MinnesotaMontevideo

Luther Haven

1109 East Highway 7, Montevideo, MN 56265 · Chippewa County · 55 certified beds · avg 50 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1975

1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
3
Serious findings on record
$101,268
Fines, last 3 years
5.19
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5

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)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, one-off · Jan 13, 2025 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (J): Inspectors found a situation that put a resident's life or safety in immediate danger, affecting one or a few residents. The facility must fix it immediately — these citations often come with large fines.

Corrected: Jan 28, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, one-off · Sep 12, 2024 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (J): Inspectors found a situation that put a resident's life or safety in immediate danger, affecting one or a few residents. The facility must fix it immediately — these citations often come with large fines.

Corrected: Oct 11, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jun 5, 2025 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

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: Jul 7, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has plan of correction)

All citations in the current public record (29)

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
Aug 20, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Aug 20, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors.
Jun 5, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Mar 19, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Jan 13, 2025▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Sep 12, 2024▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Sep 12, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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
Sep 12, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · from a complaint
Sep 12, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Sep 12, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not conduct and document a facility-wide assessment of what staff, supplies, and resources it needs to care for its residents properly — during everyday operations, nights, weekends, and emergencies. · from a complaint
Sep 12, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them.
Sep 12, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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
Sep 12, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Sep 12, 2024D · 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. · from a complaint
Sep 12, 2024D · 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. · from a complaint
Feb 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Feb 7, 2024D · 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. · from a complaint
Sep 20, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.
Sep 20, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Sep 20, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have a written plan describing how it runs its quality improvement program — the ongoing process of finding problems in care and fixing them.
Sep 20, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Sep 20, 2023E · 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.
Sep 20, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving.
Sep 20, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Sep 20, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Sep 20, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Sep 20, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not arrange hospice services for a resident who needed them, or help the resident move to a facility that could arrange hospice. Hospice provides comfort-focused care for people nearing the end of life.
Sep 20, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
Sep 20, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (10 → 2).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2023120F
2024121J ▲
202552J ▲

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)

2 fines totaling $101,268, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.

DateTypeAmount / length
Jan 13, 2025Fine$77,705
Sep 12, 2024Fine$23,563
Sep 12, 2024Payment Denial18 days from Oct 10, 2024

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

MeasureThis facilityMinnesota avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)5.194.833.95top 31% in Minnesota; top 11% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.901.220.69bottom 23% in Minnesota; top 21% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.664.273.50top 27% in Minnesota; top 10% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.400.690.48bottom 19% in Minnesota; top 49% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)51.642.245.8bottom 24% in Minnesota; bottom 33% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)46.238.642.9bottom 35% in Minnesota; bottom 42% 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 4.22, RN 0.73, weekend 3.79. 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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 1/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5

Who owns this facility

Non profit - Church related

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
All Temporaries Midwest, INC.OrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/09/2025
All Temporaries Midwest, INC.OrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/24/2025
Bednar, ShellyIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2019
Dezeeuw, PaulIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2024
Dynamic Staffing SolutionsOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/09/2025
Dynamic Staffing SolutionsOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/24/2025
Eckberg, MarieIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2024
Grape Tree Medical Staffing LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/20/2025
Grape Tree Medical Staffing LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/24/2025
Hughes, JustinIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE03/19/2024
Hughes, JustinIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/09/2025
Hughes, JustinIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/24/2025
Krueger, NicholasIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/09/2025
Krueger, NicholasIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/24/2025
Kurtzbien, JasonIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2022
Kvam, KimIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2021
Landmark, DianeIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2023
Nordstrom, AnnIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/09/2025
Sachariason, DianeIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2022
Snell, KellyIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2023

Questions to ask on your visit

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

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Clarkfield Care Center12.0 miClarkfield, MN★★★★☆4/5
Parkview Home12.6 miBelview, MN★★★☆☆2/5
Avera Granite Falls Care Center13.3 miGranite Falls, MN★★★☆☆2/5
Clara City Care Center16.7 miClara City, MN★☆☆☆☆1/5
Johnson Memorial Hospital & Home17.3 miDawson, MN★★★☆☆4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Montevideo →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 245259.