California ›Torrance

Heritage Rehabilitation Center

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

21414 S. Vermont Avenue, Torrance, CA 90502 (opens Google Maps) · Los Angeles County · (310) 320-8714· 161 certified beds · avg 132 residents/day · certified since Jul 1, 1976 · 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: CHARIS TRUST DTD 12/22/16 (6 facilities, chain avg rating 3.3★)

1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jun 13, 2025
5
Serious findings on record
most recent Jun 13, 2025
$179,687
Fines, last 3 years
4.79
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)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jun 13, 2025 · 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: Jul 13, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jun 13, 2025 · F-0689

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: Jul 13, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jun 13, 2024 · F-0692

The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.

Why it matters: Malnutrition and dehydration can quickly weaken a resident and lead to serious complications.

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: Jul 13, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jun 13, 2024 · F-0697

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 (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: Jul 13, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Oct 26, 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: Nov 17, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 59 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. 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). · from a complaint F-0628

  2. 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

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

    The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint F-0610

View all 59 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
Jul 24, 2025D · 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). · from a complaint · F-0628
Jul 23, 2025D · 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
Jul 23, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint · F-0610
Jun 13, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684
Jun 13, 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. · F-0689
Jun 13, 2025F · 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
Jun 13, 2025F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · F-0867
Jun 13, 2025F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · F-0925
Jun 13, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Jun 13, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697
Jun 13, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755
Jun 13, 2025E · 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
Jun 13, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide routine dental care and 24-hour emergency dental care for residents. · F-0790
Jun 13, 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
Jun 13, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Jun 13, 2025D · 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
Jun 13, 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
Jun 13, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline. · F-0688
Jun 13, 2025D · 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
Jun 13, 2025D · 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
Jun 13, 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
Jun 13, 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
Jun 13, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842
Jun 13, 2025D · 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
May 7, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not let a resident help develop and carry out their own plan of care — the written roadmap of the services and support they'll receive, built around their personal goals and preferences. · from a complaint · F-0553
Oct 22, 2024B · Potential for minimal harm, patternThe facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms. · from a complaint · F-0912
Aug 26, 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. · from a complaint · F-0880
Jun 13, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692
Jun 13, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697
Jun 13, 2024F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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
Jun 13, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Jun 13, 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
Jun 13, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline. · F-0688
Jun 13, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Jun 13, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755
Jun 13, 2024E · 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
Jun 13, 2024D · 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
Jun 13, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · F-0604
Jun 13, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services. · F-0645
Jun 13, 2024D · 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 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
Nov 6, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not let a resident return after a hospital stay or approved leave that lasted longer than the facility's bed-hold policy allowed. Residents generally have the right to come back to the next available bed. · from a complaint · F-0626
Oct 26, 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
Jul 15, 2021E · 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
Jul 15, 2021E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Jul 15, 2021E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Jul 15, 2021E · 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
Jul 15, 2021E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · F-0726
Jul 15, 2021E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755
Jul 15, 2021E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Jul 15, 2021E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842
Jul 15, 2021D · 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
Jul 15, 2021D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that. · F-0636
Jul 15, 2021D · 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
Jul 15, 2021D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not honor residents' individual preferences, choices, values, and beliefs in their daily life and care. · F-0675
Jul 15, 2021D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684
Jul 15, 2021D · 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
Jul 15, 2021D · 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
Jul 15, 2021D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide timely, quality laboratory tests to meet residents' needs. · F-0770

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (13 → 21).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2021
All citations: 16
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2024
All citations: 16
Serious citations (G–L): 2
2025
All citations: 25
Serious citations (G–L): 2

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

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2021160E
202321G ▲
2024162G ▲
2025252G ▲

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 $179,687, plus 2 Medicare payment denial periods.

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
Jun 13, 2025Fine$141,000
Jun 13, 2025Payment Denial24 days from Jul 15, 2025
Jun 13, 2024Fine$29,234
Jun 13, 2024Payment Denial2 days from Jul 13, 2024
Oct 26, 2023Fine$3,728
Oct 26, 2023Fine$5,725

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: 4.79
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.71
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.34
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)4.794.313.95top 19% in California; top 17% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.710.610.69top 23% in California; top 35% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.343.903.50top 19% in California; top 15% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.540.510.48top 27% in California; top 29% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)30.536.745.8top 31% in California; top 15% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)33.338.142.9top 40% in California; top 33% 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 4.65, RN 0.69, weekend 4.20.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.65 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.

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 Rehabilitation Center. 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
David, EmmanuelIndividualDirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE12/22/2016
David, OfeliaIndividualDirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE12/22/2016
Aguinaldo, EstrellaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2010
Aguinaldo, EstrellaIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/16/2025
Castro, Maria GloriaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE09/01/2024
Castro, Maria GloriaIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE03/28/2025
David, EmmanuelIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE09/03/2003
David, EmmanuelIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2003
Del Rosario, EvelynIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2017
Del Rosario, EvelynIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2017
Del Rosario, EvelynIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2017
Martinez, RoyIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE09/01/2024
Martinez, RoyIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE09/01/2024
Steve, DeniseIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2022
Steve, DeniseIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2022
Steve, DeniseIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2022

All 16 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.

Other facilities in the same chain

CMS lists this facility under the chain Charis Trust DTD 12/22/16 — 6 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.

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 do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
  • "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
  • "How do you monitor residents' weight and eating, and what happens when someone starts losing weight?"
  • "How do you assess and manage residents' pain, especially for those who have trouble communicating?"
  • "What written notices do we get before any transfer or discharge, and what is your bed-hold policy?"
  • "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
  • "If someone reports suspected abuse or neglect here, what happens in the first 24 hours?"
  • "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"

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 31% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
  • "The ownership record on file lists 16 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 222 within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Harbor Post Acute Care Center0.1 miTorrance, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Vermont Healthcare Center0.5 miTorrance, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Sunnyside Nursing Center0.9 miTorrance, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5SFF
Lomita Post-Acute Care Center2.6 miLomita, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Beachside Post Acute3.0 miTorrance, CA★★★★★4/5
Torrance Memorial Med Ctr SNF/DP3.2 miTorrance, CA★★★★★5/5
West Gardena Post Acute3.3 miGardena, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Bay Crest Care Center3.5 miTorrance, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5abuseSFF
Palos Verdes Health Care Center3.7 miLomita, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Clear View Convalescent Center3.8 miGardena, CA★★★★★5/5
Clear View Sanitarium3.8 miGardena, CA★★★★★5/5
Torrance Care Center West, INC4.0 miTorrance, CA★★☆☆☆1/5

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 Torrance →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 056308.

This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).

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