How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Apple Valley Post-Acute Rehab
1035 Gravenstein Hwy South, Sebastopol, CA 95472 (opens Google Maps) · Sonoma County · (707) 823-7675· 95 certified beds · avg 83 residents/day · certified since Oct 1, 1968 · Medicare and Medicaid certified
Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →
Part of chain: NAHS (12 facilities, chain avg rating 4.0★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Nov 8, 2024
2
Serious findings on record
most recent Nov 18, 2022
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.59
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5 · how star ratings work →
The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Nov 18, 2022 · F-0684
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Nov 18, 2022 · F-0684
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Why it matters: Care that strays from doctor's orders or ignores the resident's wishes can lead to declining health and avoidable harm.
Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Dec 31, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Nov 18, 2022 · F-0726
The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Nov 18, 2022 · F-0726
The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident.
Why it matters: Undertrained caregivers are more likely to miss warning signs and make care mistakes.
Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Dec 31, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 24 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · from a complaint F-0550
The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint F-0609
The facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time. · from a complaint F-0561
View all 24 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 18, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · from a complaint · F-0550 |
| Sep 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| Apr 23, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time. · from a complaint · F-0561 |
| Nov 8, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave. · F-0625 |
| Nov 8, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need. · F-0644 |
| Nov 8, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880 |
| Jul 2, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | When a resident had a planned discharge, the facility did not make sure the necessary information was communicated to the resident and to the doctors or facility taking over their care. · from a complaint · F-0661 |
| Apr 25, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Dec 12, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint · F-0697 |
| Oct 31, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Nov 18, 2022 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Nov 18, 2022 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · F-0726 |
| Nov 18, 2022 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area. · F-0919 |
| Nov 18, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Nov 18, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Nov 18, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make sure the resident's doctor reviewed their care and wrote, signed, and dated progress notes and orders at each required visit. · F-0711 |
| Nov 18, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · F-0725 |
| Nov 18, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. · F-0557 |
| Nov 18, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not let a resident or their legal representative see or buy copies of the resident's own records. · F-0573 |
| Nov 18, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · F-0609 |
| Nov 18, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · F-0679 |
| Nov 18, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Nov 18, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880 |
| Jul 18, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · F-0657 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (13 → 3).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2019
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2022
All citations: 13
Serious citations (G–L): 2
2023
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2022 | 13 | 2 | G ▲ |
| 2023 | 2 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 5 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2026 | 1 | 0 | D |
Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.
Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityCalifornia averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 4.59
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.55
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.13
California average: 3.90
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | California avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 4.59 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 25% in California; top 21% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.55 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 39% in California; bottom 46% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.13 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 27% in California; top 19% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.46 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 36% in California; top 38% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 29.9 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 28% in California; top 14% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 41.7 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 41% in California; top 50% in the U.S. |
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 4.54, RN 0.55, weekend 4.09.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.54 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
Quality measures rating: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Apple Valley Post-Acute Rehab. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Before you compare prices
- Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
- Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
- Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
Who owns this facility
How to read ownership records →
Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →
For profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nahs Holding INC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 100% | 06/30/2018 |
| Nahs North INC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 06/30/2018 |
| Baja, Ralph | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2023 |
| Barlow, James | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/29/2018 |
| Johnson, Marc | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/20/2022 |
| Johnson, Marc | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/20/2022 |
| Lane, Joanne | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2023 |
| Lane, Joanne | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2023 |
| Lundquist, Victor | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/21/2018 |
| Marshall, Brent | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/18/2024 |
| Marshall, Brent | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/18/2024 |
| Marshall, Brent | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/18/2024 |
| Marshall, Brent | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/18/2024 |
| Marshall, Brent | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/18/2024 |
| Moore, Michael | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2022 |
| Moore, Michael | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2022 |
| Paulsen, Timothy | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/29/2018 |
| Serrano, Noel | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2016 |
| Serrano, Noel | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2016 |
| Walton, Mark | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/29/2018 |
Showing 20 of 21 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 1 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Nahs — 12 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
- Beacon Healthcare Center — West Covina, CA · overall 5/5
- Brentwood Health Care Center — Santa Monica, CA · overall 3/5
- Courtyard Care Center — Signal Hill, CA · overall 3/5
- Fireside Health Care Center — Santa Monica, CA · overall 4/5
- Lincoln Square Post Acute Care — Stockton, CA · overall 3/5
- Linda Mar Care Center — Pacifica, CA · overall 5/5
- Rocky Point Care Center — Lakeport, CA · overall 3/5abuse
- Terrace View Care Center — Fullerton, CA · overall 4/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 11 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "How do you verify that your nurses and aides have the skills to care for residents with needs like my family member's?"
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
- "What choices do residents have over their daily schedule, like meal times, bathing, and activities?"
- "If my family member goes to the hospital, how long will you hold their bed, and will we get that in writing?"
- "How do you identify and arrange specialized services for residents with mental health conditions or disabilities?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 30% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 21 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 13 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Northvine Postacute Care | 5.8 mi | Santa Rosa, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Blue Oak Post-Acute | 6.8 mi | Santa Rosa, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Arbol Healthcare Center of Santa Rosa | 7.6 mi | Santa Rosa, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Santa Rosa Post Acute | 8.9 mi | Santa Rosa, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Park View Post Acute | 9.2 mi | Santa Rosa, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Summerfield Health Care Center | 9.5 mi | Santa Rosa, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Spring Lake Village | 10.8 mi | Santa Rosa, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Vineyard Post Acute | 13.9 mi | Petaluma, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Hillcrest Post Acute | 14.8 mi | Petaluma, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Petaluma Post-Acute Rehabilitation | 14.8 mi | Petaluma, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Ridgeway Post Acute | 14.8 mi | Petaluma, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| North Bay Post Acute | 14.9 mi | Petaluma, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Sonoma, CA — 18 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Broadway Villa Post Acute — Sonoma, CA · overall 5/5
- Cloverdale Healthcare Center — Cloverdale, CA · overall 5/5
- Healdsburg Hospital D/P SNF — Healdsburg, CA · overall 4/5
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055919.