Home / Connecticut / Newtown
139 Toddy Hill Road, Newtown, CT 06470 · Western Ct County · (203) 426-5847
154 certified beds, about 139 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1991
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 075355 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 2, 2025, inspectors cited 4 health deficiencies (the Connecticut average is 13.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 56 health citations since April 2021, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $10,358 in the last three years; the largest was $10,358, and the latest is dated June 2, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.90 hours per resident per day, against 3.73 across Connecticut and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.47 of those hours.
41.4% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Connecticut average 37.4%).
CMS links it to National Health Care Associates, an affiliated group of 42 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 56 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policies, and interviews for two of three residents (Resident #2 and #3) reviewed for resident rights, the facility failed to maintain comfortable temperature levels within the range of 71 to 81 degrees Fahrenheit (F).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for elopement, the facility failed to ensure elopement risk assessments were performed timely for a resident that eloped from the facility without staff knowledge.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and interviews for two of four sampled residents (Resident #61 and #228) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure the wheelchair leg rests were in place during transport, which resulted in an accident and failed to ensure the resident was transferred as ordered with assist of one and the utilization of a walker, which resulted in a right lower leg laceration sustained as a result of the improper transfer from the wheelchair to the bed.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, review of facility policy, review of facility documentation, and interviews for two of five sampled residents (Resident #17 and Resident #95) reviewed for immunizations, the facility failed to ensure that the pneumococcal vaccine was assessed/and administered to the resident when requested.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, review of facility policy/procedures and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #53) with a diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, the facility failed to notify the resident's responsible party (Person #1) when a new medication (Namenda) was added to the medication regimen.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility documentation, and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #125) reviewed for discharge, the facility failed to ensure the Ombudsman's office was provided with the required notification of the transfer.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy/procedures and interviews for the one sampled resident (Resident #103) reviewed for abuse, the failed to ensure the resident was free from mistreatment sustained from a resident-to-resident altercation.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, review of facility policy/procedures and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #112) with behaviors, the facility failed to ensure the care plan was comprehensive in addressing the resident's behavior of wandering into other residents' rooms, although the behavior was identified on the admission MDS and behaviors triggered, and it was noted that behaviors would be included on the comprehensive care plan.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for seven of thirteen residents, (Resident #'s 1, 3, 21, 23, 17, 27, and 28), reviewed for allegations of inappropriate staff to resident interactions, the facility failed to ensure the residents were treated with respect and dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #8) reviewed for an allegation of abuse, the facility failed to ensure that residents were protected from potential further abuse from the accused staff member.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility documentation, review of policy and procedures for 24 of 24 residents (Resident #'s 16, 29, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, and 57) ) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered in accordance with physician orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for two of six sampled residents (Residents #8 and #31) reviewed for allegations of abuse, the facility failed to immediately report the allegation of abuse to the state agency and no later than two (2) hours after being notified of the alleged abuse in accordance with facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and review of facility policies and procedures for 1 sampled resident (Resident #4) who had a diagnosis of diabetes and was at risk for skin breakdown and for one sampled resident (Resident #14) who was incontient of urine, required incontinence care, and often refused incontinent care, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for foot care for an individual with a diagnosis of diabetes and failed to develop a comprehensive care plan with person centered interventions for incontinence care and care refusals.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and interviews for two of four residents (Resident #4 and #7) who were at risk for the development of pressure ulcers, the facility failed to promote the prevention of pressure ulcer/injury development; failed to promote the healing of existing pressure injuries (including prevention of infection to the extent possible); and failed to prevent development of an additional pressure ulcer/injury; and failed to conduct an initial skin assessment as a baseline when a reddened area of the left hip was identified to determine if the area was healing or deteriorating.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility policies and procedures, and interviews with facility staff for 1 sampled resident who was assessed as a nutritional risk (Resident #4), the facility failed to provide a timely nutritional assessment for a resident with a documented pressure injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility policies and procedures, and interviews with facility staff for 1 of 2 residents who were reporting/demonstrating pain, (Resident #4), the facility failed to assess pain for a resident with a deteriorating facility acquired pressure injury and failed to assess efficacy of the pain regimen.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, interviews, and review of employee files for 6 of 6 Nurse Aides (NA #1, NA #2, NA #3, NA #4, NA #5 and NA #9), the facility failed to ensure performance evaluations were completed in a timely manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, staff interviews, and review of facility documentation for three of six residents reviewed for social service needs (Resident #1, #8 and #31), the facility failed to ensure the residents were assessed after allegations of abuse were reported: 1. Resident #1's diagnoses included Parkinson's disease, adjustment disorder, cerebral ischemic attack, difficulty in walking, depression and Alzheimer's disease. The Psychological Supportive Care progress note dated 12/27/19 identified Resident #1 with adjustment difficulty (illness, decline, loss), inappropriate behaviors and interactive skills, short tempered and easily annoyed. Interventions included coping skills training, supportive psychotherapy and validation therapy. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of facility policies and procedures, and interviews with facility staff for 1 sampled resident, (Resident #4), who required specialized rehabilitative services, the facility failed to conduct a timely speech therapy evaluation in the presence of weight loss and failed to perform a provider directed physical therapy evaluation for heel offloading with a knee contracture in the presence of a facility acquired left heel pressure injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, and facility policy for one resident (Resident #13) reviewed for facility transportation, the facility failed to include and have available consultations from outside vendors available in the paper or electronic chart and have nursing documentation available regarding outside consultations.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for all residents who are served meals, the facility failed to provide a dignified dining experience as evidenced by serving meals on paper products since 4/1/24 due to a dishwasher that is unusable related to the need for a water softener product which is required for the dishwasher to function effectively.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility documentation, observation, and interviews, the facility failed to provide a safe, homelike environment as evidenced by sticky floors due to the facility's inability to purchase the necessary chemicals required to prevent the floors from becoming sticky when washed due to financial issues.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) who were reviewed for an injury of unknown origin, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from staff to resident physical abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) who were reviewed for an injury of unknown origin, the facility failed to ensure staff reported an observation of physical abuse from a staff member to a resident immediately.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical review, interviews, and facility policy review for one resident (Resident #1) reviewed for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), the facility failed to ensure that an Automatic External Defibrillator (AED) was accessible when a resident required CPR.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations of the kitchen , facility policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the date of the juice stored in the emergency food supply was not beyond the best before date and failed to monitor food temperature in accordance to standard practice.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for four residents of six residents (Residents #6,# 18,# 95 and # 100) reviewed for immunizations, the facility failed to obtain consent for immunization non Covid 19.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the facility grievance file and staff interview for 1 resident (Resident # 94), the facility failed to follow up on the resident's grievance for missing clothing in accordance to facility practice.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility policy review, and interviews for 1of 3 residents (Resident # 92) reviewed for Advanced directives, the facility failed to ensure the resident's Advanced directive paperwork was completed timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for 2 of 6 residents (Resident #59 and Resident #92) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to implement the facility abuse policy for investigating and reporting to state agency injury of unknown origin .
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #59) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to report injury of unknown origin to the state agency.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for 2 of 6 residents (Resident #59 and Resident # 75) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigations regarding allegations of abuse/neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #59) reviewed for following physician medication orders, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered and the facility failed to ensure that the narcotic count was accurate at the end of the shift to meet professional standard of practice.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observations and interviews for 3 of 6 residents (Residents # 75, # 89 and # 92) reviewed for ADL, the facility failed to ensure the residents received assistance with grooming and hygiene to meet the resident need.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observations, review of facility policy and interviews 1 of 3 residents ( Resident # 92) reviewed for accident the facility failed to conduct an assessment post fall.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observation, and staff interview for 1 of 2 resident (Resident # 94), reviewed for at risk for pressure ulcer development, the facility failed to ensure the resident's pressure reducing device for the seat of the wheelchair did not have multiple layers on top of the chair in accordance with facility practice.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observations, and interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Residents #35) reviewed for ADL, the facility failed to refer the resident to podiatry to ensure good foot care.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observation and interviews for 1 of 6 sample resident ( Resident # 75) who required assistance with ADL, the facility failed to ensure the resident was transferred via Hoyer lift according to professional standards to prevent a potential accident and for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents ( Resident # 81), the facility failed to ensure supervision was provided during the mealtime and the facility failed to ensure that a housekeeping cart was secure to prevent a potential accident.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #10) reviewed for ADL, the facility failed to ensure staff was trained in the use of a plastic commode liner used as a bedpan liner.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #32) reviewed for pain, the facility failed to ensure medications were available for administration as ordered by the physician.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for 2 of 5 residents (Resident #4 and Resident # 94) reviewed for dental, the facility failed to ensure the residents were evaluated by a dentist after a broken tooth and for missing dentures.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure that the NA removed gloves after touching a dirty object on the floor to prevent the spread of infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility posting of staffing and interviews for 1 of 2 days, the facility failed to post accurate staffing data for residents and visitors to view.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, observations, interviews, and review of facility documentation, for three of six residents (Resident # 296) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure the resident was transferred via mechanical lift with two staff members in accordance to the plan of care and for one of three residents (Resident # 89) reviewed for elopement the facility failed to prevent and elopement .
Inspectors wroteBased on observation of a tour of kitchen, interviews and review of policy, the facility failed ensure that staff preformed hand-hygiene and ensure that hair restraints were used during kitchen preparation duties in accordance to facility policy and practice.
Inspectors wroteBased clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for three of six residents (Residents # 4, 40, and #89) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure the resident was free from physical abuse during resident to resident altercation.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and interviews for three of six resident (Residents #73 #89 and # 297) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to report the results of an investigation in accordance with State law and to the State Agency within 5 working days of the incidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one of five residents (Resident #39) reviewed for unnecessary medications, the facility failed to accurately transcribe a laboratory blood test in accordance to physician's order and professional standards.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews for two sampled residents (Resident #57) reviewed for supervision during dining and (Resident # 296) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with the resident's care plan and physician's orders and failed to ensure an RN assessment was conducted upon the resident's return from receiving treatment at a hospital emergency department, and failed to ensure the emergency department physician recommendation was addressed timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observation, and interviews for one resident in survey sample reviewed for contractures (Resident # 81) the facility failed to follow physician's orders to provide the resident with a hand splinting device to prevent further contractures.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility policy for two of three sampled residents (Residents # 87 and Resident # 88) who required assistance with medication administration, the facility failed to ensure the residents' medications were safely secured.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation of the kitchen and interview, the facility failed to maintain the refuse dumpster area in a clean and sanitary manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility policies, facility education, and documentation, the facility failed to wear Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in accordance with infection control standards.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility documentation and interview, the facility failed to communicate with the state Long Term Care Ombudsman office regarding residents transferred to and discharged from the hospital.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, interviews and review of facility documentation, for two of five residents reviewed for accidents, (Resident #65 and #296), the facility failed to ensure the resident's Minimum Data Set( MDS) accurately reflected the resident at the time of the assessment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review clinical records, review of facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for three of six residents reviewed for abuse ( Residents # 4, # 40, and # 73 ) and one of six residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #296), the facility failed to ensure a complete and/or accurate clinical record.
14 fire safety citations on file: 11 on March 21, 2023, 3 on April 23, 2021.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| June 2, 2025 | Fine | $10,358 |
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 | Connecticut | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.90 | 3.73 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.47 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.56 | 3.37 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.42 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.01 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 41.4% | 37.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 42.1% | 38.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.53 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 4.03 on weekdays and 3.56 on weekends, 12% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 12.1% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.85 in April to June 2025 to 3.90 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 | 3.90 | 0.47 | 4.03 | 3.56 | 12.1% | 0 of 90 | 139 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.62 | 0.43 | 3.74 | 3.31 | 21.5% | 0 of 92 | 143 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.65 | 0.45 | 3.78 | 3.33 | 24.8% | 0 of 92 | 137 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.85 | 0.52 | 4.00 | 3.49 | 14.6% | 0 of 91 | 130 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Connecticut, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.66 | 0.61 | 3.80 | 3.31 | 6.0% | 1.3% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Connecticut, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $21.53 | $20.14 to $22.68 | 21,380 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $35.43 | $32.05 to $36.94 | 8,540 |
| Registered nurses | $49.39 | $41.40 to $58.58 | 40,110 |
| 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 | Connecticut | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 14.1 | 17.9 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.0 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.1 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.3 | 16.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 21.9 | 17.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 20.9 | 24.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 6.3 | 10.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.8 | 2.1 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Stone Bridge Center for Health & Rehabilitation's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (59.1% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
59.1% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Connecticut: 75 better, 2 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. 65 eligible stays.
9.6% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Connecticut: 0 better, 3 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. 78 eligible stays.
6.7% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Connecticut: 0 better, 2 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. 36 eligible stays.
65.7% this home
Median of homes: Connecticut58.9% · 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. 35 residents counted.
1.7% this home
Median of homes: Connecticut0.0% · 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. 60 residents counted.
1.6% this home
Median of homes: Connecticut1.6% · 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. 60 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: Connecticut100.0% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 2 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: NEWTOWN ACQUISITION OPERATOR LLC. CMS links this home to National Health Care Associates, a group of 42 nursing homes averaging 3.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mydert Holdings LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 51% | 06/07/2024 |
| Zadun Holdings LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 49% | 06/07/2024 |
| Cedar Hill Capital Associates LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/07/2024 | |
| Ilana Ostreicher Family Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/07/2024 | |
| Juniper Capital Associates LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/07/2024 | |
| Marc Ephram Ostreicher Family Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/07/2024 | |
| Oak Management Capital LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/07/2024 | |
| Ysro Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/07/2024 | |
| Ehrenfeld, Mindy | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 06/07/2024 | |
| Gilmartin, Thomas | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 06/07/2024 | |
| Ostreicher, Marc | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/07/2024 | |
| National Health Care Associates Inc | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/07/2025 | |
| Gilmartin, Thomas | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/07/2024 | |
| David Ostreicher Family Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/26/2024 | |
| Ilana Ostreicher Family Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/26/2024 | |
| Marc Ephram Ostreicher Family Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/26/2024 | |
| Michelle Ostreicher Family Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/26/2024 | |
| National Health Care Associates Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/07/2025 | |
| Preferred Therapy Solutions LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/07/2025 | |
| Procare LTC Holding LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/07/2025 | |
| Shayna Steg Family Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/26/2024 | |
| Yitzchok Steg Family Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/26/2024 | |
| Cohen, Jesse | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/26/2024 | |
| Dunford, Carla | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/26/2024 | |
| Ehrenfeld, Mindy | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/07/2025 | |
| Gilmartin, Thomas | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/07/2025 | |
| Lopiansky, Rebecca | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/07/2025 | |
| Ostreicher, Marc | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/07/2025 | |
| Steg, Shayna | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/07/2025 | |
| Steg, Yitzchok | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/07/2025 |
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 Connecticut. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.