Home / California / Monterey
1501 Skyline Drive, Monterey, CA 93940 · Monterey County · (831) 373-3716
99 certified beds, about 95 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1973
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 056437 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 16, 2025, inspectors cited 11 health deficiencies (the California average is 15.6, the national average 9.2).
None of its 39 health citations since May 2021 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 4.42 hours per resident per day, against 4.52 across California and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.55 of those hours.
45.4% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (California average 36.7%).
CMS links it to PACS Group, an affiliated group of 275 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 39 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure services to accommodate resident's needs were provided for one of three residents (Resident 1) when there was a delayed response to his call light. This failure prevented Resident 1 from receiving timely assistance in meeting his needs for a toilet transfer.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a care plan to address treatment of a rash for one of five residents (Resident 1). This failure had the potential to place the resident at risk for not receiving necessary care and services.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure care and services were provided in accordance with professional standards of practice for one of three sampled residents (Residents 1) when there was no documentation that staff informed a clinician (ex. doctor of medicine, MD or nurse practitioner, NP) timely regarding Resident 1's fractured hip. This failure had the potential to delay care compromising the residents' health, safety, and overall well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to properly reconcile medications and wound care treatment orders upon admission from the hospital for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). when:1. The wound care treatment order was not transcribed from the hospital discharge instructions from 9/5/2025 to 9/11/2025, which resulted in two missed wound care treatments.2. There was no documented evidence that wound care treatment was provided on 9/15/2025.3. Two insulin aspart orders were not transcribed from the hospital discharge instructions onto the facility's medication list from 9/5/2025 to 9/16/2025. As a result, blood sugar levels were not checked, and insulin was not administered per sliding scale orders during this period. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure palatability and nutritive value of cooked foods were maintained when: 1. Three of forty-nine facility residents, (Residents 33, 61 and 51), received food from the kitchen and complained that the food tasted bland (lacking taste or flavor); and, 2. Minced/moist (dietary modification where food is prepared to be soft, moist and easily swallowed with minimal chewing required) country fried steak, soft/bite-sized (foods that are soft, tender, moist and easily broken down by chewing) country fried steak, vegetable or veggie patties and mashed potatoes (made by mashing boiled or steam potatoes) were held in the heated oven for an extended period. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure cooking and kitchen equipment were maintained and kept in accordance with professional standards for food safety when: 1. There were unsanitary cooking equipment stored in the kitchen; and, 2. Ice scoop for the ice machine was placed on top of a dusty and uncleaned tray. These failures had the potential to cause the growth of micro-organisms which could cause foodborne illness (illness resulting from contaminated food) and cross-contaminated food for the ninety-five residents who received food from the facility kitchen.
Inspectors wrote4. During an observation and interview with the DON on 5/12/2025 at 11:00 a.m., dark brownish substances were observed all over the top of the medication storage cabinets in the south medication storage room. The DON confirmed the above observation and stated the staff should keep the medication storage cabinet clean. During an interview with the housekeeping manager (HM) on 5/15/2025 at 10:28 a.m., the HM stated that staff should have kept the medication storage cabinet clean. A review of the facility policy and procedures titled Storage of Medications, revised November 2020, indicated . the nursing staff is responsible for maintaining medication storage and preparation area in a clean, safe and sanitary manner . 5. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement their policy on self-administration of medication (resident takes medication without staff assistance) for one of 25 sampled residents (Resident 27) when the facility did not determine that the resident was clinically appropriate and safe to self-administer medications; did not obtain a physician's order to self-administer medications; and did not develop a care plan to address self-administration of medications. These failures had the potential for unsafe and improper administration of medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the residents would know and be reminded of the results of the previous state recertification surveys when 4 out of 4 residents who attended the resident council meeting, (Residents 18, 51, 65 and 244), did not know about the results of the previous state recertification surveys or where the survey results binder was located. These failures jeopardized the right of the residents to know and examine the results of the previous state recertification surveys and the plan of corrections that the facility did for those failures.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide an advance directive (AD, a written instruction, such as a living will or durable power of attorney for health care when the individual is incapacitated) or Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST, document that specifies the medical treatments the resident wants to receive during serious illness) was completed for one of two sampled residents (Residents 75). These failures could lead to the delivery of unnecessary or inappropriate medical services, which are against the residents' goals and wishes.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately complete the discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool) for one of three residents (Resident 92). Failure to accurately assess Resident 92's discharge status resulted in an inaccurate record.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, resident-centered care plan for one out of five residents investigated for their activities, (Resident 51), when Resident 51 did not have a care plan for her activities. This failure had the potential for the resident to not receive the appropriate interventions necessary to maintain her highest level of well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with professional standards of practice for two of 25 sampled residents (Residents 59 and 301) when: 1. The facility failed to follow the physician's order for Resident 59 by not applying the prescribed wound care dressing and offloading boots while the resident was in bed. 2. For Resident 301, the licensed nurse incorrectly transcribed the physician's order for Chlorhexidine Gluconate mouth rinse. These failures had the potential to compromise the residents' health and well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services when: 1. Chlorhexidine Gluconate mouth rinse was unavailable for administration for five consecutive days for one of 25 sampled residents (Resident 301). 2. The pharmacy linked the different medications and incorrect administration instructions for one of the 25 sampled residents (Resident 36). This link resulted in the licensed nurse administering the wrong medication to Resident 36. These failure had the potential to worsen the resident's condition or lead to complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility had a medication error rate of 7.14 % when two medication errors were observed out of 28 opportunities during medication administration for two out of six residents (Residents 301 and 36). 1. Chlorhexidine mouth rinse was not administered as ordered for Resident 301, 2. Insulin was not administered as ordered for Resident 36 before lunch. These failures resulted in residents not receiving medications as prescribed, which had the potential to result in residents not receiving the full therapeutic benefit of their medications and/or experiencing negative health outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident's right to be treated with dignity was rendered for one of two residents (Resident 1) when Resident 1's request not to move to another room was not followed. This failure had the potential to cause emotional distress and a feeling of less self-worth for Resident 1.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' pressure ulcers (injuries to the skin and the tissue below the skin that are due to pressure on the skin for a long time) had weekly assessment for four of seven residents (1, 2, 3, and 4). This failure resulted in undetermined wound status and had the potential to negatively affect the healing of the wounds and/or to cause the deterioration of the wounds.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement infection control practices when: 1. Certified nursing assistant A (CNA A) did not sanitize/wash her hands after removing the gloves which she wore during working with Resident 5; 2. CNA B walked out of Resident 6's room with gloves on and did not sanitize/wash her hands; and 3. CNA C walked out of Resident 7's room with gloves on. These failures had the potential to spread infection in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure proper medication storage when an unlocked medication cart was left unattended. This failure had the potential for residents, unauthorized staff, and visitors to access the medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA) A had a current CNA certificate during the time of employment working as a CNA while providing resident care from August 2023 to April 2024. This deficient practice had the potential for an unqualified CNA to provide care to the residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents received the necessary care and services for four of six residents (2, 3, 4, and 5) when their wounds did not receive weekly assessment. This failure resulted in undetermined wound status and could negatively affect the progress of their wound healing.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide safe discharge to one of three residents (1) when the physician indicated that Resident 1 could not be discharged home for self-care, but Resident 1 was discharged home without a caregiver readily available for her upon her discharge to home. This failure had the potential to jeopardize the resident's health, safety and well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow care plan and physician's order to apply Triamcinolone cream (a corticosteroid used to help relieve redness, itching, swelling, or other discomfort caused by skin conditions) to one of three sampled residents (1). This failure had a potential to delay the improvement and/or resolution of Resident 1's skin problem.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan to outline dysphagia ((difficulty of swallowing) care for one of three sampled residents (2) when she had a newly added diagnosis of dysphagia after her hospital admission. This failure potentially affected Resident 2's quality of care for prevention of aspiration or choking in the facility.
Inspectors wrote2. A review of Resident #298's admission Record, revealed the facility admitted the resident on 01/13/2024, with a diagnosis of benign prostatic hyperplasia. A review of Resident #298's care plan, initiated 01/13/2024, revealed the resident was at risk for complications related to a suprapubic catheter. Interventions directed the staff to provide a privacy cover for the catheter bag to promote the resident's dignity. On 01/22/2024 at 1:13 PM, 01/23/2023 at 12:08 PM, and on 01/23/2024 at 3:37 PM, the surveyor observed that Resident #298's urinary catheter drainage bag did not have a privacy cover. During an interview on 01/24/2024 at 1:14 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #13 stated it was facility policy for a urinary drainage bag to be covered for respect and privacy of the resident. [...]
Inspectors wrote2. A review of Resident #81's admission Record, revealed the facility admitted the resident on 09/12/2023, with diagnoses that included end stage renal disease and dependence on renal dialysis. A review of Resident #81's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/19/2023, revealed Resident #81 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12, which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. Per the MDS, Resident #81 did not receive dialysis. A review of Resident #81's care plan, initiated on 09/13/2023, revealed the resident required hemodialysis due to end stage renal failure. Interventions specified the resident received hemodialysis on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to schedule and complete quarterly care plan reviews and invite the resident and/or the resident representative to the care plan meeting for 1 (Resident #71) of 20 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a nebulizer mask was cleaned and stored properly after use for 1 (Resident #298) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility also failed to ensure a physician order contained the supplemental oxygen flow rate for 1 (Resident #6) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for respiratory care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility staff failed to ensure residents receiving hemodialysis (HD, treatment to filter wastes and water from your blood) treatment received services consistent with professional standards of practice for two of three sampled residents (Residents 1 and 2) when: 1. For Resident 1, licensed staff failed to complete the Dialysis Unit Communication Report, and accurately assess the type of HD access site (a way to reach your blood for hemodialysis) resident was using; 2. Facility licensed staff failed to document pertinent (significant) information when the facility's contract transport company did not pick up Resident 1 and Resident 2 on time at the dialysis center on 9/16/23 after their dialysis sessions; and 3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement their Personal Property policy and procedure or one of 2 sampled residents (Resident 1)when Resident 1's inventory of personal belongings was not completed and documented upon his admission to the facility. This failure had the potential for Resident 1's belongings to be stolen or lost without the resident or family's knowledge.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents received the necessary care and services for one of three residents (1) when Resident 1 came back from the hospital on [DATE] with wounds, but after the assessment at admission, Resident 1 did not have any skin assessment until 11/13/23 which was almost one month after his admission. Also, Resident 1 did not have any treatment order for the wound on his right lateral lower leg until 10/27/23 which was about 9 days after his admission. These failures had the potential to affect the resident's care and could jeopardize his health and well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of three sampled residents (Resident 1 and 2) were free from incident of falls when: 1. The facility's contracted transportation driver A (FCTD A) did not perform the correct technique when the FCTD A pulled the wheelchair up the ramp instead of pushing Resident 1's wheelchair up the ramp when Resident 1 was scheduled to go out of the facility for an appointment. This resulted in Resident 1 falling face down on the pavement. 2. The facility failed to follow Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool) to provide two persons physical assist when Resident 1 went off the unit (when Resident 1 left her room/unit to go out of the facility for her appointment). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility staff failed to administer to one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) the prescribed antibiotics (medications to treat infections) as ordered and scheduled when these medications were available in the facility's Electronic Medication Cabinet (EMC, emergency medication kit). This had the potential for worsening of Resident 1's left knee and skin infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medication and biologicals were stored and labeled appropriately when expired prescription and over the counter medications were found in the medication room; internal and external medications not stored separately; unlabeled and undated medications; incomplete medication refrigerator log and discontinued medications in the medication carts. These failures had the potential for residents to receive expired, incorrect and unsafe medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure two out of 18 sampled residents' (Residents 108 and 322) needs were met when their call lights were not within reach. This failure puts these two residents at risk for safety.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and records review, the facility failed to check the residual (gastric content or volume of fluid remaining in the stomach) from a gastrostomy tube (GT, a small tube inserted through the abdomen that delivers nutrition and medication directly to the stomach) for one of 18 sampled residents (63) prior to medication administration. This failure had the potential to result in abdominal distention, pain and aspiration pneumonia.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the environment was free of accident hazards for one of five sampled residents (Resident 8) when staff did not keep the bed in the lowest position as indicated in Resident 8's plan of care. This failure had the potential to increase the resident's risk for injury in the event of a fall.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure adequate monitoring for one of 12 sample residents (Resident 98) when licensed nurses did not monitor Resident 98 for adverse effects of an anticoagulant medication (medication that thins the blood). This failure had the potential to negatively affect the resident's health and well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from unnecessary psychotropic medications (medications that are capable of affecting the mind, emotions, and behavior) for two of 12 sampled residents (Residents 87 and 26) when: 1. Resident 87 had no physician's rationale for continued psychotropic medication therapy beyond 14 days; and 2. Resident 26 did not have a documented clinical rationale for not receiving a gradual dose reduction (GDR, stepwise tapering of a medication to determine if symptoms can be managed with a lower dose or if the medication can be discontinued altogether) for an antipsychotic medication. These failures had the potential to increase the residents' risk for experiencing adverse effects from psychotropic medications.
47 fire safety citations on file: 13 on May 16, 2025, 15 on January 25, 2024, 19 on May 21, 2021.
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 | California | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 4.42 | 4.52 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.55 | 0.67 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 4.10 | 4.09 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.64 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.22 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 45.4% | 36.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 73.3% | 38.1% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 5.03 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 4.54 on weekdays and 4.10 on weekends, 10% 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 4.42 in April to June 2025 to 4.42 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 | 4.42 | 0.55 | 4.54 | 4.10 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 95 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.36 | 0.77 | 4.48 | 4.08 | 0.1% | 0 of 92 | 94 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.30 | 0.80 | 4.41 | 4.01 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 93 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.42 | 0.63 | 4.29 | 4.73 | 1.1% | 0 of 91 | 95 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| California, Jan to Mar 2026 | 4.36 | 0.59 | 4.52 | 3.97 | 2.3% | 0.5% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| California, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $22.90 | $22.04 to $26.35 | 110,060 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $38.34 | $35.98 to $45.06 | 82,850 |
| Registered nurses | $67.44 | $58.87 to $83.25 | 338,940 |
| 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 | California | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.8 | 10.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 1.6 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.7 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.3 | 9.8 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.2 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.5 | 12.0 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 22.2 | 22.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.9 | 11.2 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.7 | 2.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.1 | 1.6 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Cypress Ridge Care Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (59.8% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
59.8% this home
Better than the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · California: 301 better, 190 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. 531 eligible stays.
10.1% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · California: 10 better, 22 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. 498 eligible stays.
7.7% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · California: 8 better, 48 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. 346 eligible stays.
95.3% this home
Median of homes: California59.2% · 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. 190 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: California0.0% · 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. 328 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: California0.6% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 328 residents counted.
99.5% this home
Median of homes: California96.2% · 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. 184 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: MARJORAM HOLDINGS LLC. CMS links this home to PACS Group, a group of 275 nursing homes averaging 2.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hudson River Opco LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 11/05/2021 |
| Bay Bridge Capital Partners, LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 11/05/2021 |
| Awerbuck, Matthew | Contracted managing employee | Individual | 09/01/2021 | |
| Howard, Matthew | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 09/01/2023 | |
| Apt, Frederick | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Jergensen, Joshua | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Mitchell, John | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Howard, Matthew | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/01/2023 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
Licensed assisted living homes in the same town or within 5 miles, each with its California inspection record.
These are the official offices in California. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.