How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Legacy Village Rehabilitation
3251 West 5400 South, Taylorsville, UT 84129 (opens Google Maps) · Salt Lake County · (801) 613-4600· 40 certified beds · avg 36 residents/day · certified since Dec 21, 2009 · Medicare only — not Medicaid certified
Certified for Medicare only. Medicare pays for short rehabilitation stays, not for long-term care — and this facility cannot bill Medicaid, which is what most families rely on for a long stay. Ask what a long-term stay here would cost and how it would be paid for. Who pays for nursing home care →
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected May 15, 2025
2
Serious findings on record
most recent Dec 1, 2025
$0
Fines, last 3 years
—
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: ★★★☆☆3/5 · 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 · Dec 1, 2025 · F-0580 · triggered by a complaint
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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Dec 1, 2025 · F-0580 · triggered by a complaint
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.
Why it matters: A family could learn about a serious injury or decline days later, after the chance to act has passed.
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: Dec 20, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Dec 1, 2025 · F-0684 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Dec 1, 2025 · F-0684 · triggered by a complaint
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: Dec 20, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 11 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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. · from a complaint F-0580
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 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. · from a complaint F-0640
View all 11 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 1, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0580 |
| Dec 1, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual 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 |
| May 15, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · from a complaint · F-0640 |
| May 15, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0695 |
| May 15, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0812 |
| May 15, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0880 |
| May 15, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · from a complaint · F-0641 |
| Aug 30, 2023 | 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 30, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason. · F-0757 |
| Dec 29, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility transferred or discharged a resident without a valid reason, or failed to provide the required documentation and information when moving a resident out. · F-0622 |
| Dec 29, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason. · F-0757 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (2 → 5).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2021
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 2
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2023 | 2 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 7 | 2 | G ▲ |
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 facilityUtah averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: Not reported
Utah average: 3.87
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: Not reported
Utah average: 1.17
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: Not reported
Utah average: 3.39
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Utah avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | — | 3.87 | 3.95 | — |
| Registered Nurse hours | — | 1.17 | 0.69 | — |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | — | 3.39 | 3.50 | — |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | — | 0.88 | 0.48 | — |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 32.1 | 50.7 | 45.8 | top 8% in Utah; top 18% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 27.8 | 40.6 | 42.9 | top 27% in Utah; top 25% 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 —, RN —, weekend —.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (— here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 1/5.
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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: —/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 Legacy Village 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exmar Company, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 03/23/2009 |
| Fairholm Holdings, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 03/23/2009 |
| Fairholm, Corey | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 03/23/2009 |
| Fairholm, Paul | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 03/23/2009 |
| Griffiths, Gary | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 03/23/2009 |
| Hampton, Mark | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 06/01/2009 |
| Miles, Richard | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 03/23/2009 |
| Miles, Stephen | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 03/23/2009 |
| Olsen, George | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/23/2009 |
| Taylors Tcu | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 23% | 03/23/2009 |
| The Miles Group | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 03/23/2009 |
| Webster, David | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 03/23/2003 |
| Western Lodging & Development, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 03/23/2009 |
| Western States Lodging | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 77% | 03/23/2009 |
| White, Richard | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 03/23/2009 |
| Dearden, Lance | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2021 |
| Dearden, Lance | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/26/2021 |
| Stubbs, Rachael | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/19/2019 |
| Stubbs, Rachael | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/19/2019 |
| Western States Lodging | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/29/2009 |
All 20 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "How do you make sure resident assessments are completed and submitted to the state on time?"
- "How many residents here use oxygen or breathing equipment, and who checks that equipment each shift?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
- "How often is each resident's medication list reviewed, and who decides when a drug can be reduced or stopped?"
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 32% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 20 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Monument Healthcare Taylorsville | 1.9 mi | Salt Lake City, UT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Rocky Mountain Care - Hunter Hollow | 3.3 mi | West Valley City, UT | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Cascades at Riverwalk | 3.3 mi | Midvale, UT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Aspen Ridge West Transitional Rehab | 3.7 mi | Murray, UT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Meadow Peak Rehabilitation | 4.0 mi | Taylorsville, UT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Copper Ridge Health Care | 4.5 mi | West Jordan, UT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Alpine Meadow Rehabilitation and Nursing | 4.6 mi | West Valley City, UT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Paramount Health and Rehabilitation | 5.2 mi | Salt Lake City, UT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Rocky Mountain Care - Cottage on Vine | 5.3 mi | Murray, UT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Aspen Ridge Transitional Rehab | 5.5 mi | Murray, UT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Little Cottonwood Rehabilitation and Nursing | 5.5 mi | South Salt Lake, UT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Monument Healthcare Murray Creek | 5.8 mi | Millcreek, UT | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Salt Lake, UT — 35 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Maple Ridge Rehabilitation and Nursing — Salt Lake City, UT · overall 1/5abuse
- Meadow Brook Rehabilitation and Nursing — Salt Lake City, UT · overall 2/5abuse
- Midtown Manor — Salt Lake City, UT · overall 1/5
- Millcreek Rehabilitation and Nursing — Salt Lake City, UT · overall 2/5abuse
- Monument Healthcare Canyon Rim — Millcreek, UT · overall 3/5
- Monument Healthcare Cottonwood Creek — Salt Lake City, UT · overall 3/5
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 465171.