How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Las Vegas Post Acute & Rehabilitation
2832 S. Maryland Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89109 (opens Google Maps) · Clark County · (702) 735-5848· 79 certified beds · avg 77 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1967 · 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★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jul 18, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.77
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
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: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5 · 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.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 21 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint F-0600
The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint F-0600
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
View all 21 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.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 10, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Apr 6, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Apr 6, 2026 | 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 |
| Jul 18, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0687 |
| Jul 18, 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 |
| Jul 18, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · F-0908 |
| Jun 28, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need. · F-0644 |
| Jun 28, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not properly plan a resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs after leaving. · F-0660 |
| Jun 28, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0758 |
| Jun 28, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure special medical diets — like low-sodium or diabetic diets — were properly ordered by the resident's doctor or managed by a qualified dietitian as state law allows. · F-0808 |
| Jun 28, 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. · F-0842 |
| Jun 28, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · F-0867 |
| Aug 10, 2023 | 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 |
| Aug 10, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Aug 10, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Aug 10, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint · F-0607 |
| Aug 10, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · from a complaint · F-0677 |
| Aug 10, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698 |
| Aug 10, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time. · F-0759 |
| Aug 10, 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 |
| Aug 10, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. · F-0806 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (6 → 3).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 9
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 9 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 6 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 3 | 0 | D |
| 2026 | 3 | 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.
Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityNevada averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.77
Nevada average: 4.05
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.79
Nevada average: 0.98
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.48
Nevada average: 3.61
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Nevada avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.77 | 4.05 | 3.95 | bottom 49% in Nevada; top 50% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.79 | 0.98 | 0.69 | bottom 40% in Nevada; top 28% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.48 | 3.61 | 3.50 | top 37% in Nevada; top 43% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.49 | 0.87 | 0.48 | bottom 30% in Nevada; top 34% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 37.5 | 45.1 | 45.8 | top 26% in Nevada; top 30% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 40.0 | 43.4 | 42.9 | top 44% in Nevada; top 46% 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 3.06, RN 0.64, weekend 2.82.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.06 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
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: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: 1/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Las Vegas Post Acute & Rehabilitation. 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 - Partnership
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chambers, Thomas | Individual | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/14/2012 |
| Johnson, David | Individual | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/14/2012 |
| Bellinger, Frank | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/07/2022 |
| Bellinger, Frank | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/07/2022 |
| Chambers, Thomas | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/14/2012 |
| Chambers, Thomas | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/14/2012 |
| Johnson, David | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/14/2012 |
| Meridian Management Services LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2013 |
| Meridian Management Services LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/27/2025 |
| Punzalan, Rustico | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2024 |
| Punzalan, Rustico | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2024 |
| Saxena, Alok | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Saxena, Alok | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/27/2025 |
All 13 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 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.
- Torrey Pines Post Acute and Rehabilitation — Las Vegas, NV · overall 2/5abuse
- Alcott Rehabilitation Hospital — Los Angeles, CA · overall 5/5
- Anaheim Healthcare Center, LLC — Anaheim, CA · overall 3/5
- Bay View Rehabilitation Hospital, LLC — Alameda, CA · overall 1/5abuse
- Blythe Post Acute LLC — Blythe, CA · overall 2/5
- Bonita Hills Post Acute — La Habra, CA · overall 3/5
- Citrus Nursing Center — Fontana, CA · overall 5/5
- College Vista Post-Acute — Los Angeles, CA · overall 2/5
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
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "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?"
- "How is routine foot care handled here, and does a podiatrist visit regularly?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "How do you inspect and maintain essential equipment, and how quickly are repairs made?"
- "How do you identify and arrange specialized services for residents with mental health conditions or disabilities?"
- "How do you prepare residents and families for discharge, and what support do you arrange for after they leave?"
- "What is your approach to psychiatric medications — how do you try non-drug options first and work to reduce doses over time?"
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 38% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 13 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 38 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Premier Health & Rehabilitation Center of LV, LP | 0.6 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Saint Joseph Transitional Rehabilitation Center | 2.2 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Trellis Paradise | 2.3 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Harmon Hospital - SNF | 2.4 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Life Care Center of South Las Vegas | 2.4 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | SFF |
| Silver State Pediatric Skilled Nursing Facility | 2.6 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Horizon Health and Rehabilitation Center | 2.9 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Advanced Health Care of Paradise | 4.5 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Torrey Pines Post Acute and Rehabilitation | 5.1 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Silver Ridge Healthcare Center | 5.2 mi | Las Vegas, NV | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| College Park Rehabilitation Center | 5.7 mi | North Las Vegas, NV | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Mission Pines Nursing and Rehab Center | 5.7 mi | North Las Vegas, NV | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Clark, NV — 42 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Las Ventanas Retirement Comm SNF — Las Vegas, NV · overall 5/5
- Life Care Center of Las Vegas — Las Vegas, NV · overall 3/5
- Marquis Care at Centennial Hills — Las Vegas, NV · overall 4/5
- Marquis Plaza Regency Post Acute Rehab — Las Vegas, NV · overall 4/5
- Mountain View Care Center — Boulder City, NV · overall 4/5
- Neurorestorative — Las Vegas, NV · overall 5/5
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 295006.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).