674 Pioneer Road, Jupiter, FL 33458 · Palm Beach County · (718) 852-7000
129 certified beds, about 117 residents a day · For profit - Partnership · Medicare and Medicaid since 2021
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 106148 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 4, 2025, inspectors cited 14 health deficiencies (the Florida average is 7.1, the national average 9.2).
Of 51 health citations since August 2022, 4 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 5 fines totaling $201,434 in the last three years; the largest was $163,404, and the latest is dated January 23, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.91 hours per resident per day, against 3.82 across Florida and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.71 of those hours.
50.0% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Florida average 41.4%).
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 51 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain dignity for 1 of 3 sampled residents, as evidenced by sending Resident #2, who was severely cognitively impaired, to a physician's appointment wearing two hospital gowns. He was left unattended for 45 minutes in the main waiting area of the physician's office, where 42 people entered during that time.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to coordinate care to ensure 2 of 3 sampled cognitively impaired residents, were appropriately accompanied and or able to be seen at scheduled appointments. Resident #2 had a scheduled new patient cardiology appointment and the facility failed to inform the resident representative of the appointment, failed to ensure needed pre-authorization as per his insurance, failed to send the resident appropriately clothed to ensure comfort, and failed to accompany the resident to the appointment. Resident #4, who was also cognitively impaired, was sent unaccompanied to a medical appointment at the Veteran Affairs (VA) Medical Center.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with dignity during activities of daily living (ADLs) care and failed to provide care upon request for 7 of 33 residents reviewed for dignity (Residents #254, 251, 256, 55, 83, 250, and # 23).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews and interviews the facility failed to follow their policy for loss of hot water and ensure sufficient hot water was available to the residents in their rooms and showers for 8 of 34 sampled residents (Residents #29, #27, #13, #301, #302, #303, #68, #23).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure sufficient staffing to provide timely and appropriate care and services as evidenced by verbal complaints from residents, family, and staff, which resulted in dignity concerns, the lack of call light response, wound care and activity of daily living (ADLs) care concerns. This concerned multiple residents, including Residents #256, #250, #72, #10, #23, #254, #11, #46, #62, #29, #27, #55, #73, #68, #45, #75, #83, #23, #251, #10, #50, and #85.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide food that was palatable and at acceptable food temperatures for 9 residents (Residents #75, #83, #23, #251, #10, #29, #50, #27, and #85) out of 10 residents investigated for food concerns. This had the potential to affect 111 out of 112 residents on PO (by mouth) diets.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure care and services for 5 of 34 sampled residents, as evidenced by the failure to implement the bowel program for Resident #44, failure to follow blood pressure parameters for Resident #10 and #23, failure to ensure the provision of a urology appointment for Resident #62, and failure to notify the physician of blood sugar levels as per physician order for Resident #303.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure supervision and staff training for 1 of 4 sampled residents (Resident #19), reviewed for falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to follow the physician's order for the administration of enteral feeding for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #31), reviewed for enteral feeding.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure timely IV (intravenous) dressing changes for 1 of 1 sampled resident, Resident #29.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to properly administer oxygen therapy for 2 of 2 sampled residents, as evidenced by failure to ensure proper physician orders for oxygen use for Resident #302, and that the prescribed physician order for oxygen was followed for Resident #54.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure an assessment and an order for side rails for 1 of 1 sampled resident reviewed for side rails (Resident #302).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review and interview the facility failed to obtain an ordered laboratory result for a medication (Depakote) for 1 of 1 sampled Resident (Resident #61).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to honor food preferences for 5 of 10 sampled residents, Residents #27, #29, #44, #50, and #85, who had food complaints, as evidenced by the failure to follow the meal ticket and menu.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety, sanitary conditions, and the prevention of foodborne illnesses. This had the potential to affect 111 of 112 residents on PO (by mouth) diets.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and review of the client's Arbitration agreements, the facility failed to ensure the arbitration agreement is explained to the resident or representative in a manner they understand (Resident #306), and had a signature from the resident or representative if they agree to the arbitration agreement (Residents #87, #306, and #307). This is for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for arbitration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and clinical record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who are unable to carry out their activities of daily living to maintain personal hygiene, grooming, mobility are provided the necessary care and services in a timely manner. The facility also failed to maintain accurate documentation of the care and services that are provided. This failure affected 3 of 6 sampled residents (Resident #1, #5 and a confidential random resident).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility staff failed to provide necessary treatment and services to promote healing and prevent infection of existing pressure wounds. The failure affected 2 of 6 sampled residents, Resident #2, who arrived at the hospital with maggots in the wound and Resident #6 who did not receive the prescribed treatment for tissue granulation and autolytic debridement.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review and interview, the facility staff failed to report an allegation of neglect for 1 of 2 sampled residents reviewed for neglect (Resident #2).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, policy review and interview, the nursing staff failed to implement the facility policy for the storage of nebulizer equipment. The failure affected 1 of 6 sampled residents (Resident #1).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate supervision to prevent an elopement, which resulted in two vulnerable residents who were able to leave the facility and travel along a busy roadway with a likelihood of being hurt, killed or lost, for 2 of 3 sampled residents reviewed for an elopement risk (Resident #1 and Resident #2). Due to the likelihood that serious injury, harm and death could've occurred with Resident #1 and #2, a finding of Immediate Jeopardy was identified. The Immediate Jeopardy noncompliance started on 11/07/24 and is determined to be ongoing. The facility's Administrator was notified of Immediate Jeopardy and given the Immediate Jeopardy Template on 11/21/24 at 11:20 AM.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure daily wound care for 1 of 4 sampled residents with surgical incisions (Resident #2). The lack of daily wound care for Resident #2 resulted in maceration of the surgical skin flap resulting in exposure to the bone with need for additional surgery; and the facility failed to ensure appropriate care and services for 1 of 2 sampled residents with an IV (intravenous) line (Resident #1). The lack of timely response to needed care for a Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) line dislodgement for Resident #1 on 09/04/24 resulted in psychological harm as evidenced by staff and family report that the resident was irate and hysterical.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure appropriate care and services for 1 of 2 sampled residents with an IV (intravenous) line (Resident #1). The lack of timely response to needed care for a Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) line dislodgement for Resident #1 on 09/04/24 resulted in psychological harm as evidenced by staff and family report that the resident was irate and hysterical.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify 1 of 8 sampled resident representatives of a change in condition and treatment (Resident #5).
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a safe and functional environment as evidenced by the failure to maintain 4 of 6 Soiled Utility/Holding (biohazard) rooms secured (1E, 1W, 3E and 3W); failure to maintain 1 of 6 housekeeping areas secured (1W); failure to ensure 1 of 6 (2W) emergency exits of the residential areas secured; failure to ensure 2 of 2 observed oxygen tanks were secured; and failure to provide documented evidence of timely repairs for 4 of 4 resident toilets.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, incident review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a complete and thorough investigation for 1 of 2 sampled residents with an allegation of neglect, as evidenced by a lack of written statements from all staff involved in the incident and contradictions during staff interviews regarding the incident with Resident #1 on 09/04/24.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, incident review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure sufficient staffing, as evidenced by the lack of timely response to needed PICC (Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter) line dislodgment care for 1 of 2 sampled residents with an IV (intravenous) line (Resident #1); and as evidenced by numerous verbal and written complaints.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure food preferences for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Residents #7 and #8).
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to maintain an infection control program as evidenced by the failure to initiate and maintain Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for 4 of 4 sampled residents (Resident #1, #6, #7 and #8)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review and interview, the facility staff failed to immediately report an allegation of abuse involving 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #1).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure a urinary catheter was secured to prevent excessive tension of the tubing; failed to provide catheter care following infection control practices to minimize complications; and failed to provide a privacy bag to promote the resident's privacy. The failure affected 1 of 2 sampled residents reviewed for urinary catheter care. (Resident #4)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined, the clinical staff failed to complete an assessment after a resident sustained an injury; failed to obtain and report all pertinent information to the provider to ascertain the best course of treatment; failed to complete an incident report after the injury was reported by the resident; and failed to complete an investigation to determine if the resulting injury, a fractured wrist, met the criteria for an adverse event. These failures affected 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #1).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to follow their grievance policy related to: 1) Medication concerns for 1 of 29 sampled residents (Resident #28); and 2) Food concerns for 17 out of 29 sampled residents (Resident #21, #289, #287, #31, #4, #67, #285, #59, #292, #186, #290, #69, #291, #294, #44, #15, and #11).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify the Power of Attorney (POA) for 1 of 1 sampled resident reviewed for notification of change. The notification of change was related to Resident #28's change in medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, the Facility failed to ensure the Power of Attorney for 1 of 11 sampled residents' was notified of and included in the Resident's Care Plan Meetings (Resident #28).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide wound care dressing changes for 1 of 2 sampled residents reviewed for wound care, Resident #33.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview, and policy review, it was determined, the facility staff failed to provide care and services to minimize complications for a resident with a gastronomy tube during medication administration. The failure affected 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #141).
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure licensed nurses were able to demonstrate competency related to the acquisition and provision of medication administration. The failure affected 1 of 6 sampled residents (Resident #27).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review and interview, the facility staff failed to ensure antibiotic prescribing criteria includes clinical signs and symptoms, laboratory reports and appropriate monitoring to protect residents from harm caused by unnecessary antibiotic use, and to combat antibiotic resistance. The failure affected 1 of 6 sampled residents (Resident #27).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure accurate documentation of medication removal and administration between the medication administration records (MARs) and the medication monitoring control record for 3 of 4 residents Residents #196, #200 & #147.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Staff J, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) failed to ensure hand hygiene between residents, during the lunch meal tray delivery on 08/08/22 for 1 of 4 units (second floor west), affecting Residents #22, #198, #199, #91, #150, #92, #151, and #152. Staff K, a CNA, failed to don a gown and or ensure hand hygiene during COVID-19 testing for 2 of 5 residents (Resident #196 and Resident #149, also affecting Resident #22). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and manufacturer's instructions, Staff K, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) failed to follow instructions for the COVID-19 antigen tests for 4 of 4 sampled residents (Resident #196, #149, #22, and #199).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident choices are honored for 2 of 4 sampled residents. Resident #93 was not transferred back into bed in a timely manner, per her request, on two different occasions (08/06/22 and 08/10/22). Resident #93 was not offered and did not receive showers as per the facility schedule or as per her choice. Resident #94 was placed on contact precautions unnecessarily.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure dressing changes for non-pressure ulcers were done as per physician order for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for skin condition (Resident #142).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure proper Foley catheter (indwelling urinary drainage device) care and services for 2 of 3 sampled residents. Staff failed to ensure proper catheter care for Resident #93. The tubing for the urinary catheters for both Residents #93 and #98 lacked anchoring, used to prevent urinary infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure proper respiratory care and services for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Residents #91 and #96). The nurse failed to stay with and monitor Resident #91 during a respiratory treatment via nebulizer, then failed to properly clean the nebulizer equipment after use. The oxygen tubing for the concentrator and nebulizer for Resident #96 was not changed for two weeks as per physician order.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, the facility failed to ensure garbage and refuse were disposed of properly.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure accurate documentation related to self/family administration of medications for Resident #31, 1 of 6 sampled residents reviewed for medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a completed baseline care plan within 48 hours of admission for 4 of 20 sampled residents. A baseline care plan is used by facility staff to guide the basic care needs of a resident until the comprehensive care plans are developed. The baseline care plans are to be kept up to date until the initiation of the comprehensive care plans. A baseline care plan was not developed for Resident #93. The baseline care plans for Residents #92, #96, and #98 lacked care and services and or essential equipment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to post nurse staffing hours information timely for 4 of 4 days.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to safely store medications on 1 of 4 treatment carts (first floor east), and on 1 of 4 medication carts (first floor east).
5 fire safety citations on file: 1 on April 4, 2025, 3 on December 7, 2023, 1 on August 11, 2022.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| January 23, 2025 | Fine | $12,948 |
| January 23, 2025 | Fine | $17,518 |
| October 3, 2024 | Fine | $163,404 |
| October 3, 2024 | Payment Denial | 8 days from December 26, 2024 |
| December 7, 2023 | Fine | $3,782 |
| December 7, 2023 | Fine | $3,782 |
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 | Florida | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.91 | 3.82 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.71 | 0.73 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.65 | 3.49 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.15 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.04 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 50.0% | 41.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 75.6% | 46.0% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
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 4.01 on weekdays and 3.65 on weekends, 9% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.3% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 5.09 in April to June 2025 to 3.91 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 | 3.91 | 0.71 | 4.01 | 3.65 | 0.3% | 0 of 90 | 117 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.27 | 0.80 | 4.35 | 4.04 | 0.3% | 0 of 92 | 102 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.36 | 0.76 | 4.43 | 4.19 | 0.6% | 0 of 92 | 100 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 5.09 | 1.08 | 5.21 | 4.79 | 3.3% | 0 of 91 | 96 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Florida, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.76 | 0.70 | 3.90 | 3.44 | 1.1% | 0.2% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Florida, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $18.03 | $17.33 to $20.34 | 96,960 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $29.70 | $28.14 to $31.11 | 38,620 |
| Registered nurses | $40.48 | $37.82 to $48.64 | 229,940 |
| 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 | Florida | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 12.9 | 8.7 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 2.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 18.1 | 9.5 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.2 | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.9 | 8.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 31.0 | 26.1 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 10.9 | 9.1 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.4 | 2.1 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Luxe at Jupiter Rehabilitation Center (the)'s Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (66.2% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
66.2% this home
Better than the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Florida: 169 better, 109 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. 380 eligible stays.
9.5% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Florida: 2 better, 35 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. 412 eligible stays.
5.0% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Florida: 6 better, 21 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. 227 eligible stays.
28.8% this home
Median of homes: Florida55.1% · 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. 118 residents counted.
0.5% this home
Median of homes: Florida0.6% · 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. 191 residents counted.
1.8% this home
Median of homes: Florida1.3% · 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. 191 residents counted.
98.7% this home
Median of homes: Florida97.7% · 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. 76 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: NUVISTA LIVING AT JUPITER, LLC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jupiter Rehab Holdings Partners LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 05/21/2021 | |
| Schuster, Rachel | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Baldo, Adela | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/29/2025 | |
| Brown, Paulette | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/06/2025 | |
| Lopez Montanez, Eduardo | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2025 | |
| Pierre, Berry | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/11/2023 | |
| Schuster, Rachel | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Aston Healthcare LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2022 | |
| Luxe Consulting Group LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2025 | |
| Baldo, Adela | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/04/2026 | |
| Pierre, Berry | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/24/2025 | |
| Schuster, Rachel | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2025 |
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 Florida. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.