How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
New Jersey Veterans Memorial Home Menlo
132 Evergreen Rd, Edison, NJ 08818 (opens Google Maps) · Middlesex County · (732) 452-4100· 328 certified beds · avg 186 residents/day · certified since Oct 26, 1999 · 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 →
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Sep 5, 2025
5
Serious findings on record
most recent Sep 8, 2022
$0
Fines, last 3 years
6.87
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.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, widespread · Sep 8, 2022 · F-0658
The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, widespread · Sep 8, 2022 · F-0658
The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Why it matters: Care that falls below professional standards can directly harm a resident's health and recovery.
Severity (L): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was widespread: a systemic or pervasive problem. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Nov 2, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, widespread · Sep 8, 2022 · F-0835
The facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, widespread · Sep 8, 2022 · F-0835
The facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents.
Why it matters: Poor administration often shows up as understaffing, supply shortages, and care problems across the whole facility.
Severity (L): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was widespread: a systemic or pervasive problem. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Jan 18, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, widespread · Sep 8, 2022 · F-0880
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.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, widespread · Sep 8, 2022 · F-0880
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.
Why it matters: Weak infection control lets illnesses like flu, COVID-19, and drug-resistant infections spread quickly among vulnerable residents.
Severity (L): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was widespread: a systemic or pervasive problem. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Jan 11, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, widespread · Sep 8, 2022 · F-0886
The facility did not perform required COVID-19 testing on residents and staff.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, widespread · Sep 8, 2022 · F-0886
The facility did not perform required COVID-19 testing on residents and staff.
Why it matters: Without testing, COVID-19 can spread silently through a facility full of high-risk residents.
Severity (L): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was widespread: a systemic or pervasive problem. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Jan 11, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Sep 8, 2022 · F-0684
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 · Sep 8, 2022 · F-0684
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: Nov 2, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 21 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The 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. F-0550
The facility did not let a resident help develop and carry out their own plan of care — the written roadmap of the services and support they'll receive, built around their personal goals and preferences. F-0553
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
View all 21 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 5, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0550 |
| Sep 5, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not let a resident help develop and carry out their own plan of care — the written roadmap of the services and support they'll receive, built around their personal goals and preferences. · F-0553 |
| Sep 5, 2025 | 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 |
| Sep 5, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). · F-0628 |
| Sep 5, 2025 | 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 |
| Sep 5, 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 |
| Sep 5, 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. · F-0695 |
| Sep 5, 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 |
| Sep 5, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0700 |
| Sep 8, 2022 | ▲ L · Immediate jeopardy, widespread | 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 |
| Sep 8, 2022 | ▲ L · Immediate jeopardy, widespread | The facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents. · F-0835 |
| Sep 8, 2022 | ▲ L · Immediate jeopardy, widespread | 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 |
| Sep 8, 2022 | ▲ L · Immediate jeopardy, widespread | The facility did not perform required COVID-19 testing on residents and staff. · F-0886 |
| Sep 8, 2022 | ▲ 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. · F-0684 |
| Sep 8, 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 |
| Sep 8, 2022 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The 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. · F-0865 |
| Sep 8, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Sep 8, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make sure residents actually saw their doctor face-to-face at all required visits. Doctors must examine nursing home residents in person on a regular schedule. · F-0712 |
| Sep 8, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide or arrange specialized rehabilitation services — such as physical, occupational, or speech therapy — for residents who needed them. · F-0825 |
| Sep 8, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective. · F-0881 |
| Sep 8, 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 |
Inspection trend by year
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 12
Serious citations (G–L): 5
2025
All citations: 9
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 | 12 | 5 | L ▲ |
| 2025 | 9 | 0 | D |
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 facilityNew Jersey averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 6.87
New Jersey average: 3.88
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 1.29
New Jersey average: 0.67
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 6.62
New Jersey average: 3.53
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | New Jersey avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 6.87 | 3.88 | 3.95 | top 1% in New Jersey; top 2% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.29 | 0.67 | 0.69 | top 6% in New Jersey; top 7% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 6.62 | 3.53 | 3.50 | top 1% in New Jersey; top 1% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.91 | 0.50 | 0.48 | top 8% in New Jersey; top 8% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 17.0 | 39.7 | 45.8 | top 5% in New Jersey; top 2% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 24.2 | 37.7 | 42.9 | top 25% in New Jersey; top 20% 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 6.02, RN 1.13, weekend 5.80.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (6.02 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.
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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for New Jersey Veterans Memorial Home Menlo. 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 →
Government - State
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jani, Himanshu | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/06/2024 |
| Kamanda, Saarndupe | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/15/2023 |
| Kranis, Lisa | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/21/2022 |
| Kranis, Lisa | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/21/2022 |
| Kranis, Lisa | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/27/2025 |
| Leung, Michael | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/15/2024 |
| Leung, Michael | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/04/2025 |
All 7 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.
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "What were the findings behind this administration citation, and what has leadership changed since?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "What is your current policy for testing residents and staff when someone shows symptoms or there's an outbreak?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "How are residents and families included in care plan meetings, and how often do those meetings happen?"
- "How do you record and honor each resident's treatment wishes and advance directives, and how do staff know about them?"
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 17% 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 138 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roosevelt Care Center | 0.2 mi | Edison, NJ | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Brighton Gardens of Edison | 1.7 mi | Edison, NJ | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| St Joseph's Home Al & NC, INC | 2.4 mi | Woodbridge, NJ | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Hartwyck at Oak Tree | 2.7 mi | Edison, NJ | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Spring Creek Healthcare Center | 3.0 mi | Perth Amboy, NJ | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Aristacare at Cedar Oaks | 4.1 mi | South Plainfield, NJ | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Careone at the Highlands | 4.2 mi | Edison, NJ | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Alameda Center for Rehabilitation and Healthcare | 4.2 mi | Perth Amboy, NJ | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Embassy Manor at Edison Nursing and Rehabilitation | 4.5 mi | Edison, NJ | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Care Connection Rahway | 4.6 mi | Rahway, NJ | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Ashbrook Care & Rehabilitation Center | 4.8 mi | Scotch Plains, NJ | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Complete Care at Woodlands | 4.8 mi | Plainfield, NJ | ★★★★★ | 4/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Middlesex, NJ — 25 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Preferred Care at Old Bridge, LLC — Old Bridge, NJ · overall 5/5
- Reformed Church Home — Old Bridge, NJ · overall 5/5
- Roosevelt Care Center at Old Bridge — Old Bridge, NJ · overall 5/5
- Rose Mountain Care Center — New Brunswick, NJ · overall 4/5
- The Elms Rehab and Healthcare Center of Cranbury — Cranbury, NJ · overall 2/5
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 315459.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).