3443 N Macarthur Blvd, Irving, TX 75062 · Dallas County · (469) 586-4424
124 certified beds, about 104 residents a day · Non profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 2014
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 676358 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on July 3, 2025, inspectors cited 13 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 30 health citations since April 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $25,259 in the last three years; the largest was $14,069, and the latest is dated July 3, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.45 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.62 of those hours.
43.0% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Stonegate Senior Living, an affiliated group of 24 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 30 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to protect the confidentiality of personal and medical records for 7 (Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3, Resident #4, Resident #5, Resident #6, Resident #7) of 8 residents observed for personal privacy and confidentiality of records.1. The facility failed to ensure the confidentiality of Resident #1's health information when there was a posted sign that reflected, Feeder on Resident #1's door on 06/06/26.2. The facility failed to ensure that the lunch meal tickets for 6 (Resident #2, Resident #3, Resident #4, Resident #5, Resident #6, Resident #7) of 6 residents on the 700 Hall were not in view of the public on 07/29/26. These failures could affect residents by placing them at risk for loss of privacy and dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident rooms were adequately equipped to allow residents to call for staff assistance through a communication system which relays the call directly to a staff member or to a centralized staff work area for 2 of 10 residents (Residents #1 and #2) reviewed for resident call light system. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 had a call light. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2's call light was placed within reach. These failures could place residents at risk of injuries and unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation for one of six residents (Resident #87) reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to ensure Resident #87 had the right to be free from abuse when Resident #3 physically assaulted her on 03/03/25. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure could place residents at risk for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure it was adequately equipped to allow residents to call for staff assistance through a communication system which relays the call directly to a staff member or to a centralized staff work area from each resident's bedside and toilet and bathing facilities for 7 of 7 Halls checked for functional call light system (Halls 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700). The facility failed to ensure there was a working call light system available to residents to use after a weather-related storm occurred on 06/25/25 which caused the call light system to stop functioning. This failure placed residents at risk of not receiving timely care/assistance, falls, fall related injuries, head trauma, and hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs, to include adequate monitoring for four (Residents #1, #33, #45 and #55) of six residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. 1. The facility failed to monitor worsening of depression and behaviors for Resident #1's for the use of Sertraline 50mgs and ramelteon 8 mg tablet (antidepressants medication). 2. The facility did not monitor Resident #33 for side effects of the antidepressant medication, Mirtazapine; the antipsychotic medication, Quetiapine; the antianxiety medication, Trazodone; and the antidepressant medication, Duloxetine. 3. The facility failed to monitor behaviors for Resident 45's for the use of Alprazolam Tablet 0.25 MG for (anti-anxiety), fluoxetine 40mg and Ramelteon 8 mg tablet (antidepressant medications).4. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide food prepared by methods, which conserved nutritive value, flavor, and appearance for one of one pureed meal observed for nutrition. The Dietary Aide failed to ensure the pureed lunch meal on 07/02/25 was prepared according to the recipe to conserve nutritive value and flavor. The failure could place residents, who were on a pureed diet, at risk for a decrease in nutritive status, loss of appetite, decreased intake, and unwanted weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to accommodate the needs and preferences for one (Resident #23) of five residents reviewed for accommodation of needs, in that: The facility failed to provide a working communication system, that was easily within reach, that would allow Resident #23 the ability to safely call staff for assistance. This failure could place residents at risk of not having a means of directly contacting caregivers in an emergency or when they needed support for daily living.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure completion of a discharge summary including a recapitulation of the resident's stay, and final status at discharge for one resident (Resident #113) of five residents reviewed for discharge summary. The facility failed to complete a discharge summary for Resident #113. This failure could place residents at risk of not having complete records after permanent discharge from the facility and disruption in the continuity of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to coordinate assessments with the PASRR program for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #55) reviewed for PASRR assessments. The facility did not refer Resident #55 to the appropriate state-designated mental health authority for review when she received a new diagnosis of schizophrenia on 10/17/24. This failure could place residents at risk of not being evaluated and receive needed PASRR services. Record review of Resident #55's quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 03/26/25, reflected the Resident #55 was a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment and described the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for one (Resident #33) of 19 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to develop a care plan to address Resident #33's self-transfer to the toilet and stay there for long periods of time, sometimes falling asleep, multiple times a day. This failure could place residents at risk of receiving inadequate interventions not individualized to their care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living receives the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #8) reviewed for ADL care. The facility failed to provide Resident #8 assistance with timely incontinence care for at least 5 hours. Resident #8 was observed to be soaked and soiled through to her wheelchair padding. This failure could place the residents at risk for decreased feelings of self-worth, skin breakdown, and infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice for one of three residents (Residents #8) reviewed for oxygen. 1. The facility failed to ensure Residents #8's orders for oxygen administration were being accurately provided. This failure placed residents who received oxygen therapy at risk for inadequate or inappropriate amounts of oxygen delivery and ineffective treatment.
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 drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident on one of 4 medication carts (500 Halls cart) and 2 of 4 residents (Residents #50 and #63) reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure the 500 Hall nurses' medication cart had accurate narcotic counts for Residents #50 and #63. This failure could place residents at risk for medication errors, drug diversion, and delay in medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored securely for 2 (Resident #314 and Resident #324) of 18 residents observed for medication storage. 1. Resident #314 had a tube of Estradiol cream at her bedside table not locked in a lock box or secured in the medication cart or medication room. 2. Resident #324 had Clotrimazole vaginal antifungal cream on her bedside table not locked in a lock box or secured in the mediation cart or mediation room. This failure could place residents at risk of overmedication or adverse drug reactions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to prevent the development and transmission of infection for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #8) observed for infection control. CAN M failed to perform proper hand hygiene while providing incontinence care to Resident #8. This failure could affect the resident by placing them at risk for worsening conditions and cross contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents. The facility failed to keep a disinfectant cleaner containing four types of ammonium chloride out of Resident #1's reach to prevent the resident from drinking it. The resident was sent to the hospital after his lips began to swell and turn red. Resident #1 was diagnosed with acid burns to his oral mucosa (the mucous membrane that lines the inside of the mouth, including the cheeks, lips, floor of the mouth, and tongue) and had to be intubated for acute respiratory failure. The noncompliance was identified as past noncompliance. The Immediate Jeopardy began on 01/12/25 and ended on 01/13/25. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to incorporate the recommendations from the Preadmission Screening and Resident Record review (PASRR) Level II determination and the PASRR evaluation report for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for PASRR assessments. The facility failed to submit a NFSS form request by the specific deadline for Residents #2 for therapy services. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving or benefiting from specialized therapy and equipment services they may require.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for one (Resident #1) of three residents reviewed for accidents. CNA B failed to follow Resident #1's plan of care when she prepared to transfer the resident without assistance using a mechanical lift. This failure placed all residents, who required 2+ person assist with transfers/mobility, at risk for accidents and injuries.
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 for 6 of 20 rooms (Rooms 330, 340, 602, 704, 707, and 710) and 3 of 6 carts (300 Hall, 500 Hall, and 700 Hall) reviewed for accidents and hazards. The facility failed to identify a process to ensure sharps containers for Rooms 330, 340, 602, 704, 707 and 710 and carts for 300 Hall, 500 Hall, and 700 Hall were monitored and changed before they became overfilled. This failure could place residents at risk of exposure to bloodborne pathogens.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals to meet the needs of each resident on two of four medication carts (100 and 300 Halls nurses' carts) and 2 of 3 staff (LVN E and LVN G) reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure 100 and 300 halls nurses medication cart contained accurate narcotic logs for Residents #35 and #75. LVN E and LVN G failed to document the administration of narcotic medications in a correct and timely manner. This failure could place residents at risk for drug diversion and delay in medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure, in accordance with State and Federal laws, all drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments and were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles for 4 (#102, #167, #170, and #175) of 10 residents reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure Residents #102 bottle of nystatin powder medications was securely stored in the medication room or medication cart. The facility failed to ensure Resident, #167,budesonide 160 mcg-glycopyr 9 mcg\formot 4.8 mcg/actuation HFA inhaler, albuterol sulfate HFA 90 mcg/actuation Aerosol Inhaler ,a box of ipratropium 0.5 mg-albuterol 3 mg (2.5 mg base)/3 mL nebulization solution, were securely stored in the medication room or medication cart. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for the facility's only kitchen, reviewed for kitchen sanitation. The facility failed to ensure the ice machine scoop, located in the facility's kitchen, was thoroughly cleaned. These failures could place residents at risk for cross contamination and other air-borne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 2 of 2 Residents (Residents #16 and #31) reviewed for infection control. The facility failed to ensure LVN A used appropriate hand hygiene when providing medications through a feeding tube to Resident #16 and #31. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of infection for transmission of communicable diseases and a decline in health.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for pests. On 6/04/24 and 6/05/24 Flies and gnats were observed in multiple areas of the facility to include kitchen, dining room, hall 700, hall 500. This failure could affect residents by placing them at an increased risk of exposure to pests and vector-borne diseases and infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was fed by enteral means received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications from enteral feeding for 1 (Resident #16) of 3 residents reviewed for enteral feeds. The facility failed to ensure Resident #16's enteral feed was properly administered at the correct rate of infusion. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the proper nutritional requirements prescribed by the physician.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who need respiratory care were provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice for one (#38) of two residents reviewed for oxygen orders. The facility failed to administer oxygen for #38 as ordered by the physician. This failure could place residents at risk of receiving incorrect or inadequate oxygen support, resulting in a decline in health.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living received necessary services to maintain grooming, and personal hygiene for one (Resident #1) of 5 residents reviewed for ADLs. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 received timely incontinent care. This failure could put residents at risk of impaired skin integrity, and decreased feelings of self-worth and dignity. Findings Include: Record review of Resident #1's electronic Face Sheet, dated 01/09/24, revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments under proper temperature controls for one (500 Hall refrigerator) of two medications storage refrigerators, led to ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored securely, provide pharmaceutical services, including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals, to meet the needs of each resident for two (Hall 500 and 700 Medication Cart) of four medication carts reviewed for pharmacy services and one (300 hall) two refrigerators reviewed for labeling and storage for compliance. 1. The facility failed to ensure the temperatures for the medication refrigerators for the 500 hall was being checked and documented. 2. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to submit a discharge MDS assessment for two (Resident #24 and Resident #109) of four residents reviewed for timely MDS submission. The MDS Coordinator failed to successfully submit discharge MDS assessments for Resident #24 and Resident #109 when they discharged to their homes. This failure could prevent communication about a resident's status from being transmitted to CMS and could interfere with residents receiving needed services after discharge.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored securely, provide pharmaceutical services, including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals, to meet the needs of each resident for one (Hall 500 Medication Cart) of four medication carts reviewed for pharmacy services and one (300 hall) of two refrigerators reviewed for labeling and storage for compliance. The facility failed to ensure expired medications in nurse medication carts for Hall 500 and refrigerator for 300 halls were removed and destroyed. The failure placed residents at risk of receiving medications that were ineffective due to having expired medications on the cart and in the refrigerator .
12 fire safety citations on file: 11 on July 3, 2025, 1 on June 6, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| July 3, 2025 | Fine | $11,190 |
| February 21, 2025 | Fine | $14,069 |
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) | 3.45 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.62 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.02 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.00 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.84 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 43.0% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 40.0% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.92 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 3.62 on weekdays and 3.02 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 3.46 in April to June 2025 to 3.45 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 | 3.45 | 0.62 | 3.62 | 3.02 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 104 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 2.77 | 0.44 | 2.90 | 2.45 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 131 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.35 | 0.47 | 3.51 | 2.93 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 113 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.46 | 0.55 | 3.61 | 3.05 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 110 |
| 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.
| 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 | 9.5 | 15.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 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 | 4.1 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.2 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 17.9 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.1 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.9 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 22.7 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 10.4 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.7 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.7 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for The Villages on Macarthur's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (58.9% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
58.9% 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. 169 eligible stays.
10.4% 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. 175 eligible stays.
4.8% 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. 101 eligible stays.
45.6% 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. 92 residents counted.
0.7% 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. 152 residents counted.
0.6% 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. 152 residents counted.
76.1% this home
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. 46 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: SOUTH LIMESTONE HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to Stonegate Senior Living, a group of 24 nursing homes averaging 2.4 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| South Limestone Hospital District | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 02/27/2015 |
| Umb Bank National Association | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 09/23/2021 | |
| Price, Larry | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/01/1982 | |
| Pf Irving SNF Ops, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 09/23/2021 | |
| Stonegate Senior Living, LP | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 06/22/2022 | |
| Olvera, Noel | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/14/2025 | |
| Campbell, Scott | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 12/03/2025 | |
| Chance, James | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 12/03/2025 | |
| Fisher, James | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 12/04/2025 | |
| Langdon, Thomas | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 12/03/2025 | |
| McGehee, William | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 12/03/2025 | |
| Taylor, John | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 12/03/2025 | |
| Lifetime Wellness, Ltd. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/23/2021 | |
| Martus Financial Services, Inc. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/31/2023 | |
| Pf Irving SNF Ops, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/02/2025 | |
| Pharmerica Drug Systems LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/27/2017 | |
| Preservation Freehold Company | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/23/2021 | |
| Rehab Pro LP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/23/2021 | |
| Sanctuary LTC, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/23/2021 | |
| Stonegate Senior Living, LP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/02/2025 | |
| Obe, Olukayode | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/01/2021 | |
| Okoro, Chibuike | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/01/2023 | |
| Olvera, Noel | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/14/2025 | |
| Yaft, John | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2020 |
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.