08/01/2022 | |
| Hirth, Yechiel | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 08/01/2022 | |
| Caroline Property Holdco LLC | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 08/01/2022 | |
| Hirth, Yechiel | Corporate officer | Individual | 08/01/2022 | |
| Fisher Yohn, Carla | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/19/2024 | |
| Hirth, Yechiel | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2022 | |
| Howard, Daniel | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2022 | |
| Caroline Property Holdco LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2022 | |
| Key Health Management LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2022 | |
| Md2 Investors LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2022 | |
| Ausch, Sara | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/01/2022 | |
| Eisen, Menashe | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/01/2022 | |
| Fisher Yohn, Carla | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/19/2024 | |
| Hirth, Yechiel | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/01/2022 | |
| Howard, Daniel | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/01/2022 | |
| Klein, Yehudis | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/01/2022 | |
| Perlstein, Barry | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/01/2022 | |
| Schlussel, Naftali | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/01/2022 |
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 Maryland. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.