MichiganMarquette

Norlite Nursing Center

701 Homestead Street, Marquette, MI 49855 · Marquette County · 99 certified beds · avg 81 residents/day · certified since Sep 1, 1978

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
2
Serious findings on record
$113,129
Fines, last 3 years
4.94
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: 3/5

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 · Jan 28, 2026 · F-0675

The facility did not honor residents' individual preferences, choices, values, and beliefs in their daily life and care.

Why it matters: Ignoring who a resident is as a person diminishes their dignity and quality of life.

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: Feb 24, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Dec 14, 2023 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.

Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.

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

All citations in the current public record (28)

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 28, 2026▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not honor residents' individual preferences, choices, values, and beliefs in their daily life and care.
Jan 28, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care.
Jan 28, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jan 28, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not honor residents' right to share a room with their spouse or a roommate of their choosing, or moved residents to a different room without written notice beforehand.
Jan 28, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Jan 28, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Jan 28, 2026E · 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.
Jan 28, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint
Jan 28, 2026D · 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
Jan 28, 2026D · 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
Jan 28, 2026D · 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.
Jan 28, 2026D · 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.
Nov 21, 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.
Nov 21, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Nov 21, 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.
Nov 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Nov 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility admitted a resident without a doctor's order, or did not make sure each resident stayed under a doctor's ongoing care.
Nov 21, 2024D · 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.
Aug 20, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · from a complaint
Aug 20, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint
Dec 14, 2023▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint
Dec 14, 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.
Dec 14, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Dec 14, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required.
Dec 14, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids.
Dec 14, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide necessary behavioral health care and services — support for residents' mental and emotional wellbeing, including conditions like depression and anxiety.
Dec 14, 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 7, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (6 → 12).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202381G ▲
202480F
2026121G ▲

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)

1 fine totaling $113,129, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.

DateTypeAmount / length
Jan 28, 2026Payment Denial48 days from Feb 26, 2026
Dec 14, 2023Fine$113,129

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

MeasureThis facilityMichigan avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)4.944.323.95top 18% in Michigan; top 14% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.480.840.69bottom 17% in Michigan; bottom 35% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.213.793.50top 20% in Michigan; top 17% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.200.490.48bottom 11% in Michigan; bottom 13% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)50.744.145.8bottom 30% in Michigan; bottom 35% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)46.239.242.9bottom 36% in Michigan; 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 4.29, RN 0.42, weekend 3.66. 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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Buck, LindaIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest22%01/01/2003
Eisele, BarbaraIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest14%08/31/2005
Holliday, VictorIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest6%01/01/1988
Jaedecke, RobertIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest14%08/31/2005
Johnson, EricIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest22%01/01/2003
Johnson, LeeIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest22%01/01/2003
Buck, LindaIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2009
Buck, LindaIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2003
Carlson, WayneIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2013
Carlson, WayneIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2013
Holliday, VictorIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/1988
Holliday, VictorIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/1988
Johnson, EricIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2003
Johnson, EricIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2003
Johnson, LeeIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2003
Johnson, LeeIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2003
Johnson, WayneIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/19/2019
Johnson, WayneIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/09/2025
Up Rehab Services LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2005
Up Rehab Services LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/11/2025

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
DJ Jacobetti Home for Veterans0.2 miMarquette, MI★★★★☆2/5abuse
Eastwood Nursing Center9.4 miNegaunee, MI★★★★★5/5
Marquette County Medical Care Facility13.9 miIshpeming, MI★★★★★5/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Marquette →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 235367.