2210 N Howard St., San Angelo, TX 76901 · Tom Green County · (325) 944-0561
90 certified beds, about 40 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 2003
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675982 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 14, 2026, inspectors cited 3 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
None of its 28 health citations since September 2023 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
85.0% 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 28 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to personal privacy and confidentiality of his or her personal and medical records for 2 of 5 residents (Resident #2 and Resident #43) reviewed for privacy, in that:The facility failed to ensure LVN A locked the computer, which exposed Resident #2's morning medication list after she walked away and left the computer unattended. The facility failed to ensure LVN B locked the computer, which exposed Resident #43's lunch time medication list after she walked away and left the computer unattended. This failure could place residents at risk of having medical information exposed to others and cause residents to feel uncomfortable and disrespected.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services that ensure the accurate administering of drugs for 1 of 2 nurse medication carts (South Hall) observed for medications stored. properly labeled and accounted for. The South Hall nurse medication cart had two controlled medication blister packs that did not match their corresponding controlled medication count sheet. This failure could place residents at risk of underdose, overdose or drug diversion.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, included the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions, and the expiration date when applicable for 1 of 2 medication carts (South hall) reviewed for medication storage. The south hall nurse medication cart had one insulin pen that belonged to Resident #5 that had been opened but not dated when it was placed into use. This failure could place residents at risk of receiving medications that were expired and not produce the desired effect.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure 1 of 7 residents (Resident #36) with indwelling urinary catheters received appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections to the extent possible. Resident #36's indwelling catheter tubing was dragging on the floor on 3 of 3 days observed. This failure could place residents with indwelling urinary catheters at risk of infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care, is provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 4 (Resident #3) reviewed for respiratory care. Resident #3's oxygen nasal cannula and SVN mask were not covered in a plastic bag when they were not used. These failures could place all residents who use respiratory equipment at risk for respiratory infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments for 1 of 2 nurse medication carts (The north hall medication cart) reviewed for medication storage and security. LVN C failed to ensure the nurse medication cart for the north hall was secured when it was left unattended. These failures could place residents at risk for drug diversion or accidental ingestion.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed 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 diseases and infections for 1 (Resident #36) of 7 residents reviewed for infection prevention and control. CNA A and CMA B failed to change her gloves when going from dirty to clean during Resident #36's incontinent care. CNA A and CMA B failed to use PPE during incontinent care and urinary catheter care performed for Resident #36 as the resident was on EBP precautions. These failures could place residents at risk of infections, secondary infections, and communicable diseases.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for one (Resident #1) of three residents reviewed for infection control practices. CNA A failed to perform proper hand hygiene and glove changes while providing incontinence care to Resident #1 on 03/29/24. This failure could place residents at risk for the spread of infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to treat residents with respect, dignity, and care for each resident in a manner that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #13 & Resident # 45) reviewed for dignity. The facility failed to ensure staff treated Resident #13 & Resident #45 with dignity by covering their catheter bags with privacy bags. This failure could place residents at risk of a diminished quality of life and lead to a loss of self-esteem.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate allegations of Abuse and Neglect and Injury of Unknown Origin for 6 of 11 residents (Resident #6, #17, #20, #37, #27 and #42) reviewed. The facility did not have documentation that thorough investigations of allegations of Neglect for Resident #,6, #17, #20, #37, #27 and #42 were completed. This failure could place residents who report allegations of abuse at risk of not being thoroughly investigated.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a person-centered, comprehensive care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet residents medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 5 (Resident # 32, Resident #33, Resident #44, Resident #48, and Resident #49) of 5 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to ensure care plans specified measurable objectives that could be evaluated or quantified for Resident #32, Resident #33, Resident #44, Resident #48, and Resident #49. The facility failed to ensure care plans specified measurable objectives that could be evaluated or quantified with a timeframe to achieve for Resident #32, Resident #33, Resident #44, Resident #48, and Resident #49. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to review and revise resident-centered comprehensive care plans within 7 days of a comprehensive assessment for 5 (Resident #13, Resident #32, Resident #44, Resident #48, and Resident #49) of 6 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to review and revise Resident #13, Resident #32, Resident #44, Resident #48, and Resident #49's Comprehensive Patient-Centered Care Plan within 7 days following the completion of a comprehensive assessment. This failure could put residents at risk for not receiving the care and services needed to maintain or improve physical, mental, emotional, psychological well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents received proper treatment and care to maintain mobility and good foot health for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #42) reviewed for foot care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #42 received podiatry care since admission on [DATE]. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of overall poor foot hygiene and a decline in resident's physical condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision to prevent accidents for 3 of 5 (Residents #3, #6, and #18) residents reviewed for smoking safety. The facility failed to ensure Residents #6 was supervised when smoking per assessment. The facility failed to ensure Residents #3, #6, and #18's lighters and cigarettes were not stored on their person. These failures could affect residents who smoke at risk of serious bodily harm, physical impairment, or death.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident who is incontinent of bladder receives appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections for 1 (Resident #40) of 4 residents reviewed for catheters. The facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and indwelling catheter services consistent with professional standards of practice by not changing Resident #40's urinary catheter as ordered and ensuring Resident #40's urinary catheter collection bag was not on the floor. This failure placed residents with urinary catheters at risk for infection threatening their physical and mental well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who uses a feeding tube for liquid nourishment, fluids, and medications received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feeding including but not limited to aspiration pneumonia, diarrhea, vomiting, dehydration, metabolic abnormalities, and nasal-pharyngeal ulcers for 1 of 3 (Resident #40) reviewed for gastrostomy tube. The facility failed to check the placement of Resident #40's gastrostomy tube prior to administering water flushes and medication administration via gastrostomy tube. This failure could place residents who use gastrostomy tubes at risk of aspiration pneumonia.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to attempt to use alternatives prior to installing a side or bed rail and assess the resident for risk of entrapment from bed rails prior to installation for 3 of 3 residents (Resident #20, Resident #25, and Resident #45) reviewed for bed rails. The facility failed to assess residents for entrapment risks and attempt less restrictive measures prior to installing bed rails. These failures could place residents at risk for injury and restricted movement.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents with PRN orders for psychotropic drugs were limited to 14 days and to ensure psychotropic medications were not given unless the medication was necessary to treat a specific condition as diagnosed and documented in the clinical record for 1 of 2 (Resident #20) residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility failed to ensure Resident #20's PRN lorazepam (medicine used to treat the symptoms of anxiety) was discontinued after 14 days or a documented rational for the continued provision of the medication. This failure could place residents at risk for adverse reactions and negative side effects from the administration of medication that was not indicated for use to treat medical conditions and symptoms and dependence on unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were labeled and stored in accordance with currently accepted professional principles for 1 of 2 medication storage rooms (North hall medication room) and 1 of 4 medication carts (South nurse medication cart) reviewed. The facility failed to ensure that medications were secured in locked medication cart. The facility failed to ensure that medications were stored in an environment that was dry and without ice buildup. These failures could place residents who receive medications at risk for receiving the wrong medications, outdated medications or contaminated medications which could result in residents not receiving the intended therapeutic effects medications or harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide or obtain laboratory services to meet the needs of 1 of 2 (Resident #25) residents reviewed for lab services. The facility failed to provide or obtain lab work as ordered by the physician for Resident #25. This failure could place the residents at risk of missed labs, depriving their physician of monitoring important levels.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to properly store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed. The facility failed to ensure foods were sealed and/or labeled properly in refrigerators and dry storage. The facility failed to ensure food was not past expiration date. These failures could place residents that eat out of the kitchen at risk for food borne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a quality assessment and assurance committee consisting at a minimum the required committee members for 3 of 12 meetings (11/23,12/2023, and 01/2024) reviewed for QAPI. The facility did not ensure the MD, or a representative attended QAPI meetings on 11/23, 12/2023, and 01/2024. This failure could place residents at risk for quality deficiencies being unidentified, no appropriate plans of action developed and implemented, and no appropriate guidance developed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to conduct regular inspections of all bed frames and bed rails as part of a regular maintenance program to identify areas of possible entrapment for 4 of 4 (Residents #9, #20, #25 and #45) residents reviewed for bed rails. The facility did not conduct regular inspections of bed rails, including Residents #9, #20, #25 and #45's beds. This failure could place residents who have bed rails at risk for injury related to poor maintenance of the bed rails.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services including procedures that assure accurate administering of medications for 2 of 4 medication carts (South nurse medication cart, & North nurse medication cart) reviewed. The facility failed to ensure expired medications were removed from medication carts. These failures could place residents who receive medications at risk for receiving outdated medications which could result in residents not receiving the intended therapeutic effects medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and observation, the facility failed to ensure staffing information was posted daily, readily accessible to residents and visitors that included: the total number and the actual hours worked by the Registered nurses, Licensed Practical nurses or Licensed Vocational Nurses or Certified Nurse Aides directly responsible for resident care per shift for 3 of 3 days (02/06/2024, 02/07/2024, and 02/08/2024 reviewed for staffing information. The facility failed to ensure the daily staffing information was posted daily on 02/06/2024, 02/07/2024, and 02/08/2024. This failure could place residents, their families, and visitors at risk of not having the staffing information readily accessible for review, residents and visitors are not able to know how many staff are currently working to provide care on all shifts. Findings Included: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services, including the accurate administering of drugs for 1 of 5 Residents (Resident #1) reviewed for pharmacy services. 1) The facility failed to ensure Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) A did not administer PRN Ativan (Anti-Anxiety/Sedative medication), after it was ordered to be discontinued. The facility failed to remove anti-anxiety (Ativan) medication from the medication cart after it was ordered to be discontinued by the physician for Resident #1 The noncompliance was identified as past noncompliance. The noncompliance began [DATE] and ended on [DATE]. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the investigation began. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 4 residents (Resident #1) received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice reviewed. 1) CNA A failed to stop attempting to perform the care being resisted by Resident #1 during incontinent care. This failure could place residents at risk for being provided care or treatment different from the plan of care. Findings Include: Review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 09/07/2023 revealed Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included vascular dementia (impaired blood flow to brain) Alzheimer's Disease and Type II Diabetes. Review of Resident #1's MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed she had a brief interview for mental status score of 99 indicating Resident #1 was not able to complete the BIM's interview. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to reevaluate and implement non-pharmacological interventions with the use of a PRN antipsychotic drug, for 1 Resident (R#1) of 6 residents reviewed for antipsychotic medications, in that: 1) The facility administered an anti-anxiety medication (Ativan) PRN (as needed) to Resident #1, for more than 14 days, without an evaluation by Resident#1's Physician for the appropriateness of the medication. 2) Facility failed to implement behavioral interventions and assess resident reaction to interventions prior to administering anti-anxiety medication (Ativan) PRN (as needed) to Resident #1. These failures could place residents who received psychotropic medications at risk of receiving unnecessary doses of medication, experiencing undesirable side effects as well as potentially causing a physical or psychological decline in health. [...]
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) | not reported | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | not reported | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | not reported | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | not reported | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | not reported | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 85.0% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 80.0% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS note on this home's staffing data: The accuracy of the staffing data for this measure could not be validated by CMS.
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 3.45 on weekdays and 3.01 on weekends, 13% 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 3.22 in April to June 2025 to 3.32 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 | 3.32 | 0.51 | 3.45 | 3.01 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 40 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.44 | 0.49 | 3.60 | 3.02 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 40 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.32 | 0.48 | 3.46 | 2.96 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 42 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.22 | 0.51 | 3.34 | 2.94 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 41 |
| 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 | 2.8 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.6 | 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 | 5.4 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.9 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.5 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 31.5 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.6 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.3 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Park Plaza Nursing and Rehabilitation Center'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% · 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. 15 eligible stays.
11.0% 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. 50 eligible stays.
8.3% this home
No different from the national rate
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. 31 eligible stays.
59.3% this home
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. 27 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. 37 residents counted.
4.8% 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. 37 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. 14 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: BALLINGER MEMORIAL 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ballinger Memorial Hospital District | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 02/01/2024 |
| Atwood, Mark | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Bundrant, Bradly | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Dankworth, Mike | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Fricke, Rhett | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 02/01/2024 | |
| Hunter, William | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Reasor, Tyler | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Studer, Scott | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Zuniga, Elizabeth | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Huggins, Linda | Corporate director | Individual | 02/01/2024 | |
| Willig, Zachary | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Fricke, Rhett | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/01/2024 | |
| San Angelo I Enterprises, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 02/01/2024 | |
| Blake, Gary | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/01/2024 | |
| Blake, Malisa | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/01/2024 | |
| San Angelo I Enterprises, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/14/2025 | |
| Aguilar, Rolando | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/14/2025 | |
| Blake, Gary | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/01/2024 | |
| Hunt, John | 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.