118 B Street, Fillmore, CA 93015 (opens Google Maps) · Ventura County · (805) 524-5250· 99 certified beds · avg 63 residents/day · certified since May 20, 1977 · 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: EVA CARE GROUP (9 facilities, chain avg rating 3.4★)
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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Mar 13, 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 (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: Apr 17, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 35 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. F-0557
The 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
The facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). F-0628
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2026 | 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 |
| Mar 20, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Mar 20, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). · F-0628 |
| Mar 20, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not notify the appropriate authorities when a resident with a mental disorder or intellectual disability had a significant change in condition. · F-0646 |
| Mar 20, 2026 | 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 |
| Mar 20, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · F-0686 |
| Mar 20, 2026 | 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 |
| Mar 20, 2026 | 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 |
| Mar 20, 2026 | 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 |
| Mar 7, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Mar 7, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| Mar 7, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Mar 7, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Mar 7, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · F-0908 |
| Mar 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate. · F-0554 |
| Mar 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make its inspection results easy for residents to see, or made it hard for residents to contact advocacy agencies like the ombudsman. · F-0577 |
| Mar 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641 |
| Mar 7, 2025 | 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 |
| Mar 7, 2025 | 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 |
| Mar 7, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 14, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council. · from a complaint · F-0565 |
| Nov 25, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · from a complaint · F-0686 |
| May 22, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| May 14, 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 |
| Apr 30, 2024 | 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 |
| Apr 30, 2024 | 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 |
| Apr 29, 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. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| Mar 13, 2024 | ▲ 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 |
| Nov 16, 2023 | 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 16, 2023 | 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. · F-0658 |
| Nov 16, 2023 | 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 |
| Nov 16, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. · F-0802 |
| Nov 16, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility's menus did not meet residents' nutritional needs, or were not prepared in advance, followed as written, kept up to date, or reviewed by a dietician. · F-0803 |
| Nov 16, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 24, 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 |
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (11 → 9).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 7 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 7 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 12 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 9 | 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.
How to file a complaint about care →
1 fine totaling $8,018.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 13, 2024 | Fine | $8,018 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
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) | 4.15 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 48% in California; top 34% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.82 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 17% in California; top 26% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.72 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 48% in California; top 32% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.83 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 11% in California; top 10% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 33.7 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 42% in California; top 21% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 20.0 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 19% in California; top 13% 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 5.09, RN 1.00, weekend 4.56.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (5.09 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.
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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Greenfield Care Center of Fillmore, LLC. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
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 →
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chen, Jenq | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 50% | 07/01/2013 |
| Chen, Tze-Yun | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 50% | 07/01/2013 |
| Buckingham, Robert | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2021 |
| Buckingham, Robert | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2021 |
| Chen, Jenq | Individual | Trustee of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2013 |
| Lyles, William | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/24/2025 |
| Lyles, William | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/24/2025 |
| Padama, John | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/02/2017 |
All 8 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
CMS lists this facility under the chain Eva Care Group — 9 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.
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Santa Paula Post Acute Center | 9.6 mi | Santa Paula, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Oakview Skilled Nursing | 11.6 mi | Thousand Oaks, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| St. John's Hospital Camarillo D/P SNF | 12.0 mi | Camarillo, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Alta Healthcare Center of Camarillo | 12.2 mi | Camarillo, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Thousand Oaks Post Acute, LLC | 12.3 mi | Thousand Oaks, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Camarillo Healthcare Center | 14.4 mi | Camarillo, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Mary Health of the Sick Convalescent & Nursing Hos | 14.9 mi | Newbury Park, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Simi Healthcare Center | 15.6 mi | Simi Valley, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Sherwood Oaks Post Acute | 16.5 mi | Thousand Oaks, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Ojai Health & Rehabilitation | 18.7 mi | Ojai, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Glenwood Care Center | 19.4 mi | Oxnard, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Coastal View Healthcare Center | 19.5 mi | Ventura, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in Ventura, CA — 19 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 555066.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details