Intercommunity Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center
12627 Studebaker Road, Norwalk, CA 90650 · Los Angeles County · 86 certified beds · avg 81 residents/day · certified since Feb 13, 1978
Part of chain: LONGWOOD MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (38 facilities, chain avg rating 2.2★)
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$20,654
Fines, last 3 years
3.37
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5
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 self-reported quality measures.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Aug 23, 2024 · F-0688
The 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.
Why it matters: Without this care, residents can develop stiff, contracted joints and lose the ability to move on their own.
Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Corrected: Sep 19, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
All citations in the current public record (46)
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 10, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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 |
| Mar 10, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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 |
| Nov 17, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. · from a complaint |
| Jul 25, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Jul 25, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Jul 25, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require. |
| Jul 25, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. |
| Jul 25, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Jul 25, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Jul 25, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. |
| Jul 25, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. |
| Jul 25, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Jul 25, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. |
| Jul 25, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Jul 25, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide routine dental care and 24-hour emergency dental care for residents. |
| Jul 25, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. |
| Jul 25, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. |
| Jun 17, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. · from a complaint |
| Oct 24, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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 |
| Aug 23, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Aug 23, 2024 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Aug 23, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Aug 23, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Aug 23, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly. |
| Aug 23, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits. |
| Aug 23, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. |
| Aug 23, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Aug 23, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. |
| Aug 23, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide proper foot care for residents. Foot care includes routine care like nail trimming and attention to foot problems, which matter greatly for older adults. |
| Aug 23, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. |
| Aug 23, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Aug 23, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Dec 4, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Dec 4, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Oct 6, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Oct 6, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Aug 24, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Aug 24, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Dec 9, 2021 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require. |
| Dec 9, 2021 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Dec 9, 2021 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Dec 9, 2021 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Dec 9, 2021 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Dec 9, 2021 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Dec 9, 2021 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. |
| Dec 9, 2021 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (13 → 14).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 8 | 0 | F |
| 2023 | 6 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 14 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 16 | 0 | F |
| 2026 | 2 | 0 | E |
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)
1 fine totaling $20,654.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Aug 23, 2024 | Fine | $20,654 |
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
| Measure | This facility | California avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.37 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 6% in California; bottom 30% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.34 | 0.61 | 0.69 | bottom 17% in California; bottom 14% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.12 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 8% in California; bottom 37% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.43 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 41% in California; top 43% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 42.1 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 32% in California; top 42% 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, 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 5.04, RN 0.50, weekend 4.65. Staffing rating: 2/5.
Self-reported quality measures
Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.
Quality measures rating: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Individual
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aaron Friedman Group a Business Assets Trust | Organization | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/30/2023 |
| Devorah Danziger Group a Business Assets Trust | Organization | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/30/2023 |
| Elka Kaplan Group a Business Assets Trust | Organization | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/30/2023 |
| Esther Hoff Group a Business Assets Trust | Organization | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/30/2023 |
| Friedman Family Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 18% | 06/30/2023 |
| Friedman, Aaron | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 21% | 06/30/2023 |
| Ira D Friedman 1991 Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 18% | 06/30/2023 |
| Ira David Friedman Group a Business Assets Trust | Organization | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/30/2023 |
| Klavan, Rachel | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 18% | 06/30/2023 |
| Lehmann Family 1991 Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 18% | 06/30/2023 |
| Lehmann, Libby | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 18% | 06/30/2023 |
| Libby Friedman Lehmann Group a Business Assets Trust | Organization | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/30/2023 |
| Mordechai Notis Group a Business Assets Trust | Organization | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/30/2023 |
| Notis, Shmuel | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 18% | 06/30/2023 |
| Pervaiz, Zaid | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/30/2023 |
| Rachel Notis Group a Business Assets Trust | Organization | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/30/2023 |
| Ruchel Friedman Klavan Group a Business Assets Trust | Organization | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/30/2023 |
| Sarah Dunner Group a Business Assets Trust | Organization | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/30/2023 |
| The Klavan Family Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 18% | 06/30/2023 |
| The Tzippy Friedman Notis 1990 Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 18% | 06/30/2023 |
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "What do you do daily to keep residents moving, and how do you help residents at risk of losing mobility?"
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "How do you make sure resident assessments are completed and submitted to the state on time?"
- "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"
Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Studebaker Healthcare Center | 0.4 mi | Norwalk, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Norwalk Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre, LLC | 0.6 mi | Norwalk, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Southland | 0.7 mi | Norwalk, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| The Springs Post-Acute | 1.0 mi | Norwalk, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Lakewood Healthcare Center | 1.9 mi | Downey, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuseSFF |
| Cottage Crest Post Acute | 2.0 mi | Norwalk, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Downey Community Health Center | 2.2 mi | Downey, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Dept of State Hospitals - Metropolitan SNF | 2.4 mi | Norwalk, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuseSFF |
| Villa Del Sol Post Acute | 2.7 mi | Bellflower, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Brookfield Healthcare Center | 2.8 mi | Downey, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| La Paz Geropsychiatric Center | 2.9 mi | Paramount, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Paramount Convalescent Hosp. | 3.0 mi | Paramount, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055457.