3650 S. Interstate 35 E, Waxahachie, TX 75165 · Ellis County · (972) 937-7320
132 certified beds, about 86 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 2001
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675889 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 5, 2026, inspectors cited 11 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 29 health citations since November 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $29,011 in the last three years; the largest was $14,996, and the latest is dated March 5, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.31 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.41 of those hours.
57.7% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to The Ensign Group, an affiliated group of 344 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 29 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure menus were followed to meet nutritional needs of residents in accordance with established national guidelines for two sampled residents (R50 and R8) reviewed for menus, in that: The facility failed to utilize therapeutic menu extensions for carbohydrate-controlled diets for R50 and R8. The facility failed to follow portion sizes for all diets for two days. These failures had the potential to affect resident's dependent on the facility kitchen for their nutrients as well as 22 residents who had ordered carbohydrate-controlled (CC) diet, placing them at risk of spikes or drops in blood glucose levels and/or weight loss or weight gain
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure physician-ordered treatment was provided for one (R69) of 27 residents reviewed for quality of care, in that: R69 did not receive the physician ordered treatment on six wounds, on 04/04/26 or 04/05/26. This failure had the potential to cause deterioration in current wounds, infections and pain at the site.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices for 1 (Resident #13) of 6 residents reviewed for quality of care and change in conditions. The facility failed to obtain daily weights for Resident #13 for the dates of 2/2/26, 2/3/26, 2/4/26, 2/5/26, 2/7/26, 2/8/26, 2/9/26, 2/10/26, 2/11/26, 2/12/26, 2/13/26, 2/14/26, 2/16/26, 2/17/26, 2/18/26, 2/19/26, 2/21/26, 2/22/26, 2/23/26, 2/24/26, 2/28/26, 3/1/26, and 3/3/26. These failures placed residents at risk of weight gain, disease exacerbation, shortness of breath, decreased quality of life, heart problems, such as arrhythmia (irregular heartbeat).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drug and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident for 2 (Resident # 53 and Resident 68) of 6 residents reviewed for pharmaceutical services. The facility failed to ensure Resident #53 had his prescribed Zofran (a medication for nausea) 4mg available for administration. When the facility failed to order it from the pharmacy and Resident #53 administered another resident's medication (Resident #68's Zofran 4 mg tablet). This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the intended therapeutic benefit of the medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility with more than 120 beds failed to employ a qualified social worker on a full-time basis for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for qualifications of a Social Worker. The facility, licensed for 121 beds, did not employ a full-time, qualified social worker. This failure could place residents at risk for unmet social services and psychosocial needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure residents received services in the facility with reasonable accommodations of resident's needs and preferences except when to do so would endanger the health and safety of the resident or other residents for 2 of 6 residents (Resident's #50, and #20's) reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure Resident #50 and #20's call lights were within reach on 03/03/2026 and 03/04/2026This failure could place residents at risk of needs not being met.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to reassess, report, and document changes in condition in accordance with the person-centered service plan for 1 (Resident #19) of 8 residents who were reviewed for changes in condition. The facility failed to reassess and report Resident #19's blood pressure in accordance with the facility policy. These failures could lead to heart problems, such as arrhythmia (Irregular heartbeat).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment for 1 of 1 facility observed in that:The facility foyer had 2 of 4 skylights in disrepair for an unknown amount of time. This deficient practice could affect residents, staff, or visitors who entered through the facility front doors by placing them at risk of being exposed to leaks or an unsanitary environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from chemical restraints that were not required to treat the residents' medical symptoms for 1 (Resident #9) of 6 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility failed to ensure Resident #9's GDR was attempted and non-pharmacological approaches to care were implemented for Quetiapine Fumarate, an antipsychotic medication (drug used to treat psychosis and related mental health conditions by modulating brain neurotransmitters). This failure could place residents at risk for adverse reactions and negative side effects from the administration of medication and dependence on unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, which included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs for 1 (Resident #25) of 6 residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans. The facility failed to care plan Resident #25's verbal behaviors and document interventions to address them. The facility failed to update Resident #65's care plan to reflect he no longer required the use of disposable dinnerware. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving necessary care and services or having important care needs identified and met.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, personal and oral hygiene for 1 (Resident #12) of 6 residents reviewed for ADLs. The facility failed to trim and cut Resident #12's fingernails. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving services/care and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as was possible to prevent accidents for 1 (Resident #77) of 6 residents reviewed for accidents and hazards. The facility failed to ensure Resident #77 did not keep disposable razors in her possession and use them without supervision. This failure could place residents at risk of cuts or scrapes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all mechanical, electrical, and patient care equipment was in safe operating condition for 1 of 1 facility's reviewed for water leakage. The facility failed to maintain dry, water-leak-free conditions in the facility's only laundry room. This failure could put all residents at risk of infection and laundry service workers at risk for slips and falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure medications and biologicals were stored in locked compartments for 1 of 1 medication carts and 1 of 1 medication rooms reviewed for medication storage. The facility failed to ensure the medication cart and medication room was locked and medications were secure and not accessible to other staff, resident, or visitors while unattended by MA on 01/08/2025. This failure could have resulted in harm due to unauthorized access to medications, biologicals, and needles.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food safety and sanitation in the facility's only kitchen. The facility failed to ensure all expired pantry items were discarded. This failure could place residents at risk for health complications, foodborne illnesses and decreased a quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the resident had a right to be treated with respect and dignity for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #66) reviewed for dignity. The facility failed to promote resident independence and dignity while dining when staff stood over Resident #66 while assisting them to eat on 01/07/25. This failure could have compromised residents' independence and dignity for those who require feeding assistance.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to coordinate assessments with the PASARR program for 1 of 8 Residents (Resident #63) reviewed for PASARR services. 1. The SW failed to assess Resident #63, based on his behaviors, for a referral for PASARR services. 2. The MDSC failed to refer Resident #63 for a Level II PASARR Evaluation by the local LIDDA. This failure placed residents in the facility at risk for exclusion for PASARR Services. Findings Included: RR or Resident #63's AR, dated 1/10/2025, reflected an [AGE] year-old male, who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan furnishing services to attain, or maintain, the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #30) reviewed for comprehensive care plans. The facility failed to care plan Resident #30's high risk of elopement. This failure placed resident at risk of their needs having gone unmet.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident who needed respiratory care was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for 1 of 6 Residents (Resident #3) reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to place Resident #3's oxygen tubing in a bag when not in use. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving appropriate respiratory care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents' drug regimen was adequately monitored and free from unnecessary drugs for 1 (Resident #26) of 6 residents reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to obtain a stop date for Resident #26's Cipro (an antibiotic used to treat an acute infection) started on 01/01/2025. These failures could place residents at risk of side effects (gastrointestinal upset, multiple drug resistant infections) related to long term antibiotic use.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designated to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infection for 1 (Resident #75) of 6 residents reviewed for infection control. CNA C and NA D failed to wash their hands and change their gloves when removing a soiled brief and placing a clean brief during peri care for Resident #75. These failures could place residents at-risk of cross contamination which could result in infections or illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents are free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation; the facility failed to provide goods and services to a resident that are necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish or emotional distress for 1 (Resident #1) of 5 residents reviewed for neglect. The facility failed to: 1. ensure Resident #1 was evaluated and treated for urinary retention which led to Resident #1 requiring emptying of her bladder in the emergency department on 01/27/24 2. ensure Resident #1's pain was addressed by providing her prescribed oxycodone for her bilateral (both left and right) ankle fractures and surgery resulting in uncontrolled pain that caused Resident #1 to call 911 for transport to the emergency room on [DATE] An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on 01/31/24. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that pain management is provided to residents who require such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for 1 (Resident #1) of 5 residents reviewed for pain. The facility failed to: 1. ensure Resident #1's prescribed oxycodone was in the facility and provided to Resident #1 for her pain from bilateral broken ankles and surgery An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on 01/31/24. While the IJ was removed on 02/01/24, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated with potential for more than minimal harm, due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the resident has a right to a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication with and access to persons and services inside and outside the facility for one (Resident #2) of 2 residents reviewed for resident rights. The facility nurse failed to assist Resident #2 with obtaining ambulance transport to the emergency department when Resident #2 asked, so he was forced to dial 911 for assistance. This failure could place residents at risk of not being able to determine their own need for emergency assistance which could lead to decreased self-worth, dignity and delay access to emergency services that could lead to deterioration of health.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchens reviewed for sanitation. The facility failed to ensure all food items were sealed and properly covered. CK H failed to wash and sanitize the food processor in between uses. DA I failed to wash her hands after handling trash and prior to beginning a food preparation activity. The Dietary Supervisor failed to ensure the dish machine was operating at the proper temperature for ware washing. These failures could place residents at risk of foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to immediately notify her authority, the resident representative when there was a significant change for 1 of 1 residents (Resident #166) reviewed for notification of changes. The facility failed to notify Resident #166's responsible party on 08/14/2023, 08/26/2023, 11/04/2023, 11/13/2023, /1/2023, and 02/05/2023, when new adjustments to medication regimen were made. This failure could place residents who experience a change in condition at risk of responsible party not being informed in care decisions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to incorporate recommendations from the PASARR level II determination and the PASSARR evaluation report into a resident's assessment, care planning, and transitions of care for 2 (Resident #1 and Resident #167) of 16 residents reviewed for PASARR. 1. The facility failed to initiate ILS, HC and specialized services in a timely manner for Resident #1 2. The facility failed to initiate a PE for Resident #167. These failures could place residents at risk of receiving eligible services late.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program that must include, at a minimum, written standards, policies, and procedures for the program which included standard and transmission-based precautions to be followed to prevent spread of infections for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #7) reviewed for infection control practices, and 5 of 8 staff (CNA G, DON, ADOR, Medical Records Supervisor, and MA F) reviewed for infection control practices. 1) The Medical Records Supervisor and CNA G failed to don and doff PPE prior to entering Resident #7's, who was on contact precautions, room. 2) The facility failed to ensure 4 of 9 staff were tested for tuberculosis upon hire/ re-hire. These failures could place residents at risk for infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all residents with pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing for 2 (Resident #32 and Resident #51) of 2 residents reviewed for wound care. The facility failed to provide wound care as ordered for Resident #32. The facility failed to document wound care for Resident #32 and Resident #51. These failures could place residents at risk of worsening pressure injuries.
3 fire safety citations on file: 3 on January 10, 2025.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| March 5, 2026 | Fine | $14,015 |
| February 14, 2024 | Fine | $14,996 |
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 | Texas | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.31 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.41 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.88 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.07 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.83 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 57.7% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 62.5% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.78 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 3.48 on weekdays and 2.88 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 3.45 in April to June 2025 to 3.31 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 | 3.31 | 0.41 | 3.48 | 2.88 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 86 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.51 | 0.40 | 3.67 | 3.11 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 80 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.70 | 0.40 | 3.93 | 3.13 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 82 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.45 | 0.41 | 3.71 | 2.81 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 81 |
| 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 | 18.7 | 15.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 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 | 11.5 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.7 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.7 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 21.5 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 7.0 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.5 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.9 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Pleasant Manor Healthcare and Rehabilitation's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (56.7% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
56.7% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Texas: 116 better, 50 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 44 eligible stays.
11.5% 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. 64 eligible stays.
5.8% 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. 40 eligible stays.
65.2% 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. 46 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. 67 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 67 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. 16 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: EASTLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to The Ensign Group, a group of 344 nursing homes averaging 3.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eastland Memorial Hospital District | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 12/01/2019 |
| Hardrick, Chasidy | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 12/01/2019 | |
| Laheji, Junaid | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 07/01/2025 | |
| Burnam, Soon | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/01/2019 | |
| Keetch, Chad | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/01/2011 | |
| Taylor, Stephen | Corporate officer | Individual | 07/01/2025 | |
| Percheron Healthcare, Inc. | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/01/2019 | |
| Hardrick, Chasidy | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2019 | |
| Laheji, Junaid | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2025 | |
| Ensign Services Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/19/2019 | |
| Percheron Healthcare, Inc. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/14/2025 | |
| Spring Trail Health Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2019 | |
| Standard Bearer Healthcare Op, LP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2019 | |
| The Ensign Group Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2019 | |
| Hardrick, Chasidy | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2019 | |
| Laheji, Junaid | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2019 |
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.