California ›Monterey Park

Heritage Manor

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

610 North Garfield Avenue, Monterey Park, CA 91754 (opens Google Maps) · Los Angeles County · (626) 573-3141· 99 certified beds · avg 95 residents/day · certified since Sep 1, 1970 · 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: DAVID JOHNSON (48 facilities, chain avg rating 3.2★)

1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Apr 30, 2026
2
Serious findings on record
most recent Mar 28, 2025
$17,940
Fines, last 3 years
3.53
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: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · 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 · Mar 28, 2025 · F-0695

The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it.

Why it matters: Mistakes in breathing care can quickly become life-threatening for residents who depend on oxygen or equipment.

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: Apr 21, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Dec 5, 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: Dec 27, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 65 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern

    The facility required residents to give up Medicare or Medicaid benefits or pay privately as a condition of moving in, or failed to tell residents which types of care it does not provide. Both practices are against the rules. · from a complaint F-0620

  2. E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern

    The facility did not make sure a transfer or discharge met the resident's needs and preferences, or did not properly prepare the resident to leave safely. · from a complaint F-0627

  3. E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern

    The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. F-0698

View all 65 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
May 1, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility required residents to give up Medicare or Medicaid benefits or pay privately as a condition of moving in, or failed to tell residents which types of care it does not provide. Both practices are against the rules. · from a complaint · F-0620
May 1, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not make sure a transfer or discharge met the resident's needs and preferences, or did not properly prepare the resident to leave safely. · from a complaint · F-0627
Apr 30, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698
Apr 30, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day. · F-0732
Apr 30, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason. · F-0757
Apr 30, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Apr 30, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Apr 30, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Apr 30, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · F-0558
Apr 30, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Apr 30, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Apr 30, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Apr 30, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692
Apr 30, 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
Apr 30, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not properly inform residents or their representatives about arbitration agreements — contracts that give up the right to sue in court — including their right to refuse to sign. · F-0847
Apr 30, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Feb 26, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · from a complaint · F-0812
Feb 26, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not have a written plan describing how it runs its quality improvement program — the ongoing process of finding problems in care and fixing them. · from a complaint · F-0865
Feb 26, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · from a complaint · F-0921
Aug 14, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Aug 14, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Aug 14, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · from a complaint · F-0726
Aug 14, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems. · from a complaint · F-0756
Mar 28, 2025▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolatedThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695
Mar 28, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583
Mar 28, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. · F-0802
Mar 28, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 28, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · F-0867
Mar 28, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Mar 28, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Mar 28, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584
Mar 28, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 28, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 28, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 28, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 28, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · F-0760
Mar 28, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not prepare and serve food in a form that meets each resident's individual needs — for example, chopped, pureed, or softened food for residents with chewing or swallowing problems. · F-0805
Mar 28, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921
Feb 18, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. · from a complaint · F-0585
Dec 5, 2024▲ 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
Dec 5, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Oct 16, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Jul 3, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · from a complaint · F-0880
Apr 23, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal 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 12, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Apr 12, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Apr 12, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684
Apr 12, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697
Apr 12, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. · F-0730
Apr 12, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Apr 12, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective. · F-0881
Apr 12, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · F-0558
Apr 12, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Apr 12, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Apr 12, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes. · F-0693
Apr 12, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695
Apr 12, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Apr 12, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason. · F-0757
Apr 12, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Apr 12, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. · F-0883
Apr 12, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921
Mar 7, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · from a complaint · F-0880
Nov 21, 2023D · 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. · from a complaint · F-0880
Nov 21, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not educate residents and staff about COVID-19 vaccination, offer the vaccine to those eligible after that education, or properly document everyone's vaccination status. · from a complaint · F-0887
Nov 14, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal 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 (15 → 14).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 23
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2025
All citations: 20
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2026
All citations: 19
Serious citations (G–L): 0

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

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202330D
2024231G ▲
2025201J ▲
2026190E

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 →

1 fine totaling $17,940.

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
Mar 28, 2025Fine$17,940

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 facilityCalifornia averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.53
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.36
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.28
California average: 3.90
U.S. average: 3.50

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

MeasureThis facilityCalifornia avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)3.534.313.95bottom 11% in California; bottom 38% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.360.610.69bottom 24% in California; bottom 17% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.283.903.50bottom 15% in California; bottom 46% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.340.510.48bottom 44% in California; bottom 41% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)23.736.745.8top 14% in California; top 6% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)37.538.142.9top 50% in California; top 42% 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 3.98, RN 0.41, weekend 3.69.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.98 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.

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: 4/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Heritage Manor. 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
Heritage Manor Healthcare LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%01/11/1996
Cibc Bank USAOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/08/2025
Dehghanmanesh, AdrianIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2021
Dehghanmanesh, AdrianIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2021
Farrales, MaryIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2023
Farrales, MaryIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2023
Heritage Manor Healthcare LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/11/1996
Heritage Manor Healthcare LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/11/1996
Heritage Monterey Associates LPOrganization5% or Greater Security InterestNOT APPLICABLE02/11/2025
Heritage Monterey Associates LPOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/11/2025
Johnson, FrankIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE01/24/1995
Johnson, FrankIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/24/1995
Kochek, JoshuaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2022
Kochek, JoshuaIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2022
Lai, En MingIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2015
Lai, En MingIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2015
Oxford, MichealIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/03/2022
Oxford, MichealIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/03/2022
Salama, Omar AhmedIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/07/2022
Salama, Omar AhmedIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/07/2022

Showing 20 of 24 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 4 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 David Johnson — 48 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. Showing 8 of the 47 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.

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.

  • "How many residents here use oxygen or breathing equipment, and who checks that equipment each shift?"
  • "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
  • "Do you accept Medicaid from day one, and will you put in writing that no private payment is required as a condition of admission?"
  • "Before a resident is discharged or transferred, how do you make sure the new place can actually meet their needs?"
  • "How do you coordinate and monitor care for residents who receive dialysis?"
  • "Where do you post your daily staffing numbers, and can I see today's?"
  • "How often is each resident's medication list reviewed, and who decides when a drug can be reduced or stopped?"
  • "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"

Also worth asking anywhere

  • "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the California 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 24% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
  • "The ownership record on file lists 24 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 308 within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Monterey Park Conv Hosp0.2 miMonterey Park, CA★★★★★4/5
Del Mar Convalescent Hospital1.2 miRosemead, CA★★★★★4/5
Sunny Village Care Center1.3 miAlhambra, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Atherton Baptist Home1.5 miAlhambra, CA★★★★★4/5
Alhambra Healthcare & Wellness Centre, LP1.5 miAlhambra, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Royal Gardens Healthcare1.8 miAlhambra, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Alhambra Hospital Med Ctr DP/SNF1.9 miAlhambra, CA★★★★☆4/5
Royal Vista Care Center1.9 miSan Gabriel, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Live Oak Rehab Center2.3 miSan Gabriel, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Mission Care Center2.3 miRosemead, CA★★★★☆3/5
San Gabriel Conv Center2.3 miRosemead, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Green Acres Healthcare Center2.3 miRosemead, CA★★★☆☆4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Los Angeles, CA — 369 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 Monterey Park →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055989.

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