Home / Massachusetts / Framingham
9 Arbetter Drive, Framingham, MA 01701 · Middlesex County · (508) 877-3300
123 certified beds, about 111 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1995
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 225682 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 13, 2026, inspectors cited 1 health deficiency (the Massachusetts average is 6.8, the national average 9.2).
Of 27 health citations since August 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $211,819 in the last three years; the largest was $211,819, and the latest is dated June 12, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.79 hours per resident per day, against 3.86 across Massachusetts and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.33 of those hours.
41.4% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Massachusetts average 38.2%).
CMS links it to Atlas Healthcare, an affiliated group of 30 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, and interview, the facility failed to adhere to infection control and prevention standards related to multi-resident medical equipment use for one Unit (Sub Acute) out of two units observed, to mitigate the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, the facility failed to:1. ensure that facility staff cleaned and disinfected a blood glucose monitor (BGM - device used to measure the amount of glucose [sugar] in the blood) between multi-resident use after Nurse #2 used the BGM to obtain finger stick blood sugar (FSBS) levels on two residents and before storing the BGM device in the medication cart with clean equipment.2. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who had a history of dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) with several episodes of choking which required nursing staff to perform the Heimlich Maneuver (a first-aid procedure for dislodging an obstruction from a person's windpipe in which sudden strong pressure is applied on the abdomen, between the navel and the rib cage), the Facility failed to ensure his/her Dysphagia Care Plan was reviewed and/or revised related to effectiveness of interventions, when he/she remained on the same diet but continued to experience choking episodes and despite recommendations from Speech Therapy to implement a new intervention for direct supervision by staff during all meals, he/she was only supervised from a distance by staff. On 5/02/25, Resident #1 choked on his/her meal and died.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who had a history of dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), was identified to be at increased risk for aspiration, with multiple choking episodes which required the nursing staff to perform the Heimlich Maneuver (a first-aid procedure for dislodging an obstruction from a person's windpipe in which sudden strong pressure is applied on the abdomen, between the navel and the rib cage), and for whom Speech Therapy had recommended the need for direct supervision by nursing staff while eating, the Facility failed to ensure they provided an adequate level of staff supervision for Resident #1 in an effort to maintain a safe environment, when on 5/02/25, he/she choked again on his/her meal, and although nursing staff performed the Heimlich Maneuver, Resident #1 died.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to accurately execute Advance Directives (legal documents that provide instructions for medical care and only go into effect if you are unable to communicate your own wishes) for one Resident (#94) out of a total sample of 23 residents. Specifically, for Resident #94, the facility failed to ensure that the MOLST (Massachusetts Medical Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment) form was valid and reflected the signature of Resident #94's invoked (made active by a Physician) Health Care Proxy (HCP- the person chosen as the healthcare decision maker when the individual is unable to do so for themself).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that one Resident (#98), was free from physical restraints, out of a total sample of 23 residents. Specifically, for Resident #98, the facility failed to: -appropriately assess and re-assess the use and need of wedge cushions (a triangular shaped cushion used to aid in positioning for health issues or comfort) as a restraint that was being used in the place of an ordered scoop mattress (a mattress with raised edges on all four sides to prevent accidental rolling out of bed). -obtain informed consent and review the risk/benefits with the Resident's Representative for the use of wedge cushions while the Resident was in bed to prevent him/her from exiting the bed, increasing the potential risk of accidental falls and injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure that Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were transmitted within 14 days after the completion date for 17 Residents (#4, #43, #57, #90, #95, #102, #103, #18, #51, #54, #65, #80, #81, #82, #100, #116, and #118) out of a total sample of 23 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that: 1) Comprehensive MDS assessments for Resident's #4, #43, #57, #90, #95, #102, #103 were not submitted late with submission dates more than 14 days after the completion date. 2) Non comprehensive MDS assessments for Residents #18, #51, #54, #65, #80, #81, #82, #100, #116, and #118 were not submitted late with submission dates more than 14 days after the completion date.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a Preadmission and Resident Review Level I (initial PASRR - initial pre-screening completed prior to admission to a Nursing Facility that assess for Serious Mental Illness[SMI] or Developmental Disabilities[DD]) screen was completed prior to admission to the facility for one Resident (#85), out of a total sample of 23 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to notify the State Mental Health Authority for a Resident Review (person-centered assessment taking into account all relevant information) after a significant change in mental condition occurred for one Resident (#98), out of a total sample of 23 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to request a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review Level II screen (PASRR- an evaluation done to determine if a resident has an intellectual or developmental disability and/or serious mental illness [SMI] and if a Resident is in need of additional specialized support services at the facility) after Resident #98 received emergency mental health interventions and was transferred to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to provide treatments in accordance with professional standards of practice for one Resident (#78) out of a total sample of 23 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to implement and perform care and treatment consistent with the Physician orders and professional standards of practice for a Resident with Diabetes Type II (DM II- a chronic medical condition where the body cannot effectively use insulin [hormone that regulates blood glucose/sugar] or produce enough insulin and has trouble controlling blood sugar levels), placing the Resident at risk for side effects of hyperglycemia (high blood sugar).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, policy and record review, the facility failed to ensure that respiratory care and services consistent with professional standards of practice, were provided for two Residents (#87 and #24), out of a total sample of 23 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. For Resident #87, routinely maintain the oxygen concentrator (a device used to deliver supplemental oxygen) air intake gross particle filter in accordance with Physician orders and manufacturers guidelines, placing Resident #87 at risk for equipment malfunction, impaired oxygen delivery and contamination. 2. For Resident #24, ensure that the Resident had an active Physician's order for nebulizer (delivery device used to administer medication in the form of an aerosol that is inhaled into the lungs) equipment care, handling, and storage, to prevent contamination and the spread of infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that professional standards of practice relative to dialysis (the process of cleansing the blood by passing it through a special machine, necessary when the kidneys are unable to filter the blood) care and services for one Resident (#32), of two applicable residents reviewed for dialysis, out of a total sample of 23 Residents. Specifically, for Resident #32, the facility failed to: 1. Monitor and assess the Physician's ordered fluid restriction to ensure adequate fluid intake. 2. Provide food items prior to dialysis as indicated in the plan of care and per the Resident's preferences.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that one Resident (#84), out of a total sample of 23 residents, was free from the risks of side effects resulting from the unnecessary use of psychotropic medications. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that appropriate monitoring for adverse consequences and side effects of antipsychotic medications using the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) assessment (a rating scale used to measure involuntary movements of the face, mouth, trunk, or limbs known as Tardive Dyskinesia (TD) in a resident taking antipsychotic medications) was completed timely in accordance with standards of practice.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to adhere to infection control standards to prevent contamination and stop the spread of infections for one Resident (#54), out of a total sample of 23 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. For Resident #54, perform appropriate hand washing/hygiene for five opportunities, during a wound care procedure which increased the Resident's risk for wound contamination and infection. 2. For Resident #54, Adhere to Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP: infection control guidelines that use Personal Protective Equipment [PPE] to reduce the spread of multidrug-resistant organisms [MDROs]) during medication and fluid administration through a gastrostomy tube (G-tube: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain professional standards relative to food storage and sanitation in one of three nourishment kitchens.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, policy reviews and interviews, the facility failed to adhere to Infection Control policies/practices during a COVID-19 outbreak. Specifically the facility staff failed to: 1) utilize the appropriate precaution signs on one out of three units during an outbreak of COVID-19 infection. 2) use appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) by staff in a manner that would minimize the spread of COVID-19 infection during an active outbreak for one Resident (#96) out of four applicable residents, out of a sample of 21 residents. 3) to ensure staff were tested for COVID-19 as required when the facility was experiencing an outbreak of COVID-19 infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that residents and/or their representatives were informed and given necessary information to make health care decisions including the risks and benefits of psychotropic (any drug that affects behavior, mood, thoughts, or perception) medications prior to their use for two Residents (#8, and #102), out of a total sample of 21 Residents. Specifically: 1. For Resident #8, the facility staff failed to ensure the correct medication dose was documented on the Informed Consent for the use of an antidepressant (medicine used to treat clinical depression) medication. 2. For Resident #108, the facility staff failed to ensure the Resident was: a) was given the right to be informed of the risk and benefits of the use of an antipsychotic (medication which are to treat psychosis) medication. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to assess one Resident (#70), out of a total sample of 21 residents, for self-administration of medications. Specifically, the facility staff failed to determine if self-administration of medications was clinically appropriate for Resident #70 while at the Dialysis Clinic.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Level II [comprehensive evaluation that identifies the specialized services required] Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR- evaluation done if it was determined by the Level I [initial pre-screening] screen that a resident had an intellectual or developmental disability and/or serious mental illness [SMI] and if a resident was in need of additional support services at the facility) was submitted for one Resident (#48) out of a total sample of 21 residents. Specifically, for Resident #48, the facility staff failed to request a Level II PASRR evaluation when the Resident demonstrated an increase in behavioral, psychiatric, and mood-related symptoms resulting in a change to the Resident's plan of care. Findings Include: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for one Resident (#35), out of a total sample of 21 Residents. Specifically, for Patient #35, the facility staff failed to implement a care plan with interventions related to a re-occurring health problem that resulted in required hospitalizations.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to include one Resident (#21) and/or their Resident Representative in the care planning process out of a total sample of 21 residents. Specifically, the facility staff was unable to provide evidence that Resident #21, and/or their Resident Representative had been invited to, and/or were included in care plan meetings as required.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to provide care and treatment consistent with professional standards of practice to prevent the development and worsening of a pressure injury for one Resident (#96), out of a total sample of 21 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to: 1) Follow a Physician order for air mattress setting as an intervention to prevent pressure injury. 2) Follow a Physician ordered treatment to a pressure ulcer on the Resident's sacral region (the portion of the spine between the lower back and tailbone), lower medial coccyx (base of the spine, also known as the tail bone).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to follow the plan of care for an indwelling urinary catheter/Foley (a flexible tube that passes through the urethra and into the bladder to drain urine) for one Resident (#96) out of five applicable residents who required an indwelling urinary catheter, out of a total sample of 21 Residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to ensure the correct size indwelling urinary catheter was in place for Resident #96 as ordered.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure dialysis (a process by which waste substances are removed from a patient's body) care and services were provided for one Resident (#70), out of five applicable resident who received dialysis out of a total sample of 21 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that its staff maintained ongoing communication and documentation with the dialysis center, including medication management, and assessment of the residents' condition before and after dialysis treatment, including site care, vital signs and weights.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, policy and record review, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#96) was free of significant medication errors, out of a total sample of 21 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that its staff followed Physician's orders for: 1. Scheduled morphine (medication is used to treat severe pain) prior to a pressure ulcer dressing change as ordered. 2. By administering Morphine more frequently than ordered.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to obtain Physician ordered laboratory specimens for one Resident (#11) out of a total sample of 21 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to obtain a Hemoglobin A1C (Hgb A1C - a blood test that measures the average blood sugar level over the past three months) level for Resident #11 as ordered by the Physician.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Food Service Director (FSD) held the required qualifications. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure there was a full-time Registered Dietitian (RD) when the FSD: -was not a certified dietary manager. -was not a certified food service manager. -did not have a similar national certification in food service management and safety. -did not have an Associate's degree or higher in food service management or in hospitality. -did not have two or more years of experience in the position of Director of food and nutrition services in a nursing facility setting.
Inspectors wroteBased on document review and interview, the facility failed to offer and administer a Pneumococcal Immunization when requested, for one Resident (#8), out of total sample of 21 Residents.
9 fire safety citations on file: 1 on February 13, 2026, 7 on October 30, 2024, 1 on August 28, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| June 12, 2025 | Fine | $211,819 |
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 | Massachusetts | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.79 | 3.86 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.33 | 0.65 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.33 | 3.48 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.08 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.38 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 41.4% | 38.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 52.6% | 42.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 4.24 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 3.33 on weekends, 16% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 16.7% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.11 in April to June 2025 to 3.79 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 | 3.79 | 0.33 | 3.98 | 3.33 | 16.7% | 0 of 90 | 111 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.88 | 0.44 | 4.05 | 3.44 | 15.4% | 0 of 92 | 111 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.97 | 0.56 | 4.19 | 3.39 | 17.9% | 0 of 92 | 102 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.11 | 0.63 | 4.33 | 3.57 | 17.6% | 0 of 91 | 102 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Massachusetts, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.79 | 0.61 | 3.94 | 3.41 | 5.0% | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Massachusetts, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $22.44 | $21.32 to $23.94 | 38,130 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $38.57 | $34.91 to $40.66 | 13,210 |
| Registered nurses | $50.27 | $42.05 to $65.44 | 88,200 |
| 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 | Massachusetts | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.0 | 16.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.0 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 12.6 | 15.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.5 | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 20.7 | 21.4 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 25.4 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 14.6 | 11.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.9 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Oak Knoll Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (47.9% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
47.9% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Massachusetts: 121 better, 19 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. 220 eligible stays.
11.3% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Massachusetts: 4 better, 15 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. 264 eligible stays.
8.0% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Massachusetts: 5 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. 147 eligible stays.
37.9% this home
Median of homes: Massachusetts51.6% · 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. 95 residents counted.
0.7% this home
Median of homes: Massachusetts0.4% · 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. 146 residents counted.
2.1% this home
Median of homes: Massachusetts2.0% · 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. 146 residents counted.
100.0% this home
Median of homes: Massachusetts99.5% · 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. 46 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: FRAMINGHAM SNF OPERATIONS LLC. CMS links this home to Atlas Healthcare, a group of 30 nursing homes averaging 3.5 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whittier Mop Operations Holdings LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 02/28/2025 |
| Jmh Family LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 02/28/2025 | |
| Jmh Family Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 02/28/2025 | |
| Mls Family LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 02/28/2025 | |
| Mls Family Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 02/28/2025 | |
| Sgs Family LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 02/28/2025 | |
| Sgs Family Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 02/28/2025 | |
| Whittier 6 Operations Holdings LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 02/28/2025 | |
| Miller, Nachum | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 02/28/2025 | |
| Bak, Pinchos | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/28/2025 | |
| Whittier Opco Manager LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 02/28/2025 | |
| Gilani, Ahmed | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/28/2025 | |
| Miller, Nachum | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/28/2025 | |
| Wanganga, Stella | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/28/2025 | |
| Wriston, Anthony | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/28/2025 | |
| Glen Oak 11, LLC | Limited partnership interest | Organization | 02/28/2025 | |
| Jmh Family LLC | Limited partnership interest | Organization | 02/28/2025 | |
| Jmh Family Trust | Limited partnership interest | Organization | 02/28/2025 | |
| Malt Family Trust | Limited partnership interest | Organization | 02/28/2025 | |
| Mls Family LLC | Limited partnership interest | Organization | 02/28/2025 | |
| Mls Family Trust | Limited partnership interest | Organization | 02/28/2025 | |
| Sgs 2010 Family Trust | Limited partnership interest | Organization | 02/28/2025 | |
| Sgs Family LLC | Limited partnership interest | Organization | 02/28/2025 | |
| Sgs Family Trust | Limited partnership interest | Organization | 02/28/2025 | |
| Tyh 2017 Trust | Limited partnership interest | Organization | 02/28/2025 | |
| Whittier 6 Operations Holdings LLC | Limited partnership interest | Organization | 02/28/2025 | |
| Miller, Nachum | Limited partnership interest | Individual | 02/28/2025 | |
| Whittier Opco Manager LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/25/2025 | |
| Bak, Pinchos | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/28/2025 | |
| Gilani, Ahmed | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/28/2025 | |
| Goldberger, Shlomo | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/28/2025 | |
| Sonnenschein, Moshe | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/28/2025 | |
| Wanganga, Stella | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/28/2025 | |
| Wriston, Anthony | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/28/2025 |
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.