How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Palazzo Post Acute
5400 Fountain Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90029 (opens Google Maps) · Los Angeles County · (323) 461-4301· 99 certified beds · avg 91 residents/day · certified since Feb 4, 1975 · 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: SERRANO GROUP (11 facilities, chain avg rating 1.9★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jun 5, 2025
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Oct 21, 2021
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.43
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: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5 · 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)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Oct 21, 2021 · F-0689
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Oct 21, 2021 · F-0689
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): 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: Dec 3, 2021 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 45 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · from a complaint F-0698
The facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. · from a complaint F-0557
The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint F-0584
View all 45 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 25, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · from a complaint · F-0698 |
| May 29, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. · from a complaint · F-0557 |
| May 29, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint · F-0584 |
| May 29, 2026 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0880 |
| Mar 12, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not verify that its nurse aides had completed their required training, or did not retrain aides who had been out of nurse aide work for 2 years. · from a complaint · F-0729 |
| Dec 16, 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. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| Sep 16, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Sep 16, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Jun 17, 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. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| Jun 5, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jun 5, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jun 5, 2025 | 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 |
| Jun 5, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. · F-0552 |
| Jun 5, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0657 |
| Jun 5, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0677 |
| Jun 5, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Jun 5, 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 |
| Jun 5, 2025 | 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 |
| Apr 21, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0755 |
| Nov 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day. · from a complaint · F-0732 |
| Jul 18, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0755 |
| Jun 26, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0550 |
| May 9, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0690 |
| Apr 25, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Mar 29, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' right to manage their own money and financial affairs. · from a complaint · F-0567 |
| Nov 21, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Oct 21, 2021 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Oct 21, 2021 | 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 21, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · F-0558 |
| Oct 21, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Oct 21, 2021 | 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 21, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Oct 21, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids. · F-0685 |
| Oct 21, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility was not properly licensed, or did not operate in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and accepted professional standards. · F-0836 |
| Oct 21, 2021 | 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 |
| Oct 21, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921 |
| Jan 24, 2020 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| Jan 24, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583 |
| Jan 24, 2020 | 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 |
| Jan 24, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | When a resident had a planned discharge, the facility did not make sure the necessary information was communicated to the resident and to the doctors or facility taking over their care. · F-0661 |
| Jan 24, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids. · F-0685 |
| Jan 24, 2020 | 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 |
| Jan 24, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · F-0726 |
| Jan 24, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day. · F-0732 |
| Jan 24, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0758 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (10 → 9).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2020
All citations: 9
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2021
All citations: 10
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2023
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 14
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 5
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 9 | 0 | E |
| 2021 | 10 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2023 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 6 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 14 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 5 | 0 | E |
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: 4.43
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.34
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.01
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) | 4.43 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 32% in California; top 25% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.34 | 0.61 | 0.69 | bottom 19% in California; bottom 14% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.01 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 33% in California; top 22% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.27 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 27% in California; bottom 26% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 30.3 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 30% in California; top 15% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 16.7 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 13% in California; top 9% 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 4.15, RN 0.32, weekend 3.76.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.15 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: 5/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Palazzo Post Acute. 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 - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bin Mendel LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 01/01/2016 |
| BL Cali Partners LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 01/01/2016 |
| Fensterman, Howard | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 01/01/2016 |
| Fensterman, Jordan | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 01/01/2016 |
| Fensterman, Robert | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 01/01/2016 |
| Jacobs, Dov | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 01/01/2016 |
| JS Fenton LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 01/01/2016 |
| Leibson, Staci | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 01/01/2016 |
| RGF Consulting LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 01/01/2016 |
| Serrano Group LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 01/01/2016 |
| Serrano Licensee 1 LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 01/01/2016 |
| Serrano Partners LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 01/01/2016 |
| Taub, Judah | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 01/01/2016 |
| Yaame LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 01/01/2016 |
| Cuaresma, Rolando | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2016 |
| Jacobs, Dov | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2016 |
| Serrano Licensee 1 LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2016 |
All 17 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 Serrano Group — 11 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.
- Rialto Post Acute Center — Rialto, CA · overall 2/5
- Royal Gardens Healthcare — Alhambra, CA · overall 1/5
- Royal Palms Post Acute — Glendale, CA · overall 2/5
- Royal Terrace Healthcare — Duarte, CA · overall 3/5
- California Post Acute — Los Angeles, CA · overall 1/5SFF
- Corona Post Acute Center — Corona, CA · overall 1/5
- Hollywood Premier Healthcare Center — Los Angeles, CA · overall 1/5abuse
- Long Beach Healthcare Center — Long Beach, CA · overall 1/5abuse
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 10 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "How do you coordinate and monitor care for residents who receive dialysis?"
- "How do you train staff to treat residents with dignity, and how do you protect residents' personal belongings?"
- "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "How do you confirm each aide's training and certification before they start caring for residents?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
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 30% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 17 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 296 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hollywood Premier Healthcare Center | 0.0 mi | Los Angeles, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Fountain View Subacute and Nursing Center | 0.0 mi | Los Angeles, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| The Meadows on Sunset Post Acute | 0.6 mi | Los Angeles, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Alexandria Care Center | 0.6 mi | Los Angeles, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center D/P SNF | 1.1 mi | Los Angeles, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Virgil Rehabilitation & Skilled Nursing Center | 1.2 mi | Los Angeles, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Garden Crest Rehabilitation Center | 1.9 mi | Los Angeles, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| La Brea Rehabilitation Center | 2.0 mi | Los Angeles, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Los Feliz Healthcare & Wellness Center, LP | 2.5 mi | Los Angeles, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Skyline Healthcare Center - la | 2.5 mi | Los Angeles, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | SFF |
| Windsor Gardens Convalescent Hospital | 2.8 mi | Los Angeles, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Temple Park Convalescent Hospital | 2.8 mi | Los Angeles, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Los Angeles, CA — 369 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Palos Verdes Health Care Center — Lomita, CA · overall 2/5
- Panorama Gardens Nursing and Rehabilitation Center — Panorama City, CA · overall 3/5
- Paramount Convalescent Hosp. — Paramount, CA · overall 3/5
- Park Avenue Healthcare & Wellness Center — Pomona, CA · overall 1/5
- Park View Nursing and Subacute — Reseda, CA · overall 2/5
- Pasadena Grove Health Center — Pasadena, CA · overall 2/5
- Pasadena Nursing Center — Pasadena, CA · overall 2/5abuse
- Pasadena Park Healthcare and Wellness Center — Pasadena, CA · 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 056456.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).