Home / California / Laguna Hills
25000 Calle De Los Caballeros, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 · Orange County · (949) 609-7540
59 certified beds, about 53 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1991
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 555462 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 16, 2025, inspectors cited 14 health deficiencies (the California average is 15.6, the national average 9.2).
None of its 41 health citations since November 2022 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.47 hours per resident per day, against 4.52 across California and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 1.21 of those hours.
45.3% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (California average 36.7%).
CMS links it to Aspen Skilled Healthcare, an affiliated group of 35 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 41 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to develop the comprehensive plan of care to reflect the individual care needs for two of five sampled residents (Residents 1 and 3). * The facility failed to develop a care plan to address when Resident 1 had an actual fall on 11/26/25. * The facility failed to develop a care plan to address Resident 3's upper back abrasion. These failures had the potential risk of not providing the appropriate, consistent, and individualized care to these residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the medical record was accurate for one of five sampled residents (Resident 3). * The facility failed to ensure Resident 3's change in condition documentation was accurate. This failure had the potential for the resident's health care needs not met as the medical record was inaccurate.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the reasonable accommodations to meet the needs of one of four sampled residents (Resident 2) reviewed for communication needs. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 2 was provided with the means to communicate her daily needs. This failure had the potential to negatively impact the resident's psychosocial well-being or result in delayed provision of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable well-being for one of four sampled residents (Resident 1). * The facility failed to ensure the follow-up assessment, physician notification, and documentation were completed when Resident 1 had low pulse rate and poor oral intakes. These failures posed the risk of the resident not receiving the appropriate care and delay in the provision of care to the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to implement the infection control practices designed to provide the safe and sanitary environment and help prevent the development and transmission of diseases and infections for one of four sampled residents (Resident 3). * The facility failed to ensure CNA 3 wore the appropriate PPE when providing high-contact resident care for Resident 3. This failure had the potential to transmit communicable disease to other residents throughout the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' entrapment assessments were accurate and complete for one of four sampled residents (Resident 2) and one nonsampled resident (Resident A) reviewed for grab rail use. * The facility failed to ensure the entrapment assessment of the grab rails were accurately completed for Residents 2 and A. This failure had the potential to negatively impact the residents resulting in possible entrapment, serious injury, and death.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plans were developed to reflect the individual care needs for one of four sampled residents (Resident 3) reviewed for care plans. * The facility failed to ensure a care plan was developed for the use of the anticoagulant medication ordered by the physician. This failure had the potential for the resident to not be provided with appropriate, consistent, and individualized care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the food safety and sanitary requirements were met in the kitchen as evidenced by: * The facility failed to ensure the proper hand hygiene was followed during the food preparation. * The facility failed to ensure proper labeling and dating of food in the refrigerator. * The facility failed to ensure the hair restraints were worn by staff in the kitchen. * The facility failed to ensure the kitchen equipment was maintained in a sanitary condition. * The facility failed to ensure the food item in the walk-in freezer was dated and labeled. * The facility failed to ensure the ice cream freezer was in sanitary condition. These failures had the potential to cause foodborne illnesses for the 53 residents who consumed food prepared in the kitchen.
Inspectors wrote7. Medical Record review of Resident 26 was initiated on 5/13/25. Resident 26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. On 5/13/25 at 0830 hours, Resident 26's disposable gown hamper (dirty) was observed touching the PPE isolation cart. 8.a. Medical Record review of Resident 18 was initiated on 5/13/25. Resident 18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident 18's plan of care dated 4/21/25, showed a care plan problem addressing the resident's EBP due to GT and indwelling urinary catheter use. The interventions included to ensure proper PPE were donned before providing high contact activities. On 5/13/25 at 0830 hours, Resident 18's disposable gown hamper (dirty) was observed touching the PPE isolation cart. Resident 18 was observed with a GT and an indwelling urinary catheter hanging on the right side of the bed frame. [...]
Inspectors wrote2.a. On 5/13/25 at 1056 hours, an inspection of the facility's medication refrigerator was conducted with the DSD. The freezer compartment located inside this medication refrigerator was observed to have ice buildup. Some of the ice buildup was starting to melt and water drops were observed falling down onto the medication packages and medication bags stored directly below the freezer compartment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the reasonable accommodations to meet the needs of three nonsampled residents (Residents 16, 46, and 346). The facility failed to ensure Residents 16, 46, and 346's call lights were within the residents' reach. These failures had the potential to negatively impact the residents' psychosocial well-being or result in a delay in receiving care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to provide services to attain or maintain the highest practicable well-being for one nonsampled resident (Resident 30). * Resident 30 had a physician's orders to administer Synthroid (man-made thyroid hormone) and Ajovy (used to prevent migraines in adults) medications from the acute care hospital. However, these orders were omitted during the admission process to the facility. This failure posed the risk of the resident not being able to take the prescribed medications and could potentially cause adverse effects to Resident 30 due to missing the prescribed medications.
Inspectors wrote2. Medical record review for Resident 344 was initiated on 5/13/25. Resident 344 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident 344's Order Summary Report showed the following physician's orders dated 5/3/25: - To check the right upper arm midline site every shift; - To perform dressing change of PICC line site every day shift every seven days and record external catheter measurement in every dressing change; and - To perform dressing change of PICC line site as needed and record external catheter measurement in every dressing change Review of Resident 344's plan of care showed the following: - A care plan problem dated 5/5/25, to address Resident 344's IV therapy related to poor oral intake and high risk for infection on the right upper arm midline IV site. The interventions included observing IV site for redness, tenderness, swelling, puffiness, infiltration, and occlusion. [...]
Inspectors wrote3. Medical Record review for Resident 26 was initiated on 5/13/25. Resident 26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. On 5/13/25 at 0830 hours, Resident 26 was observed to have a nebulizer mask and tubing stored inside the bedside table drawer, touching the base of the drawer, and not bagged. Resident 26 stated she received a breathing treatment via nebulizer two times a day. On 5/13/25 at 0945 hours, an observation for Resident 26 and concurrent interview was conducted with RN 2. Resident 26's nebulizer tubing and mask were found to be unbagged and undated. RN 2 stated the nebulizer should be properly bagged and dated. RN 2 verified the findings. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure the competency of one of two licensed nurses (LVN 2) observed in performing a calibration of a medical equipment . LVN 2 was unable to demonstrate competency in the calibration of a glucometer. This failure had the potential of not providing care to the residents in a safe and competent manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and professional standards literature review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 5) was free of significant medication errors as evidenced by: * RN 4 administered Resident 5's ciprofloxacin (antibiotic) eye drop into the wrong eye. This failure had the potential for poor health outcome for this resident.
Inspectors wrote2. Review of the facility's P&P titled Medication Storage in the Facility, ID 1: Storage of Medication dated 4/2008 showed medications and biologicals are stored safely, securely, and properly, following manufacturer's recommendations or those of the supplier. The medication supply is accessible only to licensed nursing personnel, pharmacy personnel, or staff members lawfully authorized. The provider pharmacy dispenses medications in containers that meet legal requirements, including standards set forth by the United States Pharmacopeia (USP). Medications are kept in these containers. Transfer of medication from one container to another is done only by pharmacy. Medical record review for Resident 31 was initiated on 5/13/25. Resident 31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, facility P&P review, and facility document review, the facility failed to conduct a regular bed inspection as part of a regular maintenance program to identify areas of possible entrapment for two of two final sampled residents (Residents 17 and 344). This failure had the potential to negatively impact the residents resulting in possible entrapment, serious injury, and death.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program to prevent the presence of flies in the kitchen. This failure had the potential to lead to food borne illnesses (illness caused by food contaminated with bacteria, viruses, parasites or toxins) for the facility residents who consumed food prepared in the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the facility's garbage and refuse was properly disposed. This failure had the potential to cause unsafe sanitary conditions and potential to harbor pests and rodents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to implement the antibiotic stewardship program. * The facility failed to ensure the McGeer criteria (criteria used by long-term care facilities to determine a true infection) for true infection was completed and accurate for one nonsampled residents (Resident 597) . This failure had the potential for inaccurately identifying the true infections and potentially inhibiting the residents from receiving the appropriate treatment and care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facilityP&P review, the facility failed to ensure the medical record for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) was accurate and complete. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 1's admission to the facility, refusal of care, and discharge information was accurately and/or completely documented. This failure had the potential for Resident 1 to not receive the appropriate care and can negatively impact her overall health and wellbeing.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, facility record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to document the interviewed staff during their abused investigation process as per their P&P for one of four sampled residents (Resident 1). This failure had the potential to negatively impact the resident as the information was not complete.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the sanitary requirements were met in the kitchen as evidenced by: * The facility failed to ensure the use of hair and beard restraints was implemented by the dietary staff member working in the kitchen. This failure posed the risk to cause foodborne illnesses in a medically vulnerable resident population who consumed food prepared from the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) or their RP was informed of a new medication ordered by the physician. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 1 or Resident 1's RP was notified of a new physician's order for Levaquin (antibiotic medication). This failure had the potential for Resident 1 and their responsible party to not be informed of the medications and their potential side effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the resident's physician was promptly notified of the resident's unwitnessed fall for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) as per the facility's P&P. This failure had the potential to result in inadequate care for the Resident 1.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to submit a level I preadmission screening and resident review (PASARR) for a resident that resided in the facility greater than 30 days for 2 (Resident #3 and Resident #107) of 2 sampled residents reviewed for PASARR services.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was monitored for psychotropic medication use and an order for a PRN (pro re nata, as needed) psychotropic medication was limited to 14 days for 1 (Resident #102) of 5 sampled resident reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to conduct the status post change of condition assessments for one of five sampled residents (Resident 1). * Resident 1 had a change of condition involving an episode of hypotension (low blood pressure) of 77/49 mmHg. The facility failed to follow up with the physician regarding the change of condition and failed to conduct an assessment related to the resident's change of condition prior Resident 1's emergent transfer to the acute care hospital. These failures posed the risk for changes in Resident 1's medical condition not being identified, potentially delaying necessary care and treatment, which posed the risk for negative health outcomes to the resident.
Inspectors wroteIntakes: CA00862761 Based on interview and medical record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services for one of two sampled residents (Residents 1) to maintain their highest physical well-being. * The facility failed to follow the physician's order to arrangefor cardiology and neurology consults for Resident 1. * Resident 1 was on multiple diuretic medications for CHF resulting in severe weight loss. The facility failed to notify the physician and ensure the interventions to manage Resident 1's significant weight loss in a timely manner. These failures had the potential to not provide the necessary care and services to meet the care needs for Resident 1.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure a qualified individual was responsible to oversee the day-to-day food service operations when: * The food service supervisor did not possess the qualifications necessary to oversee the day-to-day food service operations, and * The RD did not provide oversight of the food service operations. These failures had the potential for risk of food borne illness and compromising nutritional status in all 48 residents that received food prepared in the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, facility P&P, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure the food safety and sanitation requirements were met in the kitchen as evidenced by the following: * The facility failed to ensure the mechanically altered chicken prepared for the lunch meal service was served with an internal food temperature of equal to or more than 165 degrees Fahrenheit . * The facility failed to ensure the TCS (time/temperature control for safety foods - foods that require time and temperature controls to limit the growth of illness causing bacteria) were not cooled properly. * The facility failed to ensure the kitchen staff wore gloves when handling the residents' food. * The facility failed to ensure the thawing of frozen foods in the main kitchen walk-in refrigerator were covered, labeled, and dated. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to treat one of 12 final sampled residents (Resident 258) with dignity and respect when her wish to not be touched by a male staff was not followed. This failure had the potential to result in emotional distress to the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to determine whether the residents wished to formulate the advance directives and failed to obtain and maintain a copy of the advance directives for three of 12 final sampled residents (Resident 7, Resident 45, & Resident 56). * The facility failed to determine whether Residents 7 and 56 wished to formulate the advance directives. * The facility failed to obtain a copy of the advance directives for inclusion in the medical record for Resident 45. These failures had the potential for the residents' decisions regarding the health care and treatment options not being honored.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the physician's order for oxygen treatment for one of 12 final sampled residents (Residents 7) included the dose of oxygen to be administered to the resident as per the facility's P&P. This failure posed the risk for Resident 7 to experience respiratory complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, facility P&P review, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure one of four cooks (Cook 1) had the appropriate skill set to safely perform the daily operations of the Food Service Department as evidenced by: * [NAME] 1 failed to wear gloves when handling food in the kitchen. * [NAME] 1 failed to ensure the utensils used during the food preparation were air dried prior to them being used. These failures had the potential for unsafe food practices which may lead to food borne illness in a highly susceptible population of 46 residents who received food from the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility document and P&P review, the facility failed to ensure a menu system approved by the RD was implemented when: 1. The diet spreadsheet (a document which referenced portion sizes and therapeutic diet extensions) and a corresponding nutritional analysis (a breakdown of macro and micronutrients provided by the diet) were not implemented and had not been reviewed and approved by the RD. 2. Puree recipes were not developed and followed for the current menu being used. These failures posed the risk of resident nutritional needs not being met which in turn could lead to compromised nutritional status including weight loss, skin breakdown and dehydration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure resident's food preference was followed for one of 12 final sampled residents (Resident 38). This failure had the potential to negatively impact the resident's well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, facility P&P review, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure the policy regarding outside food brought for residents by the family or visitors was followed. This failure posed the risk for potential unsafe food handling practices.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and facility document review, the facility failed to provide adequate information regarding a staff member who was tested positive for COVID-19 to the local county public health agency. This failure had the potential for inaccurate surveillance which could result in the spread of infection to the residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure the residents and/or their representatives were informed of the facility's COVID-19 cases. This failure posed the risk for the residents and their families not aware of the positive COVID-19 cases or exposures in the facility.
22 fire safety citations on file: 9 on May 16, 2025, 7 on June 13, 2024, 6 on November 10, 2022.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
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 | California | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 4.47 | 4.52 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 1.21 | 0.67 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 4.05 | 4.09 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.76 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.50 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 45.3% | 36.7% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 40.0% | 38.1% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 5.37 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 4.63 on weekdays and 4.05 on weekends, 13% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.6% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.61 in April to June 2025 to 4.47 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 | 4.47 | 1.21 | 4.63 | 4.05 | 0.6% | 0 of 90 | 53 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.68 | 1.26 | 4.91 | 4.09 | 0.4% | 0 of 92 | 53 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.65 | 1.22 | 4.91 | 4.00 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 52 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.61 | 1.19 | 4.91 | 3.85 | 0.8% | 0 of 91 | 52 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| California, Jan to Mar 2026 | 4.36 | 0.59 | 4.52 | 3.97 | 2.3% | 0.5% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| California, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $22.90 | $22.04 to $26.35 | 110,060 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $38.34 | $35.98 to $45.06 | 82,850 |
| Registered nurses | $67.44 | $58.87 to $83.25 | 338,940 |
| 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 | California | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.2 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 28.2 | 22.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 11.0 | 11.2 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Villa Valencia Healthcare Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (74.1% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
74.1% this home
Better than the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · California: 301 better, 190 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. 774 eligible stays.
9.6% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · California: 10 better, 22 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. 776 eligible stays.
6.9% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · California: 8 better, 48 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. 497 eligible stays.
55.9% this home
Median of homes: California59.2% · 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. 145 residents counted.
0.2% this home
Median of homes: California0.0% · 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. 508 residents counted.
0.5% this home
Median of homes: California0.6% · 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. 508 residents counted.
96.2% this home
Median of homes: California96.2% · 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. 263 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: ALHV LLC. CMS links this home to Aspen Skilled Healthcare, a group of 35 nursing homes averaging 3.7 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alhv LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 08/06/2020 | |
| Aspen Skilled Healthcare Inc | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 08/06/2020 | |
| Jacaranda Healthcare Group LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 01/01/2023 | |
| Bradshaw, Jeffrey | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 08/06/2020 | |
| Bradshaw, Peter | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 07/07/2023 | |
| Brady, Vern | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 08/06/2020 | |
| Case, Ryan | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 08/06/2020 | |
| Elsner, Eric | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 08/06/2020 | |
| Kirkwood, Jared | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 08/06/2020 | |
| Orgill, Craig | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 08/06/2020 | |
| Parti, Rajesh | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 08/06/2020 | |
| Parti, Shruty | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 08/06/2020 | |
| Paxman, Marcus | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 04/01/2022 | |
| Caslmon, Timothy | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Thompson, Stephen | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Alhv LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 08/06/2020 | |
| Caslmon, Timothy | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Nordfelt, Spencer | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/03/2022 | |
| Thompson, Stephen | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Tran, Roger | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2017 | |
| Villahermosa-Calumpang, Cristina | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/31/2021 | |
| Bradshaw, Jeffrey | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 09/15/2025 | |
| Alhv LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/06/2020 | |
| Aspen Healthcare Services LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2023 | |
| East West Bank | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/06/2020 | |
| Jacaranda Healthcare Group LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2023 | |
| Moss Adams LLP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/06/2020 | |
| Wells Fargo & Co | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/06/2020 | |
| Bradshaw, Jeffrey | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Brady, Vern | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Case, Ryan | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Caslmon, Timothy | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Jurado, Frank | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Nordfelt, Spencer | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/03/2022 | |
| Paxman, Marcus | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Thompson, Stephen | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Tran, Roger | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/01/2017 | |
| Villahermosa-Calumpang, Cristina | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/31/2021 |
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.
Licensed assisted living homes in the same town or within 5 miles, each with its California inspection record.
These are the official offices in California. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.