102 Dyer Avenue, Canton, CT 06019 (opens Google Maps) · Capitol County · (860) 693-7777· 100 certified beds · avg 96 residents/day · certified since Jan 27, 1994 · 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 →
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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 28, 2026 · 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: Mar 13, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 28 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · from a complaint F-0656
The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint F-0658
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 28, 2026 | ▲ G · Actual 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 |
| Jan 28, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| Jan 28, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint · F-0658 |
| Jan 28, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal 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. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Jan 28, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint · F-0760 |
| Aug 18, 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 |
| Aug 18, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint · F-0842 |
| Dec 23, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Dec 23, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Dec 23, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility's quality committee — the internal group responsible for finding and fixing care problems — did not have the required members or did not meet at least every three months. · F-0868 |
| Dec 23, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Dec 23, 2024 | 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. · F-0550 |
| Dec 23, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656 |
| Dec 23, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal 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 |
| Dec 23, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · F-0690 |
| Dec 23, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Dec 23, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide care that took into account residents' past trauma or their cultural backgrounds. Care is supposed to be sensitive to what residents have lived through and where they come from. · F-0699 |
| Dec 23, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755 |
| Dec 23, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time. · F-0759 |
| Dec 23, 2024 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council. · F-0565 |
| Dec 23, 2024 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Dec 6, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Sep 13, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Sep 13, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · F-0580 |
| Sep 13, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656 |
| Sep 13, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · F-0677 |
| Nov 18, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · F-0580 |
| Nov 18, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal 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 |
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (4 → 14).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2022 | 4 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 15 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2026 | 5 | 1 | G ▲ |
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.
How to file a complaint about care →
1 fine totaling $11,175.
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.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 28, 2026 | Fine | $11,175 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Connecticut avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 4.04 | 3.80 | 3.95 | top 29% in Connecticut; top 38% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.50 | 0.70 | 0.69 | bottom 33% in Connecticut; bottom 38% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.61 | 3.43 | 3.50 | top 30% in Connecticut; top 37% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.31 | 0.46 | 0.48 | bottom 36% in Connecticut; bottom 34% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 55.4 | 37.4 | 45.8 | bottom 6% in Connecticut; bottom 24% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 50.0 | 38.6 | 42.9 | bottom 29% in Connecticut; bottom 39% 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 3.59, RN 0.45, weekend 3.22.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.59 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Cherry Brook Health Care Center. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Regional context: $525.78/day — Connecticut statewide average for a semi-private nursing-facility room, September 30, 2025. This is a historical regional figure, not this facility's price or a prediction. View the OPM source.
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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
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 →
Non profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bojanowski, Kristin | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2015 |
| Camputaro, Bethany | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/13/2024 |
| Camputaro, Bethany | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/13/2024 |
| Cohen, Jason | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/19/2023 |
| Fitzgerald, Carol | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/27/2015 |
| Girard, Christopher | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2015 |
| Gross, Gary | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2015 |
| Hincks, Daniel | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2015 |
| Jennings, Michael | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2015 |
| Longley, Lauren | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/14/2025 |
| McDougal, Marissa | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/30/2021 |
| Miller, Gary | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/05/1997 |
| Miller, Gary | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/27/2025 |
| Myers, Carmen | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/30/2021 |
| Nevers, Robert | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2015 |
| Schaefer-Reid, Anna | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/08/2022 |
| Walker, Joseph | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/10/2023 |
All 17 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apple Rehab Avon | 4.9 mi | Avon, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Avon Health Center | 4.9 mi | Avon, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| McLean Health Center | 6.2 mi | Simsbury, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Ark Healthcare & Rehabilitation at Governors House | 6.3 mi | Simsbury, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Havencare at Valerie Manor | 8.2 mi | Torrington, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Caleb Hitchcock Health Center | 8.4 mi | Bloomfield, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Hebrew Center for Health and Rehabilitation | 9.2 mi | West Hartford, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare at West Hartford | 9.6 mi | West Hartford, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Torrington Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation LLC | 9.8 mi | Torrington, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Amberwoods of Farmington | 10.1 mi | Farmington, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| West Hartford Health & Rehabilitation Center | 10.3 mi | West Hartford, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Civita Care Sheriden Woods | 10.3 mi | Bristol, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in Capitol, CT — 65 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.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 075396.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details