12441 Se Stark Street, Portland, OR 97233 · Multnomah County · (503) 255-7040
105 certified beds, about 55 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1992
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 385228 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 27, 2026, inspectors cited 18 health deficiencies (the Oregon average is 9.2, the national average 9.2).
Of 55 health citations since July 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $24,827 in the last three years; the largest was $24,827, and the latest is dated October 29, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.68 hours per resident per day, against 5.03 across Oregon and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.88 of those hours.
50.0% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Oregon average 47.4%).
CMS links it to Evergreen Healthcare Group, an affiliated group of 43 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 55 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to effectively respond to resident council concerns expressed at 3 of 3 resident council meetings reviewed for facility response to Resident Council concerns. This placed residents at risk for unmet needs concerning issues of resident care and lessened quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to have a system in place to deliver mail on Saturdays for 1 of 1 Resident Council reviewed. This placed residents at risk for lack of timely written communications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to monitor residents and follow physician orders for 6 of 13 sampled residents (#'s 37, 48, 55, 62, 63, and 68) reviewed for abuse, staffing, and death. This placed residents at risk for unidentified concerns and unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure medications and biologicals were secured and accessible only to authorized personnel for 2 of 3 facility halls observed for secure medication cart. This placed residents at risk for misappropriation of medications and adverse medication consequences.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to implement Enhance Barrier Precautions for 2 of 2 sampled residents (#s 11 and 48) reviewed for pressure ulcers. This placed residents at risk for cross contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure care was provided in a manner that maintained resident dignity for 1 of 7 residents (#67) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for undignified care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to assist residents to formulate and obtain an advance directive for 2 of 3 sampled residents (#s 26 and 48) reviewed for advance directives. This placed residents at risk for healthcare decisions to conflict with resident wishes.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were not abused for 3 of 7 sampled residents (#s 48, 65 and 66) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for abuse and diminished psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to assess the use of a physical restraint for 1 of 2 sampled resident (#12) reviewed for positioning and mobility. This placed residents at risk for inappropriate use of a restraint.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to obtain a baseline assessment for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#2) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for unidentified adverse medication side effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review it was determined the facility failed to report allegations of abuse within the mandated timeframe for 3 of 4 sampled residents (#s 6, 65 and 66) for 1 of 5 FRI reports reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for further abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide a bed hold policy for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#62) reviewed for hospitalization. This placed residents at risk for not being informed of their right to return to the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to complete a comprehensive assessment for 2 of 7 sampled residents (#s 2 and 48) reviewed for pressure ulcer and unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for adverse side effects and worsening wounds.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure dependent residents received required assistance with ADL care for 2 of 2 sampled residents (#s 12 and 32) reviewed for ADL care. This placed residents at risk for lack of personal hygiene.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide resident centered activities for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#7) reviewed for activities. This placed residents at risk for diminished psychosocial well-being and quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure pressure ulcer care was provided to promote healing and physician orders were followed for 2 of 2 sampled residents (#s 11 and 48) reviewed for pressure ulcers. This placed residents at risk for delayed healing.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to perform pre and post dialysis assessments on 1 of 1 resident (#3) reviewed for dialysis. This placed residents at risk for inadequate monitoring.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident or representative understood an arbitration agreement before signing for 2 of 3 sampled residents (#s 3 and 21). This placed residents at risk for inability to resolve concerns in court.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide care in accordance with professional standards and failed to ensure care needs were met for 3 of 3 sampled residents (#s 1, 3 and 5) reviewed for call lights. This placed residents at risk for unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to implement care plan interventions for aspiration precautions for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#6) reviewed for respiratory services and aspiration precautions. This placed residents at risk for a lack of nutritional assistance and aspiration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents' change of condition was assessed timely for 2 of 2 residents (#s 8 and 22) reviewed for skin conditions. This failure resulted in Resident 8 experiencing untreated and significant pain, sustaining multiple fractures and receiving treatment at the hospital.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to assess for care plan effectiveness, identify and implement new fall interventions or provide adequate supervision needed to prevent falls for 3 of 3 sampled residents (#s 40, 48 and 108) reviewed for falls. This failure resulted in Resident 108's hospitalization and placed residents at risk for falls and injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were provided with the opportunity to organize and participate in Resident Council for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for Resident Council. This placed residents at risk for a lack of participation in group discussions regarding facility policies, procedures and resident rights.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide a qualified professional to direct the activities program for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for activities. This placed residents at risk for unmet physical, mental and psychosocial needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to complete nurse aide performance reviews every twelve months for 5 of 5 sampled CNAs (#s 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9) reviewed for staffing. This placed residents at risk for a lack of care by competent staff.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to properly store laundry to prevent cross contamination for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for infection control. This placed residents at risk for cross contamination and the potential spread of infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident was treated in a dignified manner and free from a derogatory slur for 1 of 4 sampled residents (#110) reviewed for dignity. This placed residents at risk for being treated in a disrespectful manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents' bed mattresses were in good repair for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#5) reviewed for restraints and a comfortable environment free from offensive odors for 1 of 1 facility observed for environment. This placed residents at risk for an uncomfortable environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure accurate assessments for 3 of 7 sampled residents (#s 14, 22 and 45) reviewed for communication, dental and ADLs. This placed residents at risk for unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to complete a PASARR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) Level II evaluation for residents with a positive Level I PASARR for 1 of 1 resident (#22) reviewed for PASARR. This placed residents at risk for unmet behavioral and emotional needs and a decrease in their quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide an ongoing person-centered activity program for 2 of 3 sampled dependent residents (#s 40 and 48 ) reviewed for activities. This placed residents at risk of a decline in psychosocial well-being and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide appropriate and timely pain management for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#22) reviewed for pain. This placed residents at risk for pain.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to obtain necessary services for the behavioral health care needs of residents and review and revise behavioral health care plan interventions to ensure interventions were appropriate and effective for 1 of 1 resident (#22) reviewed for PASARR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review). This placed residents at risk for unmet behavioral health care needs and for not attaining their highest practicable well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure the correct POLST was readily available and accessible to enable staff to provide the appropriate interventions for 1 of 5 residents (#42) reviewed for choices. This placed residents at risk for not receiving care per their current wishes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to establish an effective communication process between the facility and hospice provider in order to ensure the needs of the resident were addressed and met 24 hours per day for 1 of 1 resident (#48) reviewed for hospice. This placed residents at risk for unmet needs. The facility's 9/2017 Hospice Policy revealed the following: -The hospice and facility communicate, establish and agree upon a coordinated Plan of Care (POC) reflecting the hospice philosophy and based on an evaluation of the individual needs of the resident. -Hospice establishes the POC related to the terminal illness, related conditions, directives for management of pain and other uncomfortable symptoms. -The facility maintains a POC that is consistent with the hospice POC. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a safe and orderly discharge for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#103) reviewed for discharge. This placed residents at risk for an unsafe discharge related to medication needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure an RN was available for at least eight consecutive hours per day seven days per week for 4 of 68 days reviewed for staffing. This placed residents at risk for lack of timely RN assessments and care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure sufficient staffing to meet resident care needs for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for sufficient staffing. This placed residents at risk for unmet care needs and lengthy call light response times.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure the Direct Care Staff Daily Report (DCSDR) postings were complete and accurately reflected actual staff working for 25 of 68 days reviewed for sufficient staffing. This placed residents at risk for incorrect staffing information.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a well maintained and homelike resident rooms for 2 of 3 halls reviewed for environment. This placed residents at risk for a non-homelike environment.
Inspectors wrote1. Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident shared equipment was appropriately disinfected for 3 of 3 halls reviewed for infection control. This placed residents at risk for spread of infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were assessed for safe self-administration of medications for 1 of 1 sampled residents (#29) reviewed for self-administration of medications. This placed residents at risk for adverse medication side effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to accurately code the MDS for 3 of 4 sampled residents (#s 17, 18 and 29) reviewed for positioning and dental. This placed residents at risk for unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement care plans for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#35) reviewed for communication. This placed residents at risk for unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to revise the care plan for 1 of 4 sampled residents (#9) reviewed for nutrition. This placed residents at risk for unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure Staff 12 (LPN) adhered to professional nursing standards related to provision of medications for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#150) during a medication administration observations. This placed residents at risk for not receiving ordered medications.
Inspectors wrote2. Resident 29 was admitted to the facility in 6/2020 with diagnoses including hemiplegia (a severe or complete loss of strength or paralysis on one side of the body) and hemiparesis (a mild or partial weakness or loss of strength on one side of the body) following a stroke. Resident 29's 9/22/22 ADL Self-Care Performance Deficit Care Plan revealed the following: - Nail care per licensed nurse. The resident was diabetic. - Report to licensed nurse if the resident was in need of nail care. Resident 29's 6/8/23 Quarterly MDS revealed the resident experienced short and long term memory loss, was severely impaired for decision-making and required extensive assistance from one person with dressing, personal hygiene and bed mobility. Resident 29's 7/2023 Physician Orders indicated diabetic nail care was to be performed by a licensed nurse weekly. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement an activity care plan and failed to include residents in group and individual activities for 2 of 4 sampled residents (#s 26 and 35) reviewed for activities. This placed residents at risk for isolation and lack of social interaction and engagement.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow physician orders for 1 of 4 sampled residents (#11) reviewed for skin issues and positioning. This placed residents at risk for lack of necessary treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and services to prevent further decrease in range in motion for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#29) reviewed for position and mobility. This placed residents at risk for worsening contractures (a permanent tightening of the muscle, tendons and skin causing the joint to shorten and stiffen) and conditions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to monitor physician-ordered fluid restrictions for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#250) reviewed for dialysis care. This placed residents at risk for complications related to dialysis.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5%. There were seven errors out of 26 opportunities resulting in a 26.92% error rate. This placed residents at risk for adverse medication effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide routine dental services for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#17) reviewed for dental care. This placed residents at risk of unmet dental needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident records were accurate related to medication administration for 1 of 7 sampled residents (#150) reviewed for medication administration. This placed residents at risk for inaccurate health records.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were offered and received the pneumococcal vaccination according to Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for 2 of 5 sampled residents (#s 8 and 11) reviewed for immunizations. This placed residents at risk for acquiring pneumonia.
6 fire safety citations on file: 3 on February 27, 2026, 1 on October 29, 2024, 2 on July 17, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| October 29, 2024 | Fine | $24,827 |
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 | Oregon | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 4.68 | 5.03 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.88 | 0.72 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 4.08 | 4.51 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 3.09 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.72 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 50.0% | 47.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 53.3% | 51.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.52 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 4.93 on weekdays and 4.08 on weekends, 17% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 2.6% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.56 in April to June 2025 to 4.68 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 | 4.68 | 0.88 | 4.93 | 4.08 | 2.6% | 0 of 90 | 55 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.54 | 0.86 | 4.74 | 4.03 | 2.0% | 0 of 92 | 55 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.55 | 0.82 | 4.80 | 3.90 | 4.9% | 1 of 92 | 54 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.56 | 0.84 | 4.81 | 3.96 | 3.9% | 1 of 91 | 53 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Oregon, Jan to Mar 2026 | 4.91 | 0.64 | 5.12 | 4.40 | 6.2% | 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.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oregon, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $23.96 | $22.83 to $28.40 | 14,800 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $38.69 | $35.11 to $43.60 | 4,260 |
| Registered nurses | $62.02 | $51.55 to $64.63 | 39,730 |
| 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 | Oregon | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.3 | 14.9 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 2.0 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 16.1 | 20.6 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.8 | 5.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 24.6 | 13.9 | 15.4 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Portland Health and Rehabilitation's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (54.4% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
54.4% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Oregon: 52 better, 3 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. 48 eligible stays.
10.2% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Oregon: 3 better, 0 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. 42 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% · Oregon: 0 better, 0 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. 19 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: Oregon59.2% · 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. 5 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: Oregon0.0% · 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. 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: Oregon2.6% · 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. 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: Oregon98.5% · 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. 1 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: PORTLAND SNF OPERATIONS LLC. CMS links this home to Evergreen Healthcare Group, a group of 43 nursing homes averaging 2.4 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pacific Northwest SNF Operations Holdings (or) LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 08/31/2023 | |
| Portland SNF Operations LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 08/31/2023 | |
| Ch Pacific Northwest Holdings LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 08/31/2023 | |
| Pacific Northwest SNF Operations Holdings LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 08/31/2023 | |
| Witzcorp Global LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 08/31/2023 | |
| Herzka, Yisroel | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Yenowitz, Yitzchok | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Cepeda, Mylene | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Odenthal, Jason | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Couve Financial Services LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 08/31/2023 | |
| Couve Healthcare Consulting LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 08/31/2023 | |
| Oregon SNF Consulting LLC (de) | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 08/31/2023 | |
| Pacific Northwest Opco Management LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 08/31/2023 | |
| Portland SNF Operations LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 08/31/2023 | |
| Ceesay, Basiru | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Dezember, Duffy | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Morris, Christopher | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Odenthal, Jason | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Spielman, Shimon | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Yenowitz, Yitzchok | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Ch Pacific Northwest Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/31/2023 | |
| Couve Financial Services LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/31/2023 | |
| Couve Healthcare Consulting LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/31/2025 | |
| Oregon SNF Consulting LLC (de) | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2025 | |
| Pacific Northwest Opco Management LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2025 | |
| Portland SNF Operations LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/18/2025 | |
| Witzcorp Global LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/31/2023 | |
| Ceesay, Basiru | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Cepeda, Mylene | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Dezember, Duffy | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Herzka, Yisroel | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Morris, Christopher | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Odenthal, Jason | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Spielman, Shimon | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Yenowitz, Yitzchok | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/31/2023 |
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 Oregon. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.