Home / Minnesota / Grand Rapids
2801 South Highway 169, Grand Rapids, MN 55744 · Itasca County · (218) 326-3431
77 certified beds, about 45 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1987
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 245495 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 17, 2026, inspectors cited 5 health deficiencies (the Minnesota average is 7.1, the national average 9.2).
Of 50 health citations since October 2023, 4 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (3 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 4 fines totaling $65,900 in the last three years; the largest was $27,378, and the latest is dated June 4, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.47 hours per resident per day, against 4.19 across Minnesota and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.95 of those hours.
48.9% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Minnesota average 42.2%).
CMS links it to Monarch Healthcare Management, an affiliated group of 45 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 50 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and document review the facility failed to keep linen carts covered that were in the communal hallways. The facility also failed to offer hand hygiene to the residents prior to meal service. Lastly the facility failed to identify and investigate a foodborne pathogen that was diagnosed in a resident. This had the potential to affect all residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to have a new order and a face-to-face provider visit every 14 days performed prior to renewing an as needed antipsychotic medication. This affected 1 of 5 (R34) residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure the use of thromboembolism-deterrent stockings (TEDs) as ordered for edema care. This affected 1 of 1 (R45) resident reviewed for edema.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to provide monitoring to a dialysis site following a dialysis treatment for 1 of 1 resident (R9) reviewed for dialysis care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to ensure daily staffing data was posted over the weekend. This deficient practice had the potential to affect any resident, family member, or visitor who wished to view the posting.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and document review the facility failed to reduce the risk of falls for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed when R1 was care planned to use two staff for transfers with a mechanical lift and nursing assistant (NA)-A attempted a mechanical lift transfer with one staff, R1 fell from the sling onto the floor sustaining a left femur fracture, head laceration and injury to left toes. The immediate jeopardy began on [DATE] when NA-A attempted a mechanical lift transfer with one staff, R1 fell from the sling onto the floor sustaining a left femur fracture, head laceration, and injury to left toes. R1 was care planned to use two staff for transfers with a mechanical lift and was identified on [DATE]. The administrator and director of nursing (DON) were notified of the IJ on [DATE] at 2:48 p.m. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review the facility failed to ensure controlled substances were accurately reconciled to prevent loss and diversion for 6 of 6 residents (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6,) reviewed for narcotic diversion. A report to the State Agency (SA) dated 11/25/25, indicated a police report identified medications were found in possession of a former employee of the facility. The report identified the following medications and empty packages. Prescribed to R1:Hydrocodone/acetaminophen 5 milligrams (mg) -325mg, total prescribed 18. Prescribed to R2:Clonazepam 0.5 mg empty, total prescribed 29. Prescribed to R3:Gabapentin 100 mg, containing 4 tablets, total prescribed 30. Prescribed to R4:Lorazepam 1mg, total prescribed 30. Prescribed to R5:Oxycodone 5 mg empty, total prescribed 28. Oxycodone 5 mg empty, total prescribed 8. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and document review the facility failed to notify the provider as ordered for a weight increase of 3 pounds (lb.) or more in 24 hours for 1of 2 residents (R27). The facility also failed to follow fluid restrictions as ordered for 2 of 2 residents (R27, R28). The facility also failed to address elevated blood glucose levels for 1 of 1 resident (R16). The facility also failed to have a resident assessed for usage of a walker for 1 of 1 resident (R12) reviewed for provider orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to maintain proper food storage temperature in a unit refrigerator containing resident food. Furthermore, the facility failed to ensure refrigerated food items were properly labeled and dated. This deficient practices had the potential to affect all residents and visitors using unit refigerators to store food.
Inspectors wroteBased observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure nebulizer equipment was properly washed, dried and stored for 2 of 2 residents (R29, R14); that equipment for tube feeding tube flushes was properly dated, rinsed, dried and stored for 1 of 1 residents (R16); and the facility failed to ensure proper PICC line cap placement occured for 1 of 1 resident (R200) who were reviewed for infection prevention and control.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review facility failed to perform a self-administration of medication assessment and obtain provider order to have medication left in room for 2 of 2 (R13 and R29) residents reviewed for self-administration of medication. R13's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated R13 had intact cognition. Diagnoses included heart failure, hypertension and renal insufficiency. During an observation of R13's room on 3/24/25 at 3:17 p.m., a box with a tube of diclofenac cream was noted on the shelf to the right of the bed. During an interview on 3/24/25 at 3:17 p.m., R13 stated the staff utilize the diclofenac cream on her back and just leave it on the shelf so it would be available when they needed it. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure advanced directives for emergency care and treatment were accurately reflected in all areas of the medical chart to ensure resident wishes would be implemented correctly in an emergent situation for 1 of 16 residents (R200) reviewed for advanced directives.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to provide the Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNFABN; CMS-10055) to 1 of 3 residents (R54) reviewed whose Medicare Part A coverage ended while in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review the facility failed to perform prescribed dressing changes to a pressure ulcer as ordered for 1 of 3 residents (R27) reviewed for pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to consistently monitor dialysis access site for 1 of 1 resident (R27) reviewed for dialysis care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure licensed staff were educated and competent in the administration of intravenous medications (IV) and/or the management and care of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) [a long thin tube inserted into a vein on the inside of the upper arm that extends into a larger vein leading to the heart for medication, blood, and nutrition administration] for 1 of 1 residents (R200) reviewed for PICC line care and management. This deficient practice had the potential to impact all residents at the facility who had IV/PICC access and/or received medications through IV/PICC access.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review the facility failed to make sure pharmacy recommendations were addressed timely for 2 of 5 residents (R28, R33) reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review the facility failed to have an appropriate diagnosis for use of medication for 1 of 5 residents (R28) reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review the facility failed to have an appropriate diagnosis for use of an antipsychotic for 1 of 5 residents (R28) reviewed for unnecessary medications. In addition, the facility failed to complete orthostatic blood pressure (series of blood pressures taken while lying, sitting, and standing) monitoring for an antipsychotic medication for 1 of 1 residents (R33).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to ensure medications were properly labeled with direction for use for 1 of 1 resident (R13).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and documentation review the facility failed to properly provide maintenance to maintain bed wheel locks to prevent bed from moving during transfers for 1 of 3 residents (R2) resident reviewed for falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure physician orders to obtain a Basic Metabolic Panel (BMP), and Urine Analysis (UA)/Urine Culture (UC) with susceptibility and sensitivity, timely for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed, who was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection (UTI)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed, who was cognitively impaired and able to leave the building without staff's knowledge into the courtyard which resulted in a fall and being able to exit the secured area. In addition, the facility failed to implement fall interventions for 1 of 3 residents (R1), who was at high risk for falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure discharge summary requirements were met, which included a recapitulation of resident's stay (a concise summary of the resident's stay and course of treatment in the facility) and a final summary of the resident's status at discharge, as well as communicating resident's condition upon discharge with receiving the facility for 1 of 1 residents (R1) reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure injuries following a fall were monitored for healing for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review the facility failed to provide the physician ordered textured diet for 1 of 3 residents (R1) who subsequently choked and required the Heimlich Maneuver. This was an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) for R1 who required hospitalization following the choking incident where she was determined to have aspirated and required mechanically assisted ventilation. The IJ began on 3/9/24, at approximately 6:30 p.m. when R1 was found by nursing assistant (NA)-A in the common area of the unit observed as pale, lips blue and unable to speak. R1 was administered the Heimlich Maneuver, suction and was sent to the hospital where she subsequently required mechanically assisted ventilation. The IJ was identified on 3/22/24, and the administrator was notified of the IJ on 3/22/24, at 1:00 p.m. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 residents (R1) was re-assessed for supervision with eating following a diet change order.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and document review the facility failed to ensure an environment free from hazards. This resulted in actual harm to R1 who sustained a second degree burn when his knee rested against the baseboard heater and he was unable to move his knee or call for help. The deficient practice was corrected prior to the start of the survey and was therefore issued at past noncompliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the resident [NAME] of Rights were provided in writing and ongoing for residents of the facility for 5 of 5 residents (R7, R15, R26, R43, R50) interviewed during resident meeting. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 54 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to have a process to assess, offer and provide the most recent Centers for Disease Control (CDC) education regarding the potential risks and benefits of the pneumococcal vaccine for 4 of 5 residents (R7, R13, R14, R24) reviewed for immunizations. This had the potential to affect all residents who were eligible for the pneumococcal booster.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to ensure preventative maintenance and weight calibration was conducted on three scales. This had the opportunity to affect 29 residents at the facility who are routinely weighed with these scales.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure clothing (other than a hospital type gown) was offered or provided for 1 of 3 residents (R205) reviewed for dignity. In addition, the facility failed to ensure bathing was offered or provided for 1 of 3 residents (R5) reviewed for dignity. The facility also failed to ensure a Medicare notification of non-coverage for therapy was delivered in a private and dignified manor for 1 of 3 residents (R42) reviewed for resident rights.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure self-administration of medications were assessed for safety and care planned accordingly to reduce the risk of an adverse event for 1 of 1 residents R31 reviewed for self-administration of medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 resident (R23) had access to their call light.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to correctly code Minimum Data Set (MDS) Section L. Oral/Dental Status to ensure dental issues were addressed in the plan of care for 1 of 1 resident (R12) reviewed for MDS accuracy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to provide quarterly care conferences for 1 of 4 residents (R17) reviewed for care planning.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure routine bathing was offered or provided to promote good hygiene for 1 of 5 residents (R5) reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs) and who was dependent on staff for their cares.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to appropriately position 1 of 3 residents (R24) reviewed for pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to follow care plan interventions for 1 of 2 residents (R33) reviewed for smoking.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure tracheostomy cares were followed for 1 of 1 resident (R31) reviewed for tracheostomy (an opening in the trachea [windpipe] from the outside to allow air and oxygen to reach the lungs) care. In addition, the facility failed to ensure oxygen use parameters were followed and oxygen tubing was changed in a timely manner for 1 of 2 residents (R31) reviewed for respiratory care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to ensure dialysis assessments and treatments were completed as ordered and documented per policy for 2 of 2 residents (R43 and R12) reviewed for dialysis care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the consultant pharmacist recommendations were addressed for 1 of 5 residents (R31) reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were dated when opened in 3 of 3 med carts reviewed for medication storage. This had the opportunity to affect five residents (R51, R46, R14, R35, R6).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation, and document review, the facility failed to coordinate necessary dental services for 1 of 1 resident (R12) reviewed for dental services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure proper hand hygiene and glove use practices were maintained for 1 of 3 residents (R24) observed during wound care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to protect facility residents from potential abuse when they allowed an alleged perpetrator (AP) (licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A) to work after an allegation of misappropriation of resident property (drug diversion). This had the potential to affect all seven residents who resided on Wing 3, who were ordered opioid (narcotic/pain) medication(s).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to report allegations of misappropriation of resident property to the State Agency (SA) within 24 hours of the allegation for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for drug diversion.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review the facility failed to maintain resident safety when a resident (R1) who was assessed to be at risk for elopement verbalized his intent to leave the facility, left without staff knowledge and was returned to the facility by two strangers. Further, R1 was allowed to discharge home against medical advice from the facility even though he had been assessed to have cognitive impairment and admitted due to recurrent falls. This resulted in an immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation for R1. The IJ began on 9/30/23, when R1 left the facility without staff knowledge. R1 was found by two strangers on a highly-trafficked four lane highway with a cut on his nose. Additionally, within two hours of R1' s return to the facility, R1 wanted to return home. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review the facility failed to report an elopement to state agency (SA) for 1 of 1 residents (R1) who eloped from the facility without staff knowledge.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an elopement for 1 of 1 residents (R1) who left the facility without staff knowledge and was found by two strangers on the highway.
15 fire safety citations on file: 5 on June 17, 2026, 7 on March 27, 2025, 3 on January 11, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| June 4, 2026 | Fine | $27,378 |
| March 22, 2024 | Fine | $14,433 |
| March 7, 2024 | Fine | $8,824 |
| October 13, 2023 | Fine | $15,265 |
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 | Minnesota | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.47 | 4.19 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.95 | 1.06 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.20 | 3.71 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.03 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.49 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 48.9% | 42.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 72.7% | 38.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.65 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 3.58 on weekdays and 3.20 on weekends, 11% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 21.5% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.29 in April to June 2025 to 3.47 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 | 3.47 | 0.95 | 3.58 | 3.20 | 21.5% | 0 of 90 | 45 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.03 | 0.64 | 3.12 | 2.79 | 14.6% | 0 of 92 | 45 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.10 | 0.65 | 3.19 | 2.89 | 11.7% | 1 of 92 | 44 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.29 | 0.75 | 3.42 | 2.96 | 15.6% | 1 of 91 | 48 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Minnesota, Jan to Mar 2026 | 4.19 | 1.05 | 4.38 | 3.73 | 5.2% | 0.8% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Minnesota, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $22.44 | $19.39 to $23.72 | 29,120 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $30.65 | $28.83 to $34.26 | 12,840 |
| Registered nurses | $48.80 | $42.76 to $55.17 | 70,110 |
| 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 | Minnesota | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.8 | 18.2 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.9 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.1 | 2.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.8 | 4.0 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.1 | 5.2 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 13.8 | 17.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 26.8 | 23.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 30.9 | 14.8 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for The Emeralds at Grand Rapids LLC's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (44.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
44.6% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Minnesota: 66 better, 14 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. 43 eligible stays.
10.3% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Minnesota: 0 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. 59 eligible stays.
6.1% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Minnesota: 2 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. 27 eligible stays.
56.7% this home
Median of homes: Minnesota57.8% · 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. 30 residents counted.
1.9% this home
Median of homes: Minnesota0.0% · 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. 54 residents counted.
2.1% this home
Median of homes: Minnesota2.0% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 54 residents counted.
69.2% this home
Median of homes: Minnesota98.5% · 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. 26 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: THE EMERALDS AT GRAND RAPIDS, LLC. CMS links this home to Monarch Healthcare Management, a group of 45 nursing homes averaging 2.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jca Holdings LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 10% | 02/01/2019 |
| Nij LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 10% | 02/01/2019 |
| Spartan Healthcare LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 30% | 02/01/2019 |
| Wbs Holdings LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 20% | 02/01/2019 |
| Yazoma Holdings, LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 30% | 02/01/2019 |
| Halpert, Marc | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 30% | 02/01/2019 |
| Jaffa, Noam | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 10% | 02/01/2019 |
| Legum, Joshua | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 30% | 02/01/2019 |
| Stern, William | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 20% | 02/01/2019 |
| Legum, Joshua | Contracted managing employee | Individual | 02/01/2019 | |
| Jaffa, Noam | Corporate director | Individual | 02/01/2019 | |
| Halpert, Marc | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/01/2019 | |
| Stern, William | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/01/2019 | |
| Monarch Healthcare Operating VIII LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 02/01/2019 |
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 Minnesota. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.