California ›Milpitas

Milpitas Care Center

120 Corning Avenue, Milpitas, CA 95035 · Santa Clara County · 35 certified beds · avg 31 residents/day · certified since Jun 27, 2000

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$20,051
Fines, last 3 years
3.65
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: 2/5

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 · Jun 27, 2025 · F-0692

The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.

Why it matters: Malnutrition and dehydration can quickly weaken a resident and lead to serious complications.

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 11, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (49)

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
Jan 5, 2026E · 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. · from a complaint
Jan 5, 2026E · 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
Jun 27, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Jun 27, 2025F · 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.
Jun 27, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function.
Jun 27, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Jun 27, 2025D · 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.
Jun 27, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered.
Jun 27, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services.
Jun 27, 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.
Jun 27, 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.
Jun 27, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required.
Jun 27, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Jun 27, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jun 27, 2025D · 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.
Jun 27, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jun 27, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not educate residents and staff about COVID-19 vaccination, offer the vaccine to those eligible after that education, or properly document everyone's vaccination status.
Jun 27, 2025B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.
Jan 9, 2025E · 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. · from a complaint
Jun 21, 2024D · 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. · from a complaint
Mar 1, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly.
Mar 1, 2024E · 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.
Mar 1, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Mar 1, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
Mar 1, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights.
Mar 1, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered.
Mar 1, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required.
Mar 1, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 1, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Mar 1, 2024D · 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.
Mar 1, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure its nurse aides had the skills needed to care for residents, including training in dementia care and abuse prevention.
Mar 1, 2024B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.
Dec 5, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · from a complaint
Sep 5, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing. · from a complaint
Jul 22, 2022F · 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.
Jul 22, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have.
Jul 22, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Jul 22, 2022E · 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.
Jul 22, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility's menus did not meet residents' nutritional needs, or were not prepared in advance, followed as written, kept up to date, or reviewed by a dietician.
Jul 22, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand.
Jul 22, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle.
Jul 22, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections.
Jul 22, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Jul 22, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jul 22, 2022D · 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.
Jul 22, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure its staff were vaccinated for COVID-19 in accordance with the federal requirements in effect at the time.
Jul 22, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors.
Jul 22, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
Jul 22, 2022B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (12 → 16).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2022150F
202320E
2024130E
2025171G ▲
202620E

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 $20,051, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.

DateTypeAmount / length
Jun 27, 2025Fine$8,406
Jun 27, 2025Payment Denial28 days from Jul 23, 2025
Dec 11, 2023Fine$11,645

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

MeasureThis facilityCalifornia avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)3.654.313.95bottom 18% in California; bottom 44% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.570.610.69top 36% in California; bottom 48% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.403.903.50bottom 22% in California; top 47% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.610.510.48top 21% in California; top 22% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)19.236.745.8top 6% in California; top 2% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)40.038.142.9bottom 47% in California; top 46% 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 3.77, RN 0.59, weekend 3.52. Staffing rating: 3/5.

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: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Asm Family FoundationOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest—06/16/2020
Macatangay, HelenIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest—06/16/2020
Asm Family FoundationOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/16/2020
Corro, GinaIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE06/16/2020
Perry, AdelonaIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/16/2020

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
Santa Clara Post Acute3.3 miSanta Clara, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Canyon Springs Post-Acute5.4 miSan Jose, CA★★★★☆3/5
Inspire Behavioral Health5.5 miSan Jose, CA★★☆☆☆1/5
Vista Manor Nursing Center5.5 miSan Jose, CA★★★★★5/5
San Jose Healthcare & Wellness Center5.8 miSan Jose, CA★★★☆☆3/5
The Win Post-Acute6.6 miSanta Clara, CA★★★★★4/5
Skyline Healthcare Center - San Jose6.9 miSan Jose, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
O'Connor Hospital D/P SNF6.9 miSan Jose, CA★★★★★5/5
The Ridge Post Acute7.2 miSan Jose, CA★★★★★4/5
Courtyard Care Center7.8 miSan Jose, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Cedar Crest Nursing and Rehabilitation Center7.8 miSunnyvale, CA★★★★☆3/5
White Blossom Care Center7.9 miSan Jose, CA★★☆☆☆1/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Milpitas →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555757.