6710 Mallery Drive, Lanham, MD 20706 · Prince Georges County · (301) 552-2000
130 certified beds, about 126 residents a day · For profit - Partnership · Medicare and Medicaid since 1977
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215108 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on December 15, 2025, inspectors cited 7 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
Of 49 health citations since April 2019, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $16,331 in the last three years; the largest was $16,331, and the latest is dated April 30, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.81 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.80 of those hours.
37.9% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Maryland average 40.2%).
CMS links it to Genesis Healthcare, an affiliated group of 184 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 49 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to report an allegation of injury of unknown origin immediately or no later than 2 hours after the allegation was made aware to the facility's administration team. This was evident for 1 out of 2 residents reviewed for allegations of an injury of unknown during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurately coded. This was evident for 1 (Resident #18) of 5 residents reviewed for a fall during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to follow standard of practice during the care of the resident. This was evident for 1 (Resident #31) out of 3 residents reviewed for activation of emergency services during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility staff failed to administer and hold medications as ordered by the physician . This was evident for 3 (Resident #31, #24 and #20) of 36 residents reviewed during a complaint survey. The findings Include: 1. The facility staff failed to administer a medication as ordered by the physician to Resident #31. Review of Resident #31's medical record on 4/9/26 revealed the Resident was admitted to the facility in 2023 with a diagnosis to include heart failure. Further review of the Resident's medical record revealed the was sent to the emergency room on 2/27/26 for abnormal labs. On 2/28/26 the Resident was followed up by Nurse Practitioner (NP) #24 who ordered to increase the Resident's Lasix from 20 mg to 40 mg daily for 7 days. Lasix is a medication used to treat fluid retention that can be caused by heart failure. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to code the resident's status accurately on the Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS). This was evident for 1 (Resident #8) out of 2 residents reviewed for accuracy of assessments during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to update a resident's care plan to reflect individualized preferences. This was evident for 1 (Resident #6) out of 7 residents reviewed for care plan development during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to administer medications in a timely manner. This was evident for 1 (Resident #128) out of 1 residents reviewed for medication administration during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure Resident #45 was free from a significant medication error. This was evident for 1 (Resident #45) of 1 resident reviewed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide dental health evaluation and services to the residents. This was evident for 2 (Resident #15 and #10) out of 4 residents evaluated for dental health.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide rehabilitative services as ordered. This was evident for 1 (Resident #129) out of 1 resident reviewed for therapy services.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and medical record review, it was determined the facility failed to follow up with neurologist consultation recommendations which resulted in a delay of care for the resident. This was evident for 1 (Resident #109) of 1 resident reviewed for use of outside sources during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to follow appropriate infection control practices. This was evident for 2 (Resident #4 and #6) out of 33 residents reviewed during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program so that the facility is free of pests. This was evident in the kitchen during the initial kitchen tour.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interviews, and observations, the facility failed to maintain an environment free from staff-to-resident verbal and non-verbal abuse for 2 (Resident #28, #3) of 19 residents. Specifically, 1) Housekeeper 1 (HK1) used curse words toward and made a threatening gesture toward Resident (R) 28 by raising his/her middle finger one time within R28's bedroom and when 2) General Nursing Assistant (GNA) verbally abused R3 and used derogatory comments while providing care. The facility census was 126. The facility implemented effective and thorough corrective measures following these incidents and prior to the start of this survey. The facilities plan and action were verified during this survey, therefore this deficiency was found to be past noncompliance with a compliance date of 1) 8/1/24 and 2) 5/10/25.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to clarify a medication discrepancy on the hospital discharge summary, monitor appropriate dosing of a medication by ordering the correct laboratory testing, and take action on abnormal laboratory results required for accurate medication dosing. This was found to be evident for 1 (#43) out of 6 residents reviewed for Vancomycin administration. This deficient practice resulted in harm to the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation, medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain confidentiality of resident medical records as evidenced by accessibility of a laboratory log. This was found to be evident for 7 (Residents #3, 16, 42, 51, 55, 71 and 77) out 7 Residents reviewed for confidentiality of medical records.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and interviews, it was determined the facility failed to notify the Ombudsman of residents that transferred or discharged . This was found evident of 3 (Resident #17, #90 & 73) of 5 residents reviewed for hospitalization during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and medical record review it was determined that the facility failed to: 1) revise residents care plans and 2) to hold care plan meetings with an interdisciplinary team for residents at the time of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment. This was found evident for in 3 (Resident # 42, #75 and #80) and 1 (Resident #322) of 10 residents reviewed for care planning.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of resident's medical records, and interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide activities of daily living care in accordance with the Resident's care plan for dependent Residents. This was found to be evident for 5 (Resident #322, #97, #321, #41 and #80) out of 7 reviewed during the survey for activities of daily living.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to maintain proper sanitation for storage of food in the kitchen and on the nursing units. This was evident in the kitchen, on 2 out of 4 nursing units, and on 1 random observation of a beverage cart found during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that staff respond to call bells in a timely manner. This was found to be evident for 1 (resident #80) out of 3 residents observed for call bell response time.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review it was determined that the facility failed to have a resident's and/or Resident Representative's acknowledgement of change in coverage including any charges for services not covered under Medicare/Medicaid. This was found evident in 2 (Resident #92 ) of 3 residents for beneficiary notice review.
Inspectors wrote1b) On 4/15/24 at 11:56 AM, the surveyor interviewed Resident #17. During this interview Resident #17 stated he/she had recently been hospitalized . On 4/19/24 at 7:47 AM, the surveyor reviewed Resident #17's medical record. The review revealed that Resident # 17 was transferred to the hospital on 3/15/24. On 4/19/24 at 11:33 AM, the surveyor requested documentation that written notice was given to Resident #17 of the bed hold policy when he/she was transferred to the hospital. The Director of Nursing (DON) stated she would look for the documentation. On 4/19/24 at 2:13 PM, the DON stated the nursing staff should be providing the bed hold policy at the time of transfer and that the business office is supposed to follow up with the resident or family member the next day. She further stated, they should be sending the policy in the mail or via email. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and medical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately document a resident assessment on the MDS (Minimum Data Set) as evidenced by an inaccurate coding for a resident. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident #42) out of 1 resident reviewed for accuracy of MDS assessments.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide the resident and their representative with a summary of the baseline care plan. This was found evident for 1 (Residents #90) of 10 residents reviewed for care planning during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record review it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan to meet the needs of a resident. This was found evident of 2 (Resident #17 & #103) of 10 residents reviewed for care planning during an annual and complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and review of facility policy, it was determined that the facility failed to utilize professional standards during medication administration. This was found evident in 1 of 26 medications observed being administered on the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice during the administration of intermittent intravenous (IV) antibiotic infusions. This was found to be evident in 2 (#43, and #376) out of 2 residents observed during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to administer medication according to procedures that assure accurate dispensing of medications. This was found evident of 1 of 26 medications observed being administered on the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interviews, and review of facility policy, it was determined that the facility failed to have a process in place that ensured a Resident 's medication irregularity reports were reviewed by the primary care physician and that the recommendations were addressed timely. This was found evident of 3 (#103, #90 & #42) of 5 Residents reviewed for medication regimen review.
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 psychotropic medication had an adequate indication for use. This was evident for 1 (#103) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wrote1c) On 4/30/24 at 7:12 PM, the surveyor observed a medication cart that was unattended and unlocked located on 200 Unit. The medication cart was approximately 15 feet down the hallway from another mediation cart located just across from the nurses station. Two staff were observed counting medications on the cart across from the nurses station. No staff was by the unlocked medication cart. The surveyor observed both staff walk away after they were finished counting at the medication cart across from the nurses station. On 4/30/24 at 7:19 AM, the surveyor was able to open the top draw of the unlocked mediation cart located just down the 200 Unit hallway. The top drawer had multiple bottles of medications. The second drawer had punch cards with multiple doses of residents medications. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to have laboratory results in the resident's medical record. This was found evident of 1 of 6 (Resident #324) residents reviewed for vancomycin dosing.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined that the facility staff failed to promptly provide or obtain visit/appointments for routine dental care or treatment. This was found to be evident for 2 (Resident # 74 and #88) out of 2 residents reviewed for dental services during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain medical records in accordance with acceptable professional standards and practices by keeping complete and accurate documentation. This was found evident in 3 of 54 (Resident #322, #4 and #103) residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and interview it was determined that the facility failed to document the rational for non-administration of the pneumococcal vaccination. This was found evident for 1 (Resident #86) out of 5 residents reviewed for vaccinations during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to keep the kitchen walk-in freezer in safe operating condition. This was evident during the initial tour of the kitchen and during subsequent visits.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program as evidenced by the presence of rodents and insects. This was found to be evident during observations for pest control in the kitchen and nursing unit.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a podiatry consult was provided in a timely manner. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident #122) out of 1 resident reviewed for foot care.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility staff failed to report the elopement of a resident (resident #43) from the facility. This was evident for 1 out of 44 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigations into allegations of neglect and abuse. This was evident for 4 of 4 (#5 and #9, # 12, and # 27) residents reviewed during this complaint investigation.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility staff failed to assess a resident (resident #43) after a significant change, an elopement attempt, from the facility. This was evident for 1 out of 44 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on the review of a complaint, observations, interview, and medical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the ordered feeding assistance to a resident. This was evident for 1 of 2 residents observed on the 400 unit.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, interview and review of a facility reported incident, it was determined that the facility failed to follow the plan of care for transferring a resident. This was evident for the review of 3 of 3 (#5 and # 27 and # 43 ) residents reviewed during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on a random tour of the facility, it was evident that the facility failed to secure all medications out of the reach of all vulnerable adults. This was evident during a tour of the facility on 1 of 4 wings. (400).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility reported incidents, interviews, and review of employee files, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure abuse training was completed prior to Geriatric Nursing Assistants (GNA) working on the floor with residents. This was evident during the review of 1 of 3 employee files.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview with the Director of Nursing DON) on 4/24/19 at 8:30 AM a care plan was not sent with Resident # 22 that was sent to the hospital on 3/29/129. This was evident for 1 of 42 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation of Resident # 15, interview with staff # 2 on 4/25/19 at 11:12 AM and record review, the facility failed to do an accurate assessment for Resident # 15 that smokes. This was evident for 1 out of 2 residents that smoke.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation of Resident # 109 on 4/25/19 at 10:30 AM and record review, the resident was not turned and repositioned every 2 hours as ordered by the physician. This was evident for 1 out of 42 residents.
14 fire safety citations on file: 3 on December 15, 2025, 8 on April 30, 2024, 3 on April 26, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| April 30, 2024 | Fine | $16,331 |
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 | Maryland | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.81 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.80 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.39 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.92 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.09 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 37.9% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 40.7% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 4.05 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 3.98 on weekdays and 3.39 on weekends, 15% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 5.3% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.38 in April to June 2025 to 3.81 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 | 3.81 | 0.80 | 3.98 | 3.39 | 5.3% | 0 of 90 | 126 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.80 | 0.77 | 3.96 | 3.40 | 8.2% | 0 of 92 | 125 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.70 | 0.75 | 3.87 | 3.25 | 2.7% | 0 of 92 | 126 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.38 | 0.70 | 3.51 | 3.06 | 1.2% | 0 of 91 | 127 |
| 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 | 26.0 | 20.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.2 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 27.7 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.6 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.3 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 17.6 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 9.5 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.8 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Doctors Community Rehabilitation and Patient Care's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (65.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
65.0% this home
Better than 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. 591 eligible stays.
15.7% this home
Worse than 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. 576 eligible stays.
7.3% 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. 368 eligible stays.
51.3% 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. 228 residents counted.
0.3% 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. 334 residents counted.
3.6% 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. 332 residents counted.
98.5% this home
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. 198 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: MAGNOLIA GARDENS LLC. CMS links this home to Genesis Healthcare, a group of 184 nursing homes averaging 2.3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Magnolia Gardens LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 04/01/2014 |
| Doctors Community Health Ventures Inc | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 05/01/2014 | |
| Fc-Gen Operations Investment LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2012 | |
| Gen Operations I LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2012 | |
| Gen Operations II LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2012 | |
| Genesis Healthcare Inc | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2018 | |
| Genesis Healthcare LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2012 | |
| Genesis Holdings LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2018 | |
| Ghc Jv Holdings LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 05/01/2014 | |
| Magnolia Jv LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 05/01/2014 | |
| Sun Healthcare Group Inc | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 11/15/2022 | |
| Whitman, Arnold | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 11/15/2022 | |
| Berg, Michael | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/01/2012 | |
| Bridgeford, Laura | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/01/2024 | |
| Mendelson, Avi | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/01/2024 | |
| Baqai, Sadia | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/01/2024 | |
| Brice, John | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/01/2024 | |
| Morris, Diane | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/23/2023 | |
| Baqai, Sadia | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/01/2024 | |
| Brice, John | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/01/2024 | |
| Morris, Diane | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/27/2023 |
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.
These are the official offices in Maryland. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.