301 W. Martin Street, Del Rio, TX 78840 · Val Verde County · (830) 775-2459
60 certified beds, about 49 residents a day · Government - Hospital district · Medicare and Medicaid since 1997
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675677 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 17, 2026, inspectors cited 13 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 28 health citations since March 2024, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $22,403 in the last three years; the largest was $14,385, and the latest is dated August 6, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 2.95 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.39 of those hours.
36.7% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Touchstone Communities, an affiliated group of 25 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 28 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected thestatus of the residents for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for MDS assessments. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1s falls were reflected on the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE]. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of inadequate care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensiveperson-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights, which includes measurable objective andtimes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for 2 (Resident #1 and #2) of 5 residents reviewed for care plans. 1. The facility failed to accurately reflect Resident #1's prevention intervention of a scoop mattress (specialized medical mattress designed with raised, contoured sides or edges that create a concave sleeping surface. The scoop shape gently cradles the user, forming a soft barrier that helps prevent them from rolling out of bed) in the care plan. 2. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to consider the views of the resident or family group and act promptly upon the grievances and recommendations of such groups concerning issues of resident care and life in the facility and demonstrate their response and rationale for such response for 1 of 1 resident council reviewed. The facility failed to follow up on concerns and requests expressed in resident council meetings from February 2026 - May 2026. This failure placed residents at risk of not having their preferences honored.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the activities program was directed by a qualified professional who was a qualified therapeutic recreation specialist or an activities professional who was licensed or registered by the State for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for qualifications of activity professionals. The facility failed to have a qualified Activities Professional to direct their activities program. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not receiving approaches that were individualized to match the skills, abilities, and interests/preferences of each resident for activities.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide drinks, including water and other liquids consistent with resident needs and preferences and sufficient to maintain resident hydration, for 2 of 2 dining rooms (Dining Room A and Dining Room B) at meal services. The facility failed to ensure facility residents in both dining rooms received drinks while they waited for their late meals (lunch) on 06/14/2026. The facility failed to ensure facility residents in both dining rooms received drinks while they waited for their late meals (breakfast and lunch) on 06/15/2026 and 06/16/2026. This failure could place residents at risk of discomfort, dehydration, and/or a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews the facility failed to provide each resident with at least three meals daily, at regular times comparable to normal mealtimes in the community or in accordance with resident needs, preferences, requests, and plan of care for 2 of 2 (Dining Room A and Dining Room B)dining rooms reviewed for designated meal service times. The facility failed to provide breakfast and lunch according to the designated meal service schedules for dates 06/14/2026, 06/15/2026, 06/16/2026, 06/17/2026. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of low blood sugar levels, increased stress levels, slowed metabolism rates, weakened immune systems, malnutrition, and organ failure.
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 for 1 of 1 kitchens reviewed for food safety requirements. The facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety by not labeling, dating, sealing, or thawing meat per recommended guidelines. This failure could place residents who eat meals from the kitchen at risk for the spread of food borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents have a right to a dignified existence and treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for 1 (Resident #4) of 8 residents and 1 (Dining Room A) of 2 dining rooms reviewed for dignity. The facility failed to provide Resident #4 privacy during ostomy care on 06/14/2026 when RN G kept resident door open and privacy curtain was not drawn exposing resident to other residents, staff, and visitors walking by the room. The facility failed to ensure residents receiving meals in Dining Room A were treated with dignity on 06/16/2026 when CNA A provided residents with feeding assistance while on personal cell phone making a personal phone call. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to assess a resident using the quarterly review instrument specified by the State and approved by CMS not less frequently than once every three months for 1 (Resident #37) of 2 residents reviewed for MDS assessments. The facility failed to complete Resident #35's Quarterly MDS Assessment within three months of their most recent comprehensive assessment. This failure could lead to residents not receiving necessary, complete, or correct care due to lack of current information for their care plans.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet the resident's medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #4) reviewed for comprehensive care planning. The facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for Resident #4 following admission on [DATE]. This failure could result in decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that the comprehensive care plan was reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment for one resident (Resident #8) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to update or add interventions to Resident #8's care plan regarding the use of an indwelling urinary catheter. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the necessary services or having the appropriate interventions to meet their current needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received an ongoing program to support residents in their choice of activities, both facility-sponsored group and individual activities and independent activities, designed to meet the interests of and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident for 2 of 8 residents (Resident #4 and Resident #31) reviewed for activities. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4, and Resident #31 had the option of participating in daily, organized activities to meet the residents' psychosocial needs and preferences during June 2026. This failure could result in decreased psychosocial well-being or decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who is incontinent of bladder receives appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections and to restore continence to the extent possible for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #8) reviewed for incontinent care and catheter care, in that: While providing catheter/incontinent care for Resident #8, CNA C cleaned resident buttocks and then turned resident back onto soiled draw sheet. These deficient practices could place residents at-risk for infection and skin break down due to improper care practices.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to employ sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, taking into consideration resident assessments, individual plans of care and the number, acuity and diagnoses of the facility's resident population in accordance with the facility assessment required for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed. The facility failed to employ a qualified dietician who designates a person to serve as a full-time director of food and nutrition services for the facility. The person designated to serve as a director of food and nutrition services did not have the qualifications to serve as the director of food and nutrition. These failures could place residents at risk of not having their nutritional needs met.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable disease and infection for 1 of 1 halls (B hall) reviewed for infection control. The facility failed to ensure CNA B sanitized their hands between resident meal trays while passing out trays for 8 of 8 residents and 1 of 1 halls (B hall) reviewed for infection control. This failure could place residents at risk of cross-contamination and the spread of infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to exercise their rights as a resident of the facility and as a citizen or resident of the United States for 2 of 40 residents (Residents #93 and #94) reviewed for freedom of their rights. 1. On 4/17/2025 Resident #93 was admitted to the facility in the custody of the United States Marshal Service under armed guard supervision and shackled at the wrists, abdomen, and ankles. 2. On 4/28/2025 Resident #94 was admitted to the facility in the custody of the United States Marshal Service under armed guard supervision and shackled at the wrists, abdomen, and ankles. These failures could place residents at risk for physical restraints not required to treat medical symptoms.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to be informed of, and participate in, their treatments, for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #24) reviewed for antipsychotic medication administration. 1. Resident #24 was administered ziprasidone, an antipsychotic medication, in April 2025 without the resident's informed consent and understanding the medications potential side effects. The deficient practices could place residents at risk for side effects for which they did not consent.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure that each resident was free from physical or chemical restraints imposed for purposes of discipline or convenience and that were not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms, for 2 0f 40 residents (Residents #93 and #94) reviewed for physical restraints. 1. On 4/17/2025 Resident #93 was admitted to the facility in the custody of the United States Marshal Service under armed guard supervision and shackled at the wrists, abdomen, and ankles. 2. On 4/28/2025 Resident #94 was admitted to the facility in the custody of the United States Marshal Service under armed guard supervision and shackled at the wrists, abdomen, and ankles. These failures could place residents at risk for physical restraints not required to treat medical symptoms.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure residents did not receive antipsychotic medications ordered as needed for longer than 14 days for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #24) reviewed for antipsychotic medication administration. 1. Resident #24 was prescribed ziprasidone, an antipsychotic medication, as needed without an end date. The deficient practices could place residents at risk for indefinitely receiving an antipsychotic medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to electronically transmit encoded, accurate, and complete MDS data to the CMS System, within 14 days, upon a resident's transfer, reentry, discharge, and death, for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #37) reviewed for transmitted MDS data to the CMS System. The facility failed to transmit a discharge MDS assessment to the CMS system for Resident #37. This failure could place residents at risk of not having their assessments transmitted timely which could cause a delay in treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #93) reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure Resident #93's blood pressure results were documented in the electronic medical before administering a blood pressure medication per the physician's orders. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the intended effect of their prescribed medications and a decreased quality of life.
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 for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for kitchen sanitation in that: The facility failed to maintain the cleanliness of the facility ice maker. The failure could place residents at risk for cross-contamination and foodborne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure residents were free of any significant medication errors for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #10) reviewed for drug labeling. LVN A, LVN B, LVN C, and LVN D administered Resident #10 expired insulin lispro 11 times out of a potential 17 times from 04/03/2024 to 04/11/2024. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving the therapeutic effects of their prescribed medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to voice grievances to the facility or other agency or entity that hears grievances to include those with respect to care and treatment which has been furnished as well as that which has not been furnished, the behavior of staff and of other residents, and other concerns regarding their facility stay for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #17) reviewed for grievances. RN E received a grievance from Resident #17's representative and did not initiate a grievance report. This failure could place residents at risk for not having grievances heard, addressed, and resolved.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, are reported not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency) in accordance with State law through established procedures for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #17) reviewed for reporting allegations of neglect. RN E received an allegation of neglect from Resident #17's representative and did not report the allegation to the abuse, neglect, and exploitation prevention coordinator, the Administrator. This failure could place residents at risk for not having allegations reported.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, and include the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions, and the expiration date when applicable, for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #10) reviewed for drug labeling. The facility failed to remove Resident #10's expired insulin lispro injection pen from the medication cart. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving the therapeutic effects of their prescribed medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a minimum of 80 square feet per resident in 2 of 28 multiple resident rooms as required for (Rooms #14, #21) reviewed for the 80 square feet per Resident requirement . The facility failed to ensure all resident rooms met the minimum size requirements. This deficient practice could affect residents who may reside in these rooms and not allow sufficient room to carry out activities of daily living care, or have the room furnished as they would like and place them at risk for decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for adequate supervision. On 01/30/24, Resident #1 was left unsupervised and suffered an injury, bilateral nasal bone fracture and ten sutures to the forehead, from an unwitnessed fall from a wheelchair to the floor. The facility did not provide adequate supervision. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The noncompliance began on 01/30/24 and ended on 02/06/24. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure could result in residents experiencing accidents, injuries and/or a diminished quality of life.
12 fire safety citations on file: 3 on June 17, 2026, 7 on May 2, 2025, 2 on April 12, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| August 6, 2026 | Fine | $14,385 |
| March 27, 2024 | Fine | $8,018 |
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) | 2.95 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.39 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.38 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.80 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.76 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 36.7% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 40.0% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.33 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 3.18 on weekdays and 2.38 on weekends, 25% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 3.4% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 2.68 in April to June 2025 to 2.95 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 | 2.95 | 0.39 | 3.18 | 2.38 | 3.4% | 0 of 90 | 49 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 2.77 | 0.34 | 2.97 | 2.24 | 1.6% | 0 of 92 | 50 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 2.82 | 0.46 | 3.03 | 2.29 | 2.3% | 0 of 92 | 45 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 2.68 | 0.54 | 2.91 | 2.10 | 2.7% | 0 of 91 | 43 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Texas, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.33 | 0.40 | 3.50 | 2.93 | 2.2% | 0.7% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Texas, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $18.03 | $16.97 to $20.71 | 88,680 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $29.92 | $27.46 to $32.89 | 57,560 |
| Registered nurses | $46.14 | $38.06 to $50.53 | 271,380 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Texas | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 24.1 | 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 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.0 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.0 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.6 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Del Rio Nursing and Rehabilitation Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (52.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
52.5% this home
No different from the national rate
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. 38 eligible stays.
10.9% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Texas: 0 better, 9 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 36 eligible stays.
7.2% this home
No different from the national rate
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. 27 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. 9 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Texas0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 14 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Texas1.3% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 14 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. 6 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: VAL VERDE COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to Touchstone Communities, a group of 25 nursing homes averaging 2.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Val Verde County Hospital District | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 02/28/2015 |
| Lument Real Estate Capital LLC | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 02/28/2015 | |
| Jurado, Jorge | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/26/2024 | |
| Care Inn Properties Inc | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 02/28/2015 | |
| Campbell, Leslie | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2020 | |
| Castillo, Lynnea | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/28/2015 | |
| Eggers, Jackeline | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/02/2023 | |
| Gilcrease, Cynthia | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2016 | |
| Venegas, Roxana | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/18/2024 | |
| Zurovec, Darrell | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2017 | |
| Care Inn Properties Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/08/2025 | |
| Care Inn Realty, Inc. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/28/2015 | |
| Touchstone Communities Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/28/2015 | |
| Campbell, Leslie | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2020 | |
| Castillo, Lynnea | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/28/2015 | |
| Eggers, Jackeline | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/02/2023 | |
| Fellbaum, Ernest | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/22/2002 | |
| Gilcrease, Cynthia | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2016 | |
| Studer, Stanley | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/22/2002 | |
| Venegas, Roxana | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/18/2024 | |
| Zurovec, Darrell | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/01/2017 |
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.