3955 Se 182nd Avenue, Gresham, OR 97030 · Multnomah County · (503) 665-0183
106 certified beds, about 71 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1967
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 385068 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 5, 2026, inspectors cited 8 health deficiencies (the Oregon average is 9.2, the national average 9.2).
Of 44 health citations since September 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $22,695 in the last three years; the largest was $18,470, and the latest is dated June 5, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.96 hours per resident per day, against 5.03 across Oregon and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.52 of those hours.
CMS links it to Evergreen Healthcare Group, an affiliated group of 43 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 44 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to comprehensively assess a resident for the use of an electric wheelchair and develop new interventions to reduce the risk of falls for 2 of 4 sampled residents (#s 3 and 73) reviewed for accidents. This failure resulted in Resident 73 sustaining a five-centimeter laceration (a jagged wound or cut in the flesh) to her/his right anterior (toward the front) lower leg, multiple leg fractures and a brief syncopal episode (fainting or passing out) secondary to blood loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to monitor temperatures in the medication refrigerators for 3 of 3 medication refrigerators. This places residents at risk for receiving ineffective medications or vaccinations.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were allowed to retain and use personal possessions for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#50) reviewed for edema. This placed residents at risk for diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents could access their closets independently for 1 of 1 sampled residents (#23) reviewed for accommodation of needs. This placed residents at risk for inability to access personal belongings.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to provide a written bed-hold notice at the time of hospital transfer for 1 of 1 resident (#76), provide residents with the necessary written documentation related to hospital transfer and discharge and did not notify the Long-Term Care Ombudsman for 2 of 3 residents (#s76 and 78) reviewed for hospitalization and discharge. This placed residents at risk for lack of being informed, financial responsibilities and Ombudsman advocacy.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow physician orders for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#7) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for adverse side effects to medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident's ordered pain medication was available to the resident 17 out 186 dose administration opportunities for 1 of 1 sampled residents (#56) reviewed for pain management. This placed residents at risk for uncontrolled pain.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to offer pneumococcal immunizations for 2 of 5 sampled residents (#s 7 and 56) reviewed for immunizations. This placed residents at risk for pneumonia.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to implement proper safety protocols for bathing equipment, which contributed to a fall for 1 of 3 sampled resident (#1) reviewed for falls. This placed resident at risk for injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to re-evaluate preventative interventions in the presence of new pressure ulcers for 1 of 3 (#1) sampled residents reviewed for skin issues. This placed residents at risk for developing new pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free from significant medication errors for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#3) reviewed for medications. As a result, Resident 3 experienced significant clinical symptoms (increased swelling of the extremities, lowered oxygen levels and shortness of breath) related to the medication error and had a 10-day hospitalization stay.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure proper hand hygiene and infection control practices were followed during CBG monitoring for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#22) reviewed for dialysis and failed to ensure enhanced barrier and transmission based precautions were followed for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for infection control precautions. This placed residents at risk for infections, communicable diseases and cross-contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were notified their of rights both orally and in writing on an ongoing basis for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for Resident Council. This placed residents at risk for not being informed of their rights.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to have a system in place to deliver mail on Saturdays for 1 of 1 Resident Council reviewed. This placed residents at risk for lack of timely written communications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to comprehensively assess 3 of 7 sampled residents (#s 15, 18 and 33) reviewed for medications, ROM and behaviors. This placed residents at risk for unassessed needs and a lack of a person-centered care plan.
Inspectors wrote2. Resident 17 was admitted to the facility in 2021 with diagnoses including stroke and Aphasia (language disorder that affects a person's ability to communicate). Resident 17's 10/13/24 Annual MDS revealed the resident experienced severely impaired cognition. Resident 17 liked listening to music, doing things in groups of people, pets, participating in favorite activities and participating in religious activities or practices. On 1/27/25 at 1:11 PM Witness 4 (Family) stated Resident 17 enjoyed watching television, listening to music, especially jazz, classical and the oldies. Witness 4 stated Resident 17 had a radio in her/his room but they had not seen the radio since last spring. A review of Resident 17's current care plan directed staff to complete the following: - Assist patient to/from activity area. -Coordinate with nursing/therapy staff to get patient up for activities of choice. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide evidence a designated licensed nurse (LN) served as a charge nurse to provide the appropriate competencies and skills sets to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for staffing. This placed the residents at risk for unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure an RN was available for at least eight consecutive hours per day seven days per week for 9 of 27 days reviewed for staffing. This placed residents at risk for lack of timely RN assessments and care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with dignity for 1 of 1 sampled resident (# 3) and 1 of 1 facility reviewed for dignity and dining. This placed residents at risk for lack of dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to inform residents and/or the residents' responsible party of the risks and benefits, and to ensure consent was obtained for the use of psychotropic medications for 1 of 5 sampled residents (# 220) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for lack of informed consent.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were included in care planning for 1 of 4 sampled residents (#28) reviewed for care planning. This placed residents at risk for not being involved in the care planning process.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to determine the appropriateness for the self-administration of medication for 2 of 2 sampled residents (#s 18 and 60) reviewed for self-administering medication. This placed residents at risk for unsafe medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure the call light was within reach for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#17) reviewed for call lights. This placed residents at risk for accidents and the inability to call for assistance.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide SNF ABN (Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice of Non-Coverage) notifications to 1 of 3 sampled residents (#34) reviewed for Beneficiary Notification. This placed residents and their representatives at risk for unknown financial liabilities.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure accurate assessments for 2 of 5 sampled residents (#s 25 and 45) reviewed for medications. This placed residents at risk for unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to conduct a new/accurate Level I PASARR (Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review) when the facility became aware of indicators of a serious mental illness diagnosis and failed to complete a referral for a Level ll PASARR for 1 of 2 sampled residents (# 24) reviewed for PASARR coordination of care. This placed residents with a mental health disorder at risk for delayed care, emotional distress related to mental illness and lack of services to attain their highest practicable well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to comprehensively develop a resident-centered baseline care plan within 48 hours of a resident's admission for 2 of 3 sampled residents (#s 41 and 220) reviewed for choices and accidents. This placed residents at risk for unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to develop a plan of care to address resident centered medication management or need for PASARR (Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review) for 2 of 3 residents (#s 24 and 118) reviewed for implementation of physician orders or PASSAR. This placed the residents at risk for emotional distress related to lack of services to attain their highest practicable well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide care and treatment as care planned for 1 of 3 sampled residents (# 25) reviewed for skin conditions and failed to ensure person-centered medication management for 1 of 1 sampled resident (# 118) reviewed for implementation of physician orders. This placed residents at risk for delayed treatment and unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide glasses repair assistance for 1 of 1 sampled resident (# 45) reviewed for vision. This placed residents at risk for decreased visual abilities.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to regularly provide restorative nursing services to ensure residents maintained or improved their current level of ROM or mobility for 2 of 2 residents (#s 18 and 33) reviewed for mobility. This placed residents at risk for decline in physical functioning.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to update pain medication instructions to include resident centered dosing for 1 of 3 residents (#26) reviewed for pain. This placed the resident at risk for increased pain and anxiety related to inconsistent interpretation of PRN orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure dialysis services were in place including monitoring and communication with the dialysis provider for 1 of 1 sampled resident (# 22) reviewed for dialysis. This placed residents at risk for dialysis complications and delayed treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to respond to pharmacy recommendations for limiting use of PRN antipsychotic to 14 days for 1 of 5 residents (#15) reviewed for medication regimen.
Inspectors wroteBased on Interview and record review it was determined the facility failed ensure PRN use of an antipsychotic was limited to 14 days for 1 of 5 residents (#15) for whom medications were reviewed. This placed the resident at increased risk for unnecessary use of psychotropic medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to accurately document physician orders for 2 of 4 sampled residents (#s 220 and 269 ) reviewed for choices and pain. This placed residents at risk for inaccurate medical records and risk for injury and/or decreased ability for recovery.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to post accurate and complete staffing information for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for staffing. This placed residents and the public at risk for incomplete and inaccurate staffing information.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a periodic review regarding advance directives was completed for 4 of 4 sampled residents (#s 1, 2, 29 and 32) reviewed for advance directives. This placed residents at risk for not having their health care wishes honored.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure the Direct Care Staff Daily Report (DCSDR) postings were accurate for 17 of 36 days reviewed for staffing. This placed residents at risk for incorrect staffing information.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident's missing personal property was addressed for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#34) reviewed for personal property. This placed residents at risk for loss of personal items.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure physician orders were followed for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#20) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for adverse medication consequences.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free from unnecessary bowel medications for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#20) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for loose stools and diarrhea.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a medication pass error rate of less than five percent. There were three errors in 26 opportunities resulting in a 11.54% error rate. This placed residents at risk for reduced medication efficacy and adverse medication side effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to store drugs and biologicals in locked compartments for 2 of 3 treatment carts observed during this survey. This placed residents at risk for medication diversion and accidents.
6 fire safety citations on file: 2 on June 5, 2026, 4 on February 3, 2025.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| June 5, 2026 | Fine | $18,470 |
| May 22, 2025 | Fine | $4,225 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Oregon | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 4.96 | 5.03 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.52 | 0.72 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 4.44 | 4.51 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 3.64 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.80 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | not reported | 47.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | not reported | 51.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | not reported |
CMS expects 3.37 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 5.17 on weekdays and 4.44 on weekends, 14% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 5.6% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.92 in April to June 2025 to 4.96 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 | 4.96 | 0.52 | 5.17 | 4.44 | 5.6% | 1 of 90 | 71 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 5.08 | 0.57 | 5.22 | 4.73 | 2.6% | 0 of 92 | 67 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.90 | 0.48 | 5.04 | 4.55 | 11.8% | 0 of 92 | 73 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.92 | 0.67 | 5.10 | 4.46 | 11.3% | 0 of 91 | 66 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Oregon, Jan to Mar 2026 | 4.91 | 0.64 | 5.12 | 4.40 | 6.2% | 0.4% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oregon, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $23.96 | $22.83 to $28.40 | 14,800 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $38.69 | $35.11 to $43.60 | 4,260 |
| Registered nurses | $62.02 | $51.55 to $64.63 | 39,730 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Oregon | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 19.2 | 14.9 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.4 | 1.4 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.4 | 2.0 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.1 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 39.1 | 20.6 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.9 | 5.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.6 | 13.9 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 13.3 | 21.4 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.2 | 16.1 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Village Health Care's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (55.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
55.0% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Oregon: 52 better, 3 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 153 eligible stays.
11.3% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Oregon: 3 better, 0 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 139 eligible stays.
7.1% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Oregon: 0 better, 0 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 78 eligible stays.
41.5% this home
Median of homes: Oregon59.2% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 65 residents counted.
1.3% this home
Median of homes: Oregon0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 79 residents counted.
2.5% this home
Median of homes: Oregon2.6% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 79 residents counted.
100.0% this home
Median of homes: Oregon98.5% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 30 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: VILLAGE SNF OPERATIONS LLC. CMS links this home to Evergreen Healthcare Group, a group of 43 nursing homes averaging 2.4 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Village SNF Operations Holdings LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Ch Village Holdings LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Czh Village Operations Holdings LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Gefen Village LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Js Village LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Mb Village Operations Holdings LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Village SNF Operations LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 08/31/2023 | |
| Witzcorp LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Yh Village Holdings LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Apfel, Stephen | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Herz, Yehuda | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Herzka, Chaim | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Herzka, Yisroel | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Spielman, Shimon | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Strulovics, Joel | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Yenowitz, Yitzchok | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Odenthal, Jason | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Couve Financial Services LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Couve Healthcare Consulting LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Village Opco Manager LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Village SNF Consulting LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Village SNF Operations LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Morris, Christopher | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Odenthal, Jason | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Rutledge, Margo | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/31/2025 | |
| Spielman, Shimon | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Veach, Dakota | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/10/2025 | |
| Yenowitz, Yitzchok | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Ch Village Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Couve Financial Services LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/27/2025 | |
| Couve Healthcare Consulting LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/27/2025 | |
| Village Opco Manager LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Village SNF Consulting LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Village SNF Operations LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/27/2025 | |
| Village SNF Realty Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Village SNF Realty LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/27/2025 | |
| Witzcorp LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Herzka, Yisroel | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Morris, Christopher | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Odenthal, Jason | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Rutledge, Margo | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/31/2025 | |
| Spielman, Shimon | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Veach, Dakota | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/10/2025 | |
| Yenowitz, Yitzchok | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2024 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Oregon. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.