Texas ›Azle

Azle Manor Health Care, L.L.L.P.

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

721 Dunaway Ln, Azle, TX 76020 (opens Google Maps) · Tarrant County · (817) 444-2536· 142 certified beds · avg 107 residents/day · certified since Feb 18, 2004 · 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 →

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Feb 20, 2026
5
Serious findings on record
most recent Jul 16, 2025
$44,548
Fines, last 3 years
3.33
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · 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)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Apr 26, 2025 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. 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: May 2, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Jun 6, 2024 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. 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: Jun 7, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Jun 6, 2024 · F-0697 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.

Why it matters: Untreated pain causes needless suffering and can lead to depression, poor sleep, and declining health.

Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. 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: Jun 7, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jul 16, 2025 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

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.

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Oct 5, 2023 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

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: Oct 6, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 13 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread

    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

  2. D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated

    The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. F-0761

  3. 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

View all 13 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.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Feb 20, 2026F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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
Feb 20, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761
Feb 20, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 16, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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
Apr 26, 2025▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolatedThe 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 13, 2024F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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 13, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761
Nov 13, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · F-0578
Nov 13, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Nov 13, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · from a complaint · F-0925
Jun 6, 2024▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolatedThe 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
Jun 6, 2024▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolatedThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint · F-0697
Oct 5, 2023▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (4 → 3).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2024
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 2
2025
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 2
2026
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202311G ▲
202472J ▲
202522J ▲
202630F

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)

How to file a complaint about care →

4 fines totaling $44,548.

Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.

DateTypeAmount / length
Jul 16, 2025Fine$10,634
Apr 26, 2025Fine$16,149
Jun 6, 2024Fine$10,322
Oct 5, 2023Fine$7,443

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityTexas averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.33
Texas average: 3.46
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.33
Texas average: 0.44
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 2.89
Texas average: 3.04
U.S. average: 3.50

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

MeasureThis facilityTexas avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)3.333.463.95top 49% in Texas; bottom 28% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.330.440.69bottom 35% in Texas; bottom 12% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing2.893.043.50bottom 48% in Texas; bottom 25% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.270.340.48bottom 43% in Texas; bottom 25% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)61.355.345.8bottom 31% in Texas; bottom 15% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)44.454.642.9top 37% in Texas; bottom 45% 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 3.32, RN 0.33, weekend 2.89.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.32 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.

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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · 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 Azle Manor Health Care, L.L.L.P.. 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 - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Burmont, INC.Organization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest99%07/30/2013
Arnold, JasonIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE07/30/2013
Arnold, JasonIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/22/2025
Burmont, INC.OrganizationLimited Partnership InterestNOT APPLICABLE07/30/2013
Montgomery, MitchellIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE07/30/2013
Montgomery, MitchellIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/22/2025
Montgomery, RaymondIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE07/30/2013
Montgomery, RaymondIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/22/2025
Oak ManagementOrganizationGeneral Partnership InterestNOT APPLICABLE07/30/2013
Porter, ChrisIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE12/06/2023
Porter, ChrisIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/22/2025
Porter, KrisIndividualContracted Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE06/21/2022
Porter, KrisIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/22/2025

All 13 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

  • "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
  • "How do you assess and manage residents' pain, especially for those who have trouble communicating?"
  • "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
  • "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
  • "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
  • "How do you record and honor each resident's treatment wishes and advance directives, and how do staff know about them?"
  • "How is pest control handled here, and when was the last treatment or inspection?"

Also worth asking anywhere

  • "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the Texas midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
  • "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
  • "CMS reports 61% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
  • "The ownership record on file lists 13 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 49 within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Lake Lodge Nursing & Rehabilitation7.9 miLake Worth, TX★☆☆☆☆2/5
The Lodge of Saginaw Health and Wellness9.6 miSaginaw, TX★★★☆☆3/5
Springtown Park Rehabilitation and Care Center9.7 miSpringtown, TX★★★★★5/5
Fort Worth Wellness & Rehabilitation10.7 miFort Worth, TX★☆☆☆☆2/5
White Settlement Nursing Center11.0 miWhite Settlement, TX★★★☆☆2/5
Marine Creek Nursing & Rehabilitation11.4 miFort Worth, TX★☆☆☆☆2/5abuse
West Side Campus of Care11.6 miWhite Settlement, TX★☆☆☆☆2/5
River Oaks Health and Rehabilitation Center11.7 miFort Worth, TX★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Willow Ridge Wellness & Rehabilitation11.8 miFort Worth, TX★☆☆☆☆1/5
Ridgmar Medical Lodge12.6 miFort Worth, TX★★☆☆☆2/5
Legend Oaks Healthcare and Rehabilitation - Fort W14.3 miKeller, TX★☆☆☆☆1/5
The Harrison at Heritage14.4 miFort Worth, TX★★★☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Tarrant, TX — 71 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.

Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.

All facilities in Azle →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 676003.

Your research

Viewed & saved homes

Kept in this browser tab for this session. Choose to remember them only on a device you trust. Opening a record or comparison sends its usual page request.

Selected for comparison

Recently viewed

Prices entered in a cost worksheet stay on that page and are not saved. Privacy details