80 Heritage Rd, Southbury, CT 06488 (opens Google Maps) · Naugatuck Vly County · (203) 262-6555· 37 certified beds · avg 31 residents/day · certified since May 18, 1988 · 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 →
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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Oct 16, 2024 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint
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: Nov 22, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Sep 18, 2024 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint
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: Oct 24, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 20 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. · from a complaint F-0550
The facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds. · from a complaint F-0602
The facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds. · from a complaint F-0602
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 |
|---|---|---|
| May 20, 2026 | 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 29, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds. · from a complaint · F-0602 |
| Jan 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds. · from a complaint · F-0602 |
| Oct 16, 2024 | ▲ 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Oct 16, 2024 | 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 |
| Oct 16, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · F-0867 |
| Oct 16, 2024 | 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 16, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921 |
| Oct 16, 2024 | 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 16, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · F-0609 |
| Oct 16, 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. · F-0684 |
| Sep 18, 2024 | ▲ 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Sep 18, 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 |
| Sep 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. · from a complaint · F-0842 |
| Apr 18, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. · F-0802 |
| Apr 18, 2023 | 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 18, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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, 2023 | 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 |
| Apr 18, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0759 |
| Apr 18, 2023 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (6 → 8).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 6 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 11 | 2 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2026 | 1 | 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.
How to file a complaint about care →
2 fines totaling $20,872.
Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 18, 2024 | Fine | $8,018 |
| Sep 18, 2024 | Fine | $12,854 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Connecticut avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 5.99 | 3.80 | 3.95 | top 2% in Connecticut; top 4% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.54 | 0.70 | 0.69 | top 5% in Connecticut; top 4% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 5.30 | 3.43 | 3.50 | top 2% in Connecticut; top 4% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 1.03 | 0.46 | 0.48 | top 5% in Connecticut; top 5% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 45.1 | 37.4 | 45.8 | bottom 20% in Connecticut; bottom 50% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 27.3 | 38.6 | 42.9 | top 28% in Connecticut; top 24% 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 5.26, RN 1.35, weekend 4.65.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (5.26 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.
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
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Pomperaug Woods Health Center. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Regional context: $525.78/day — Connecticut statewide average for a semi-private nursing-facility room, September 30, 2025. This is a historical regional figure, not this facility's price or a prediction. View the OPM source.
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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
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 →
Non profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Connery, Jane | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2012 |
| Connery, Jane | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/25/2021 |
| Edelson, Christine | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2022 |
| Gyba, Vicki | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/24/2024 |
| Gyba, Vicki | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/20/2025 |
| Jedlinsky, Helena | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/10/2019 |
| Lukos, Greg | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2024 |
| Lukos, Greg | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2024 |
| Mihalcik, Matthew | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2018 |
| Mihalcik, Matthew | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2025 |
| Monahan, Patrick | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2023 |
| Newtown Savings Bank | Organization | 5% or Greater Mortgage Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/05/2020 |
| Newtown Savings Bank | Organization | 5% or Greater Security Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/05/2020 |
| Raad, Marc | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2021 |
| Raad, Marc | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/31/2025 |
| Schwarzchild, Karen | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2024 |
| Vas, Antonio | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2021 |
| Wnuck, Mary | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/07/2017 |
| Wnuck, Mary | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/25/2021 |
All 19 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lutheran Home of Southbury INC | 1.4 mi | Southbury, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| River Glen Health Care Center | 2.0 mi | Southbury, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Complete Care at Middlebury | 6.6 mi | Middlebury, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Stone Bridge Center for Health & Rehabilitation | 7.7 mi | Newtown, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Apple Rehab Watertown | 9.0 mi | Watertown, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Waterbury Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation LLC | 9.7 mi | Waterbury, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Complete Care at Glendale | 9.9 mi | Naugatuck, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Bethel Health Care Center | 10.1 mi | Bethel, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Beacon Brook Center for Health & Rehabilitation | 10.1 mi | Naugatuck, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Shady Knoll Center for Health & Rehabilitation | 10.6 mi | Seymour, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Village Crest Center for Health & Rehabilitation | 11.6 mi | New Milford, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Candlewood Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center | 11.8 mi | New Milford, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in Naugatuck Vly, CT — 20 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
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 075318.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details