208 North Cassel Road, Vandalia, OH 45377 · Montgomery County · (937) 898-4202
118 certified beds, about 110 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1995
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 366035 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 16, 2026, inspectors cited 8 health deficiencies (the Ohio average is 10.5, the national average 9.2).
None of its 50 health citations since November 2019 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.03 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Ohio and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.34 of those hours.
49.0% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Ohio average 48.7%).
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 50 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to the resident had safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment. This affected seven Residents (#36 ,#60, #45, #46, #90, #91, and #95) out of seven residents reviewed for environment. The facility census was 107.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, resident interview, medical record review, and review of the facility policies the facility failed to implement interventions and provide sufficient supervision to prevent residents from ingesting foreign objects. This affected one (Resident #33) of three (#31, #33, #42) residents reviewed for accident hazards. The facility also failed to ensure a clean and safe smoking area for the residents on the men's and women's secured unit. This had the potential to affect 19 Residents (#29, #30, #31, #32, #33, #35, # 39, #42, #50, #51, #52, #55, #61, #62, #63, #64, #65, #66, and #68) who the facility identified as smokers and utilized the outdoor smoking area. The facility also failed to ensure the secured unit was properly secured. The facility identified 41 Residents (#28, #29, #30,# 31, #32, #33, #34, #35, #36, #37, #38, #39, #40. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure a safe, functional, sanitary and comfortable environment for the residents, staff and public. The affected all 45 residents housed on the East Unit. The facility census was 107.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who had bed rails affixed to their beds were properly assessed and monitored for safety. This affected one (#42) out of three Residents (#31,#40, and #42) reviewed for bedrails. The facility identified a total of eleven Residents (#29, #30, #31, #34, #35, #38, #40, #41, #42, #46, and #48) who required assist bars on the secure unit. The facility census was 107.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure medical providers completed and signed their notes at the time of visit. This affected one (#45) of the three residents reviewed for provider visits. The facility census was 107.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate infection control measures were followed during incontinence care. This affected one (#45) of three residents reviewed for urinary incontinence. The facility census was 107.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure there was a Registered Nurse (RN) scheduled at least eight consecutive hours per day, seven days per week. This had the potential to affect all of the residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 108 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policies the facility failed to implement interventions and provide sufficient supervision to prevent residents from ingesting foreign objects. This affected one (Resident #8) of three residents reviewed for supervision. The facility also failed to ensure fall prevention interventions were in place. This affected one (Resident #7) of three residents reviewed for supervision. The facility also failed to ensure hazardous chemicals were secured. This had the potential to affect the following facility-identified cognitively impaired and independently mobile (Residents (#27, #44, #55, #59, and #80) on the 100 hall. The facility census was 108 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure current and accurate documentation of resident advanced directives were included in the medical record. This affected four (Residents #6, #24, # 27, # 65) of 32 residents reviewed for advanced directives. The facility census was 108 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record, observation, resident interview, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to maintain resident rooms in good repair. This affected two (Residents #69 and #80) of 32 residents reviewed The facility census was 108 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident interview, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to develop comprehensive care plans to address residents' identified needs. This affected three (Residents (#42, #9, and #8) of four residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 108 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure resident care plans were revised to reflect changes in toileting needs. This affected one (Resident #4) of four residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 108 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure oxygen therapy was administered as ordered by the physician. This affected one (Resident #2) of three residents reviewed for oxygen therapy. The facility census was 108 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility staff failed to provide pain management interventions as ordered by the physician and per resident request. This affected one (Resident #42) of six residents reviewed for pain management. The facility census was 108 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and review of a facility emergency management plan, the facility failed to ensure there was an adequate amount of food available in the facility to account for scheduled meals and emergency situations. This had the potential to affect all 99 residents in the facility who the facility identified as receiving food from the kitchen. The census was 99.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff and resident interviews, observations and policy review the facility failed to ensure prescription medications were appropriately stored in a secured manner. This had the potential to affect 17 residents (#69, #70, #73, #75, #78, #79, #80, #83, #85, #86, #88, #89, #91, #94, #95, #97 and #101) residing on the [NAME] Hall and eight resident (#6, #7, #11, #17, #21, #22, #23 and #29) residing on the East Hall who were cognitively impaired and independently mobile who could potentially access unsupervised and unsecured medications. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure refrigerated medications were appropriately stored. This had the potential to affect 21 residents (#48, #49, #50, #51, #52, #53, #54, #55, #56, #57, #58, #59, #60, #61, #62, #63, #64, #65, #66, #67 and #68) residing in the Northeast unit. The facility census was 103.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain the building in a safe homelike manner. This had the potential to affect the 21 residents (#48, #49, #50, #51, #52, #53, #54, #55, #56, #56, #58, #59, #60, #61, #62, #63, #64, #65, #66, #67 and #68) residing in the Northeast Unit of the facility. The facility census was 103.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observations and resident and staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure an adequate supply of paper towels and toilet paper for a resident's bathroom. This affected one (#84) out of three residents reviewed for the physical environment. The facility census was 103.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on review of the online license verification system of the Bureau of Executives of Long-Term Services and Supports (BELTSS), review of the Administrator job description, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure there was a licensed nursing home administrator (LNHA) with a valid license providing supervision and leadership to the facility. This had the potential to affect all of the residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 106 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure shower rooms were clean and ceilings were maintained. This had the potential to affect 60 (#44, #45, #46, #47, #48, #49, #50, #51, #52, #53, #54, #55, #56, #57, #58, #59, #60, #61, #62, #63, #64, #65, #66, #67, #68, #69, #70, #71, #72, #73, #74, #75, #76, #77, #78, #79, #80, #81, #82, #83, #84, #85, #86, #87, #88, #89, #90, #91, #92, #93, #94, #95, #96, #97, #98, #99, #100, #101, #102 and #103) residents who receive showers in the [NAME] and Northeast shower rooms. The facility census was 101.
Inspectors wroteTHE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NONCOMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on medical record review, staff interview, and policy reviews, the facility failed to provide adequate interventions and/or supervision to ensure a resident who was cognitively impaired with a history of wandering did not elope from the facility. This affected one (#53) out of three residents reviewed for elopements. The facility census was 101.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of personnel files and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure all licensed nursing staff had an active nursing license. This had the potential to affect all 96 residents residing in the facility. The census was 96.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interviewand policy review, the facility failed to conduct Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement meetings at least quarterly. This had the potential to affect all 103 residents in the facility. The census was 103.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, employee file review, staff interviews and policy reviews, the facility failed to implement and monitor the water system to prevent Legionella disease, and to ensure employees were screened or tested for tuberculosis. This had the potential to affect all 103 residents in the facility. The facility census was 103.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to notify Medicaid recipient residents when they had exceeded the Medicaid eligible personal fund limit. This affected 15 (#36, #18, #86, #25, #23, #46, #37, #14, #72, #45, #88, #2, #29, #19, and #15) of 15 Medicaid residents with personal funds accounts reviewed. The facility census was 103.
Inspectors wrote5. Observation on 04/18/23 at 8:23 A.M., revealed on the wall behind Resident #30 bed board, a four foot by four-foot wall area with multiple half inch deep cuts in the wall. This exposed a non-cleanable wall surface. Interview on 04/18/23 at 8:23 A.M., with Resident #30 stated the wall had the exposed area and cuts since admission on [DATE]. He stated he did not like how the wall looked. Interview on 04/20/23 at12:00 P.M., with Maintenance Director #81 verified the wall behind Resident #30 bed board had large scrapes and deep cuts which was not a cleanable surface. The Maintenance Director #81stated he was unsure how long the wall had been in disrepair. Review of the policy titled Homelike Environment dated 05/01/22 revealed the facility will provide a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment. 4. Observation on 04/18/23 at 8:59 A.M., revealed Resident #39 to be in his bed. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, resident interviews, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents received showers per their preference. This affected four (#05, #40, #47 and #91) of five residents reviewed for activities of daily living. The census was 103.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, resident interview, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were not stored at the bedside. This affected one (#21) of five reviewed for medications. The facility also failed to ensure insulin and inhaler was discarded when expired. This potentially could affect 15 residents identified as receiving insulin and/or inhaler. The census was 103.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, meal spreadsheet review, observation, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to provide food portions as planned by a Registered Dietitian. This affected 16 (#3, #54, #53, #20, #47, #12, #73, #38, #83, #22, #41, #11, #95, #26, #69, and #52) of 16 residents who received a consistent carbohydrate diet and all 101 residents who received food from the kitchen did not receive a bread portion at the lunch meal on 04/19/23. Residents #29 and #59 do not receive food from the kitchen. The census was 103.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to label stored foods, discard expired foods, and maintain food equipment in a sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect 101 residents who received food from the kitchen. Residents #29 and #59 do not receive food from the kitchen. The facility census was 103.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain essential equipment in operating condition. This had the potential to affect 101 residents who received food from the kitchen. Residents #29 and #59 do not receive food from the kitchen. The facility census was 103.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observations, resident interview, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was assessed to self-administer medications. This affected one (#78) of one random resident observed. The census was 103.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observations, staff and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident was treated with dignity and respect. This affected one (#47) of 25 residents reviewed for care and treatment. The census was 103.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observations, staff and resident interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from verbal abuse. This affected one (#47) of four residents reviewed for potential abuse. The census was 103.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident interview, staff interview, facility investigation review, and policy review, the facility failed to report resident to resident altercation. This affected four residents (#80, #5, #4 and #77) of five reviewed for potential abuse. The census was 103.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, resident interview, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents had a care plan for hearing loss and antipsychotic medications. This affected two (#82 and #92) of 25 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 103.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident experiencing pain was provided timely pain management. This affected one (#47) of one reviewed for pain management. The census was 103.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure pharmacy recommendations were reviewed by the physician timely and monthly medication reviews were completed by the pharmacy. This affected two (#83 and #89) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 103.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident received a gradual dose reduction or contraindication for a gradual dose reduction of an antidepressant. The facility also failed to ensure a resident that received an antipsychotic medication had an appropriate diagnosis and indications for use. This affected two (#82 and #83) residents of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 103.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to provide dental services. This affected one (#33) of one resident reviewed for dental services. The facility census was 103.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, hospice staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the hospice provider and the facility collaborated to develop a plan of care. This affected one (#79) of one resident reviewed for hospice services. The census was 103.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, staff interviews and policy reviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were offered and received pneumococcal and influenza vaccines. This affected two (#89 and #55) of five residents reviewed for vaccinations. The facility census was 103.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was offered a COVID-19 vaccine. This affected one (#89) of five residents reviewed for vaccinations. The facility census was 103.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation and staff interview, the facility failed to store in a sanitary manner. This had the potential to affected 107 of 108 residents who receive food from the kitchen. The facility identified Resident #2 did not receive food from the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident record review and staff interview; the facility failed to develop baseline care plans. This affected four (#9, #43, #52 and #110) of 11 residents reviewed for the development of the baseline care plan. The facility census was 108.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility policy and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the medication storage carts were secured. This affected two of six medication carts. This had the potential to affect 30 of the 40 residents residing on the units who were independently mobile. The facility census was 108.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain the resident's room in safe and sanitary operating condition. This affected seven rooms and had the potential to affect all 108 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and staff interview, the facility failed to update care plans to meet the needs of a resident. This affected two (Resident #31 and #47) of 25 residents reviewed during the final investigation stage of the annual survey. The facility census was 108.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview and observation, the facility failed to ensure nail care was completed for a resident who required assistance with personal hygiene. This affected one (#18) of one resident reviewed for nail care. The facility census was 108.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to accurately document care given to a resident. This affected one (Resident #47) of 25 residents reviewed during the final investigation stage of the annual survey. The facility census was 108.
45 fire safety citations on file: 11 on March 16, 2026, 19 on October 8, 2024, 8 on April 24, 2023, 7 on November 7, 2019.
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 | Ohio | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.03 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.34 | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.65 | 3.28 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.71 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.97 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 49.0% | 48.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 62.5% | 43.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.67 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 2.65 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 3.11 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 | 3.18 | 2.65 | 0.0% | 1 of 90 | 110 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 2.97 | 0.30 | 3.09 | 2.66 | 0.0% | 1 of 92 | 103 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 2.99 | 0.25 | 3.12 | 2.67 | 0.0% | 2 of 92 | 99 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.11 | 0.29 | 3.24 | 2.78 | 0.0% | 2 of 91 | 98 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Ohio, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.64 | 0.60 | 3.80 | 3.24 | 4.6% | 0.4% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ohio, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $18.76 | $17.93 to $21.44 | 63,280 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $29.78 | $27.34 to $31.68 | 39,900 |
| Registered nurses | $39.67 | $38.08 to $47.61 | 143,730 |
| 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 | Ohio | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.4 | 5.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.3 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.7 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.9 | 6.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.8 | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 13.8 | 8.8 | 15.4 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Momentous Health at Vandalia's Medicare short-stay residents. How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
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 51.5% · Ohio: 147 better, 20 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. 17 eligible stays.
11.3% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Ohio: 3 better, 7 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. 26 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% · Ohio: 1 better, 4 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. 10 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: Ohio55.6% · 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. 8 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: Ohio0.0% · 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. 12 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: Ohio1.4% · 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. 12 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: Ohio100.0% · 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. 5 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: VANDALIA REHAB LLC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stein, Mark | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 50% | 05/01/2022 |
| Tenenbaum, Michael | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 50% | 05/01/2022 |
| Stein, Mark | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/01/2022 | |
| Tenenbaum, Michael | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/01/2022 | |
| Ferguson, Harold | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2024 | |
| Walter, Mandy | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/15/2024 | |
| Ferguson, Harold | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2024 | |
| Stein, Mark | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/01/2022 | |
| Tenenbaum, Michael | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/01/2022 | |
| Walter, Mandy | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/15/2024 |
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 Ohio. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.