ConnecticutRidgefield

Laurel Ridge Center for Health & Rehabilitation

642 Danbury Road, Ridgefield, CT 06877 · Western Ct County · 126 certified beds · avg 114 residents/day · certified since Jan 25, 1994

Abuse citation flag (CMS)

Part of chain: NATIONAL HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES (42 facilities, chain avg rating 3.2★)

The abuse flag means inspectors cited this facility for abuse that caused harm to a resident within the past year, or potential for harm in each of the last two years. Source: CMS.

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.40
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: 3/5

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 11, 2022 · 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.

Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.

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 22, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (31)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
May 6, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Apr 8, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.
Apr 8, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records.
Apr 8, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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
Apr 8, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle.
Apr 8, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Apr 8, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve meals and snacks at times that fit residents' needs, preferences, and requests, or did not offer nourishing alternatives for residents who want to eat outside scheduled meal times.
Apr 8, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Apr 8, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Apr 8, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Apr 8, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Apr 8, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint
Apr 8, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint
Apr 8, 2025B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe 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.
Oct 1, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Aug 11, 2022▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe 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.
Aug 11, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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 11, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Aug 11, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Aug 11, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Aug 11, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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 11, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care.
Aug 11, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation.
Aug 11, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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 11, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Aug 11, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Aug 11, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Oct 30, 2019D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Oct 30, 2019D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Oct 30, 2019D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Oct 30, 2019D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide or arrange dental services for its residents. Nursing homes are responsible for making sure residents can get dental care.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (12 → 11).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
201940D
2022121G ▲
202410D
2025140F

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)

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

MeasureThis facilityConnecticut avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)4.403.803.95top 21% in Connecticut; top 26% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.660.700.69top 42% in Connecticut; top 41% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.963.433.50top 20% in Connecticut; top 24% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.360.460.48bottom 44% in Connecticut; bottom 45% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)37.937.445.8bottom 45% in Connecticut; top 31% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)50.038.642.9bottom 29% in Connecticut; bottom 39% 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 4.06, RN 0.61, weekend 3.66. Staffing rating: 4/5.

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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
BG II Opco ML LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%10/10/2024
Cedar Hill Capital Associates LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest10/10/2024
Dymer Holdings LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest10/10/2024
Ehrenfeld, MindyIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest10/10/2024
Ilana Ostreicher Family TrustOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest10/10/2024
Juniper Capital Associates LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest10/10/2024
Marc Ephram Ostreicher Family TrustOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest10/10/2024
Oak Management Capital LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest10/10/2024
Ysro TrustOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest10/10/2024
Zadun II Holdings LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest10/10/2024
Baker Tilly Advisory Group LPOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/10/2024
Berman, EdwardIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/31/2024
Cannavaro, CaitlinIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE12/31/2024
Cannavaro, CaitlinIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/31/2024
Cedar Hill Capital Associates LLCOrganization5% or Greater Security InterestNOT APPLICABLE10/10/2024
Cedar Hill Capital Associates LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE11/19/2024
Dymer Holdings LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE11/19/2024
Gilmartin, ThomasIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE12/04/2024
Ilana Ostreicher Family TrustOrganization5% or Greater Security InterestNOT APPLICABLE10/10/2024
Ilana Ostreicher Family TrustOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/04/2024

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Saint John Paul II Center4.3 miDanbury, CT★★☆☆☆2/5abuse
Ridge Crest at Meadow Ridge4.9 miWest Redding, CT★★★★★4/5
Havencare at Hancock Hall4.9 miDanbury, CT★★★★★5/5
Havencare at Filosa5.0 miDanbury, CT★★★★★5/5
Civita Care Center at Danbury5.7 miDanbury, CT★★☆☆☆2/5abuse
Autumn Lake Healthcare at Glen Hill6.4 miDanbury, CT★★★★☆3/5
Bethel Health Care Center8.0 miBethel, CT★★★★☆4/5
Wilton Meadows Health Care Center8.5 miWilton, CT★★☆☆☆2/5abuse
Waterview Hills Rehabilitation and Nursing Center9.5 miPurdy Station, NY★★★★☆3/5
Salem Hills Rehabilitation and Nursing Center9.5 miPurdys, NY★★★★☆3/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Ridgefield →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 075395.