River Walk Care Center

1100 West Morton Avenue, Porterville, CA 93257 (opens Google Maps) · Tulare County · (559) 782-1509· 99 certified beds · avg 89 residents/day · certified since Jan 19, 1996 · 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 →

2/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

inspected Feb 26, 2026

Serious findings on record

most recent Sep 5, 2025

$164,778

Fines, last 3 years

3.34

Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · 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 · Sep 5, 2025 · F-0656 · triggered by a complaint

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.

Why it matters: Without a complete, working care plan, important needs can slip through the cracks and no one is accountable for results.

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: Sep 16, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Mar 13, 2025 · F-0688 · triggered by a complaint

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.

Why it matters: Without this care, residents can develop stiff, contracted joints and lose the ability to move on their own.

Corrected: May 2, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Oct 17, 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.

Corrected: Nov 8, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 50 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

May 5, 2026D · 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). · from a complaint F-0628
Apr 2, 2026D · 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
Feb 26, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
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

View all 50 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
May 5, 2026	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). · from a complaint · F-0628
Apr 2, 2026	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
Feb 26, 2026	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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
Feb 26, 2026	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Feb 26, 2026	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
Feb 26, 2026	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
Feb 26, 2026	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
Feb 26, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function. · F-0605
Feb 26, 2026	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
Feb 9, 2026	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. · from a complaint · F-0658
Oct 27, 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. · from a complaint · F-0812
Sep 5, 2025	▲ G · Actual 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
Aug 21, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint · F-0580
May 29, 2025	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. · from a complaint · F-0658
Apr 30, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint · F-0580
Apr 30, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility transferred or discharged a resident without a valid reason, or failed to provide the required documentation and information when moving a resident out. · from a complaint · F-0622
Apr 30, 2025	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. · from a complaint · F-0658
Apr 30, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The 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. · from a complaint · F-0808
Mar 13, 2025	▲ G · Actual 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. · from a complaint · F-0688
Mar 13, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · from a complaint · F-0686
Mar 12, 2025	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. · from a complaint · F-0658
Mar 12, 2025	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. · from a complaint · F-0726
Nov 8, 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
Oct 17, 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 17, 2024	F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread	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. · from a complaint · F-0578
Oct 17, 2024	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
Oct 17, 2024	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. · from a complaint · F-0677
Oct 17, 2024	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. · from a complaint · F-0693
Oct 17, 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. · from a complaint · F-0756
Oct 17, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide special eating equipment and utensils — like adaptive cups or easy-grip silverware — for residents who need them, along with appropriate help at meals. · from a complaint · F-0810
Oct 17, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not make sure its nurse aides had the skills needed to care for residents, including training in dementia care and abuse prevention. · from a complaint · F-0947
Oct 3, 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
Oct 19, 2023	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint · F-0658
Oct 24, 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 24, 2022	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584
Oct 24, 2022	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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. · F-0600
Oct 24, 2022	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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 24, 2022	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services. · F-0645
Oct 24, 2022	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. · F-0655
Oct 24, 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 24, 2022	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have. · F-0676
Oct 24, 2022	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
Oct 24, 2022	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide proper foot care for residents. Foot care includes routine care like nail trimming and attention to foot problems, which matter greatly for older adults. · F-0687
Oct 24, 2022	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
Oct 24, 2022	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide proper care or assistance for a resident who uses a prosthesis, such as an artificial limb. · F-0696
Oct 24, 2022	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697
Oct 24, 2022	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
Oct 24, 2022	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide routine dental care and 24-hour emergency dental care for residents. · F-0790
Oct 24, 2022	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 24, 2022	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

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (8 → 7).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01

All citationsSerious citations (G–L)

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

Year	Citations	Serious (G–L)	Worst severity that year
2022	17	0	F
2023	1	0	E
2024	10	1	G ▲
2025	12	2	G ▲
2026	10	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)

How to file a complaint about care →

3 fines totaling $164,778, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.

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
Aug 21, 2025	Fine	$24,252
Mar 12, 2025	Fine	$64,200
Mar 12, 2025	Payment Denial	5 days from May 9, 2025
Oct 3, 2024	Fine	$76,326

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

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01

This facilityCalifornia averageU.S. average

Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)

3.34

4.31

3.95

Registered Nurse hours

0.40

0.61

0.69

Weekend total nurse staffing

3.01

3.90

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)	3.34	4.31	3.95	bottom 6% in California; bottom 28% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours	0.40	0.61	0.69	bottom 34% in California; bottom 23% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing	3.01	3.90	3.50	bottom 4% in California; bottom 32% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)	0.26	0.51	0.48	bottom 24% in California; bottom 24% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)	47.8	36.7	45.8	bottom 18% in California; bottom 42% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)	44.4	38.1	42.9	bottom 36% in California; bottom 45% 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 4.14, RN 0.50, weekend 3.73.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.14 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.

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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · 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 River Walk 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 - Limited Liability company

Owner / manager	Type	Role	Stake	Since
McClung, Barbra	Individual	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	—	04/01/2009
Moyle, Kensett	Individual	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	70%	04/01/2009
Andrighetto, Patty	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	07/16/2011
Lawrence, Michelle	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	10/28/2009
Magnolia Health Corporation	Organization	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	04/01/2009
Moyle, Kensett	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	04/01/2009
Moyle, Kensett	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	04/01/2009
Moyle, Kensett	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	04/01/2009
Moyle, Lindsey	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	04/01/2009

All 9 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

"Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
"What do you do daily to keep residents moving, and how do you help residents at risk of losing mobility?"
"What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
"What written notices do we get before any transfer or discharge, and what is your bed-hold policy?"
"If I ask for a copy of my family member's records, how quickly will I get them and what does it cost?"
"Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
"Could I join residents for a meal to see the food quality and temperature for myself?"
"What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"

Also worth asking anywhere

"Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the California midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
"Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
"CMS reports 48% 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 (within 20 miles)

Facility	Distance	City	Overall	Inspection
Sequoia Transitional Care	0.6 mi	Porterville, CA	★★★★☆	3/5
Sierra View Medical Center	0.6 mi	Porterville, CA	★★★★★	4/5
Sierra Valley Rehab Center	1.1 mi	Porterville, CA	★★★★☆	3/5
Gateway Post Acute	1.6 mi	Porterville, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Lindsay Gardens Nursing & Rehabilitation	10.3 mi	Lindsay, CA	★★★★☆	3/5
Grand Oaks Care	19.6 mi	Tulare, CA	★★★☆☆	3/5
Tulare Healthcare & Wellness Center, LP	19.6 mi	Tulare, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Orchards at Tulare	19.6 mi	Tulare, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Tulare, CA — 16 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.

Sequoia Vista — Visalia, CA · overall 1/5
Visalia Post Acute — Visalia, CA · overall 1/5
Westgate Gardens Care Center — Visalia, CA · overall 3/5
Delta Healthcare & Wellness Center, LP — Visalia, CA · overall 5/5

Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.

All facilities in Porterville →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555658.