How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Montclair Manor Care Center
5119 Bandera St, Montclair, CA 91763 (opens Google Maps) · San Bernardino County · (909) 626-1294· 59 certified beds · avg 45 residents/day · certified since Aug 1, 1973 · 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 →
Part of chain: EVA CARE GROUP (9 facilities, chain avg rating 3.4★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Apr 4, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.38
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: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5 · 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.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 27 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not let a resident or their legal representative see or buy copies of the resident's own records. · from a complaint F-0573
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
The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. F-0925
View all 27 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Apr 30, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not let a resident or their legal representative see or buy copies of the resident's own records. · from a complaint · F-0573 |
| Apr 4, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Apr 4, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · F-0925 |
| Apr 4, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Apr 4, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · F-0803 |
| Apr 4, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583 |
| Apr 4, 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 4, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0690 |
| Apr 4, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698 |
| Apr 4, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. · F-0806 |
| Apr 4, 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. · F-0880 |
| Apr 4, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · F-0908 |
| Apr 4, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms. · F-0912 |
| Apr 18, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Apr 18, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0761 |
| Apr 18, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
| Apr 18, 2024 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms. · F-0912 |
| Oct 7, 2022 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Oct 7, 2022 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814 |
| Oct 7, 2022 | 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. · F-0842 |
| Oct 7, 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 |
| Oct 7, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641 |
| Oct 7, 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 |
| Oct 7, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline. · F-0688 |
| Oct 7, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes. · F-0693 |
| Oct 7, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755 |
| Oct 7, 2022 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms. · F-0912 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (4 → 12).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 10
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 13
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 10 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 4 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 13 | 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 facilityCalifornia averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 4.38
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.51
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.15
California average: 3.90
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | California avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 4.38 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 34% in California; top 27% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.51 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 46% in California; bottom 39% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.15 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 26% in California; top 19% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.37 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 49% in California; bottom 46% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 35.0 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 46% in California; top 24% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 28.6 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 33% in California; top 26% 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 4.20, RN 0.49, weekend 3.98.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.20 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
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Montclair Manor Care Center. 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 - Individual
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chen, Jenq | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 50% | 04/30/2001 |
| Chen, Tze-Yun | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 50% | 04/30/2001 |
| Narcisse, Rose | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/23/2024 |
| Narcisse, Rose | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/23/2024 |
| Padama, John | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/02/2017 |
| Tsai, William | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/28/2012 |
| Tsai, William | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/28/2012 |
All 7 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Eva Care Group — 9 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.
- Cedar Pine Post Acute — Pasadena, CA · overall 2/5abuse
- Empress Care Center, LLC — San Jose, CA · overall 4/5
- Greenfield Care Center of Fairfield — Fairfield, CA · overall —/5SFF
- Greenfield Care Center of Fillmore, LLC — Fillmore, CA · overall 5/5
- Greenfield Care Center of Fullerton, LLC — Fullerton, CA · overall 5/5
- Greenfield Care Center of South Gate — South Gate, CA · overall 1/5
- Kit Carson Nursing & Rehabilitation Center — Jackson, CA · overall 1/5
- Medical Center Convalescent Hospital — San Bernardino, CA · overall 4/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking.
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 I ask for a copy of my family member's records, how quickly will I get them and what does it cost?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "How is pest control handled here, and when was the last treatment or inspection?"
- "How do you monitor residents' weight and eating, and what happens when someone starts losing weight?"
- "Who reviews your menus, and can I see this week's menu and join my family member for a meal?"
- "How do you protect residents' privacy, both in their medical records and in day-to-day care?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "How do you care for residents with incontinence or catheters, and what do you do to prevent urinary tract infections?"
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 35% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 97 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Community Extended Care Hospital of Montclair | 1.0 mi | Montclair, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Inland Christian Home | 2.2 mi | Ontario, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Claremont Heights Post Acute | 2.2 mi | Claremont, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Trellis Chino | 2.7 mi | Chino, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Ontario Healthcare Center | 2.7 mi | Ontario, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Las Colinas Post Acute | 3.1 mi | Ontario, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Claremont Manor Care Center | 3.1 mi | Claremont, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Heritage Park Nursing Center | 3.2 mi | Upland, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Ontario Grove Healthcare & Wellness Centre, LP | 3.2 mi | Ontario, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 4/5 | |
| Pilgrim Place Health Services Center | 3.3 mi | Claremont, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Country Oaks Care Center | 3.4 mi | Pomona, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Pomona Vista Care Center | 3.4 mi | Pomona, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in San Bernardino, CA — 55 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Mountain View Post Acute — Barstow, CA · overall 5/5
- Mountains Community Hosp DP/SNF — Lake Arrowhead, CA · overall 4/5
- Plymouth Village — Redlands, CA · overall 4/5
- Rancho Mesa Care Center — Alta Loma, CA · overall 4/5
- Redlands Comm Hosp D/P SNF — Redlands, CA · overall 4/5
- Redlands Healthcare Center — Redlands, CA · overall 4/5
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 055718.