1901 North Hampton Road, Desoto, TX 75115 · Dallas County · (972) 694-9810
120 certified beds, about 79 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 2021
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 745006 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 29, 2025, inspectors cited 4 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 27 health citations since February 2023, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.03 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.34 of those hours.
91.0% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Creative Solutions in Healthcare, an affiliated group of 149 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 27 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for one (Resident #6) out of 6 residents reviewed for accidents and supervision. The facility failed to ensure CNA-A used proper fall procedures on 3/2/26 when Resident #6 slid from her wheelchair while being loaded into the transportation van by not contacting a nurse to assess the resident immediately. The facility failed to ensure Resident #6's safety when CNA-A drove back to the facility with the resident sitting on the van floor unsecured. These failures could place residents at risk for falls, injuries, and a decline in health. Record Review of Resident #6's face sheet revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure each resident was treated with respect, dignity, and care for four (Residents #1, #3, #4 and #8) of 10 reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure all residents #1, #3 #4 and #8's call lights were answered in a timely manner. This failure could affect residents who needed assistance with activities of daily living and could result in needs not being met.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain medical records for 3 of 10 residents (Residents #2, #3 and #4) reviewed for accurate documentation. The facility failed to document wound care treatments for Residents #2, #3 and #4 as ordered by the physician This failure could place 3 residents with pressure injuries at risk of not receiving the care and services to meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility to establish and 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 infections for 1 (Resident #2) of 5 residents. The facility failed to ensure CNA A performed hand hygiene during incontinence care for Resident #2. This failure placed residents at risk for healthcare associated cross contamination and infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure they provided, based on the comprehensive assessment and care plan and the preferences of each resident, 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, encouraging both independence and interaction in the community for two (Residents #1 and #2) of eight residents reviewed for activities. The facility failed to ensure the residents had scheduled activities since Former AD G stopped working 10/31/25. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure each resident received and the facility provided with food that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperatures for 3 (Residents #1, #2, and #3) of 8 residents reviewed for nutritional services. The facility failed to ensure the staff served hot meals to the residents, subsequently they had no interventions in place to address the delays in meal services. This facility could cause all residents to be at risk of not getting the nutrients needed for weight management and good health which could have led to weight loss and deteriorating health and decline resulting in decreased psychosocial well-being.
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 safety in the facility's only kitchen observed for sanitization and storage: 1. The facility failed to clean dishes and eating utensils in accordance with proper sanitization standards when the facility's only chemical dishwasher was broken. 2. The facility failed to ensure food items, stored facility's only dry storage room, were sealed and dented cans discarded. These failures could affect residents by placing them at risk for cross-contamination and/or food-borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure care plans were developed in consultation with the resident and the resident's representative for 5 of 8 residents (Resident #26, Resident #52, Resident #55, Resident #57, and Resident #61) reviewed for Comprehensive Care Plan in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #26, Resident#52, Resident #55, Resident #57, and Resident #61 or the resident's representative were invited to participate in the resident's care plan meeting. This failure placed residents at risk for a loss of independence, psychosocial well-being, and the opportunity for them to participate in the planning of their care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that ensured drugs and biologicals were accurately acquired, received, dispensed, and administered) to meet the needs of each resident for one (600 Hall medication supply room) of two medication rooms reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure expired medications were removed from the 600 Hall medication room. These failures could place residents receiving medications at risk for possible adverse medication effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the Comprehensive MDS Assessment for one (Resident #79) of six residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans. The facility failed to care plan chronic pain for Resident #79 when her Comprehensive MDS Assessment indicated she had constant pain. This failure placed residents at risk for not receiving pain medication causing them to not get pain relief and lowering their quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased upon interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide the required specialized rehabilitative services such as but not limited to physical therapy and occupational therapy for mental illness and intellectual disability as required in the resident's comprehensive plan of care for 1 of 3 resident (Resident #1) reviewed for PASRR coordination and rehabilitation services. The facility failed to submit a Day Habilitation application within 20 days for Resident #1 which prevented the resident from receiving skill development and social interaction in a community setting. This failure could place the residents with intellectual and developmental disabilities at risk for not receiving specialized services that would enhance their highest level of functioning.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement an effective discharge planning process that focused on a resident's discharge goals, identified the resident's needs and how these needs would be met upon discharge, and ensure resident's comprehensive care plan to included the resident's individual discharge plan for five (Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3, Resident #4, and Resident #5) of five residents reviewed for discharge planning. The facility failed to develop a discharge plan for Resident #1 that focused on their specific needs and goals. The facility failed to develop a discharge plan for Resident #2 that focused on their specific needs and goals. The facility failed to develop a discharge plan for Resident #3 that focused on their specific needs and goals. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to promptly notify the ordering physician of results which fall outside of clinical reference ranges in accordance with facility policies and procedures for notification of a practitioner or per the ordering physician's orders for one (Resident #2) of five residents reviewed for diagnostic services. The facility failed to promptly notify Resident #2's physician of her x-ray results for two days which revealed a left shoulder dislocation. This failure could place residents at risk for a delay in care, risk for pain and risk for suffering.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide, based on the comprehensive assessment and care plan, activities designed to meet the interests of and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident for 4 of 4 residents (#20, #26, #45, #49) reviewed for activities in that: Residents #20, #26, #45, and #49 were not provided activities since AD's last day of employment on 03/16/2024. The facility currently did not have an AD on staff. This deficient practice could affect all residents who required activities and could result in decline in social and mental psychosocial well-being .
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was fed by enteral means received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications from enteral feeding for 2 of 2 resident reviewed for enteral feeds (Residents #6 and #36). The facility failed to check for residual volume prior to medication administration for Resident #6 and Resident #36. The facility failed to flush G-tube between and after medication administration for Resident #36. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #36's head of bed was maintained at 30 degrees elevated during medication administration. The facility failed to ensure medications were administered through gravity method for Resident #6 and Resident #36. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident's environment remained as free of accident hazards as is possible, and each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for one (Resident #16) of five residents reviewed for accidents. The facility failed to ensure the safety of Resident #16 by not assisting with the consumption of hot liquids and meals, which caused him to spill coffee over himself during the breakfast meal on 04/17/24. This could affect residents by placing them at risk for injuries that could be prevented.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that it was free of medication error rate of 5 percent or greater. The facility had a medication error rate of 22% based on 6 out of 27 opportunities, which involved 1 of 2 Residents (Resident #36) observed for medication administration, in that: The facility failed to ensure RN D administered medications to Resident #36 via G-tube according to the physician's orders and per standard of practice by crushing six different medications and combining them into one cocktail and pushing them through the G-tube instead of by gravity. These failures could place residents at risk for not receiving the intended therapeutic effects of their medications and could contribute to possible adverse reactions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide food that accommodated resident's preferences for two (Resident #45 and Resident #53) of six residents reviewed for food preferences and the accommodation of resident's meal choices. The facility failed to provide Resident #45 and Resident #53 with preferred foods when they failed to provide them information about alternate meals available to them. This failure could affect the residents who are provided daily meals by the facility, by placing them at risk for not enjoying meals, and weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to prevent the development and transmission of infection for one of five residents (Resident #57) observed for infection control. CNA A failed to perform hand hygiene while providing incontinence care to Resident # 57. This failure could place the residents at risk for infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for 3 of 7 residents (Residents #1, #2, and #3) reviewed for comprehensive care plans. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's care plan included Hypertensive Heart Failure. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2's care plan included Hypertension. 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #3's care plan included Hypertension. These failures could place the residents at risk of not receiving the care and services to maintain their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to secure and confidential personal and medical records for one (Resident #1) of seven residents reviewed for privacy. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1, did not have access to confidential medical information of other residents. This failure placed residents at risk of having their medical information accessed by unauthorized persons.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who was fed by enteral feeding received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications for one (Residents #30) of two residents reviewed for tube feedings. Observed at the bedside of Resident #30 was a de-clogger tool, it appeared to have residue on it. The de-cloggers were available in three locations on the medication cart, central supply room and treatment room; the de-cloggers were ordered to be restocked in January 2023. The facility failed to ensure the nurses were not using a de-clogger to unclog Resident #30's g-tube (Gastrostomy tube, tube inserted through the belly that brings nutrition directly to the stomach) without physician orders, without notifying the physician and without training. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to store and label food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the facility's only kitchen. 1. The facility failed to inspect and ensure all food items were properly labeled and dated. 2. The facility failed to ensure food items in the refrigerator and dry storage were labeled and stored in accordance with the professional standards for food service. 3. The facility failed to discard items stored in the refrigerator or dry storage that were not properly labeled or past the 'best buy', consume by or expiration dates. 4. The facility failed to discard dented cans from the canned goods storage area that were visibly dented. These failures could place residents at risk for food-borne illness and cross contamination. Findings Included: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to immediately consult with the resident's physician when there was a change in resident rights for one of eight (Resident #60) residents reviewed for changes in condition. The facility failed to notify Resident #60's doctor when the resident refused to comply with his fluid restrictive order. This failure could place all the residents at risk of not having their doctors notified of their refusal of doctor's orders, which could result in a decline in health and psycho-social well-being
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving neglect are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury were reported to the State Survey Agency in accordance with State law through established procedures for one (Resident #35) of five residents reviewed for neglect. The facility Administrator and DON failed to follow-up and report when notified by the family of their concerns for neglect, to the State Survey Agency when Resident #35 sustained an injury from an accident while being transported in the facility van on 2/17/23. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights, with measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs identified in the comprehensive assessment for one of eight (Resident #60) residents reviewed for Care plans. 1. The facility failed to develop a comprehensive Care plan for Resident #60 with a diagnosis of ESRD (End Stage Renal Disease) and went to dialysis three times weekly. 2. The facility failed to develop a non-compliance care plan for Resident #60's refusal to follow his fluid restriction doctor's order. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving individualized care and services resulting in a decline their health, mental status and psycho-social well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to review and revise the care plan by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment, including both comprehensive and quarterly review assessments for one of eight (Resident #51) residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to revise Resident #51's care plan when hospice services were discontinued per family request on 01/06/23. This failure could place all residents at risk of missed care if other provider services were listed on the resident's care plan resulting in the resident not getting ADL Care and other care service which could cause the resident to experience a decline in medical, mental and psycho-social well-being. Findings Included: [...]
6 fire safety citations on file: 2 on May 29, 2025, 3 on April 19, 2024, 1 on February 23, 2023.
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 | Texas | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.03 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.34 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.64 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.86 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.83 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 91.0% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 85.7% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 3 |
CMS expects 4.27 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 3.19 on weekdays and 2.64 on weekends, 17% 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 3.07 in April to June 2025 to 3.03 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 | 3.03 | 0.34 | 3.19 | 2.64 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 79 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.09 | 0.30 | 3.28 | 2.60 | 0.0% | 2 of 92 | 79 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.07 | 0.28 | 3.24 | 2.64 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 79 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.07 | 0.29 | 3.27 | 2.60 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 77 |
| 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 | 18.6 | 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 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 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 | 15.5 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.0 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.2 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 34.9 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 7.8 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Five Points Nursing and Rehabilitation's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (41.9% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
41.9% 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. 47 eligible stays.
9.6% 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. 54 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.
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. 20 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. 15 residents counted.
0.0% this home
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. 27 residents counted.
3.4% this home
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. 27 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. 9 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: WEST WHARTON COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to Creative Solutions in Healthcare, a group of 149 nursing homes averaging 2.1 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bowers, Sean | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 07/01/2024 | |
| Cisneros, Alfred | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 02/18/2008 | |
| Cobb, Travis | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 10/05/2022 | |
| Cooper, Stephen | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 11/11/2022 | |
| Hardin, Sherrie | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/04/2024 | |
| Kerzee, Richard | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/24/2007 | |
| Korenek, Patricia | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 05/05/2018 | |
| Soechting, Paul | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 11/22/2024 | |
| Strack, Joe | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 02/11/2022 | |
| Huggins, Linda | Corporate director | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| Willig, Zachary | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Thompson, Johnny | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| De Soto I Enterprises, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 09/01/2023 | |
| Blake, Gary | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/01/2023 | |
| Blake, Malisa | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/01/2023 | |
| De Soto I Enterprises, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/07/2025 | |
| Blake, Gary | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/01/2023 | |
| Haider, Ruiz | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Roberts, Jacque | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/14/2025 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Texas. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.