How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Laurel Ridge Center for Health & Rehabilitation
642 Danbury Road, Ridgefield, CT 06877 (opens Google Maps) · Western Ct County · (203) 438-8226· 126 certified beds · avg 114 residents/day · certified since Jan 25, 1994 · 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 →
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)
inspected Apr 8, 2025
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Aug 11, 2022
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.40
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: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5 · 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 · 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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · 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): 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: Sep 22, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 31 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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 F-0684
The 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
The facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. F-0851
View all 31 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 |
|---|---|---|
| May 6, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0684 |
| Apr 8, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The 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 |
| Apr 8, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. · F-0851 |
| Apr 8, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Apr 8, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · F-0679 |
| Apr 8, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| Apr 8, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · F-0809 |
| Apr 8, 2025 | 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 8, 2025 | 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. · F-0610 |
| Apr 8, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0656 |
| Apr 8, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 8, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint · F-0842 |
| Apr 8, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0658 |
| Apr 8, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Oct 1, 2024 | 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 11, 2022 | ▲ G · Actual 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. · F-0600 |
| Aug 11, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Aug 11, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Aug 11, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0756 |
| Aug 11, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0812 |
| Aug 11, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0880 |
| Aug 11, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0578 |
| Aug 11, 2022 | 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. · F-0609 |
| Aug 11, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0656 |
| Aug 11, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Aug 11, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Aug 11, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0695 |
| Oct 30, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Oct 30, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Oct 30, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Oct 30, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide or arrange dental services for its residents. Nursing homes are responsible for making sure residents can get dental care. · F-0791 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (12 → 11).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2019
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2022
All citations: 12
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2024
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 14
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 4 | 0 | D |
| 2022 | 12 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2024 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 14 | 0 | F |
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 facilityConnecticut averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 4.40
Connecticut average: 3.80
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.66
Connecticut average: 0.70
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.96
Connecticut average: 3.43
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Connecticut avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 4.40 | 3.80 | 3.95 | top 21% in Connecticut; top 26% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.66 | 0.70 | 0.69 | top 42% in Connecticut; top 41% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.96 | 3.43 | 3.50 | top 20% in Connecticut; top 24% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.36 | 0.46 | 0.48 | bottom 44% in Connecticut; bottom 45% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 37.9 | 37.4 | 45.8 | bottom 45% in Connecticut; top 31% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 50.0 | 38.6 | 42.9 | bottom 29% in Connecticut; bottom 39% 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 4.06, RN 0.61, weekend 3.66.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.06 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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Laurel Ridge Center for Health & Rehabilitation. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Regional context: $525.78/day — Connecticut statewide average for a semi-private nursing-facility room, September 30, 2025. This is a historical regional figure, not this facility's price or a prediction. View the OPM source.
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 / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BG II Opco ML LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 10/10/2024 |
| Cedar Hill Capital Associates LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 10/10/2024 |
| Dymer Holdings LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 10/10/2024 |
| Ehrenfeld, Mindy | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 10/10/2024 |
| Ilana Ostreicher Family Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 10/10/2024 |
| Juniper Capital Associates LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 10/10/2024 |
| Marc Ephram Ostreicher Family Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 10/10/2024 |
| Oak Management Capital LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 10/10/2024 |
| Ysro Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 10/10/2024 |
| Zadun II Holdings LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 10/10/2024 |
| Baker Tilly Advisory Group LP | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/10/2024 |
| Berman, Edward | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/31/2024 |
| Cannavaro, Caitlin | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/31/2024 |
| Cannavaro, Caitlin | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/31/2024 |
| Cedar Hill Capital Associates LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Security Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/10/2024 |
| Cedar Hill Capital Associates LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/19/2024 |
| Dymer Holdings LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/19/2024 |
| Gilmartin, Thomas | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/04/2024 |
| Ilana Ostreicher Family Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Security Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/10/2024 |
| Ilana Ostreicher Family Trust | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/04/2024 |
Showing 20 of 36 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 16 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 National Health Care Associates — 42 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.
- Ludlowe Center for Health & Rehabilitation — Fairfield, CT · overall 2/5abuse
- Maefair Center for Health & Rehabilitation — Trumbull, CT · overall 3/5
- Mansfield Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation — Storrs Mansfield, CT · overall 2/5
- Maple View Health & Rehabilitation Center — Rocky Hill, CT · overall 5/5
- Marlborough Health & Rehabilitation Center — Marlborough, CT · overall 3/5abuse
- Milford Health and Rehabilitation Center — Milford, CT · overall 5/5
- Montowese Center for Health & Rehabilitation — North Haven, CT · overall 2/5
- Pines at Bristol for Nursing & Rehabilitation, the — Bristol, CT · overall 4/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 41 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?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "What is your nurse and aide staffing ratio on each shift, including nights and weekends?"
- "How do your actual daily staffing levels compare to what's reported on Medicare's Care Compare website?"
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
- "Can I see this month's activities calendar, and what do you offer residents who can't leave their rooms?"
- "Could I join residents for a meal to see the food quality and temperature for myself?"
- "What happens if a resident is hungry between meals or misses a mealtime — what food options are available?"
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 36 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 44 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saint John Paul II Center | 4.3 mi | Danbury, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Havencare at Hancock Hall | 4.9 mi | Danbury, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Ridge Crest at Meadow Ridge | 4.9 mi | West Redding, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Havencare at Filosa | 5.0 mi | Danbury, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Civita Care Center at Danbury | 5.7 mi | Danbury, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare at Glen Hill | 6.4 mi | Danbury, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Bethel Health Care Center | 8.0 mi | Bethel, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Wilton Meadows Health Care Center | 8.5 mi | Wilton, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Waterview Hills Rehabilitation and Nursing Center | 9.5 mi | Purdy Station, NY | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Salem Hills Rehabilitation and Nursing Center | 9.5 mi | Purdys, NY | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Putnam Ridge | 9.5 mi | Brewster, NY | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| The Paramount at Somers Rehab and Nursing Center | 11.4 mi | Somers, NY | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Western Ct, CT — 20 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Nathaniel Witherell, the — Greenwich, CT · overall 2/5
- Norwalk Care Center — Norwalk, CT · overall 1/5abuse
- Notre Dame Health and Rehabilitation Center — Norwalk, CT · overall 4/5
- Stamford Care Center — Stamford, CT · overall 2/5
- Stone Bridge Center for Health & Rehabilitation — Newtown, CT · overall 4/5
- Villa at Stamford, the — Stamford, CT · overall 4/5
- Waveny Care Center — New Canaan, CT · 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 075395.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).