4090 West Pioneer Parkway, West Valley City, UT 84120 (opens Google Maps) · Salt Lake County · (801) 397-4400· 124 certified beds · avg 110 residents/day · certified since Aug 1, 1980 · 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: ROCKY MOUNTAIN CARE (10 facilities, chain avg rating 3.0★)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · 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.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, pattern · Oct 26, 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 (K): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was a pattern: more than a limited occurrence, without being widespread. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Nov 2, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, pattern · Oct 26, 2023 · F-0610 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do.
Why it matters: When allegations aren't investigated, harm to residents can continue unchecked.
Severity (K): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was a pattern: more than a limited occurrence, without being widespread. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Nov 2, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Oct 26, 2023 · F-0609 · triggered by a complaint
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.
Why it matters: When incidents aren't reported promptly, abusers may continue harming residents and outside authorities can't step in.
Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. 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, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Dec 22, 2025 · 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: Dec 31, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Nov 8, 2023 · 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 10, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · May 23, 2022 · 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: Jun 21, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 26 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. F-0689
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
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
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 12, 2026 | 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 |
| Feb 12, 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 12, 2026 | 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. · F-0755 |
| Feb 12, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide or arrange specialized rehabilitation services — such as physical, occupational, or speech therapy — for residents who needed them. · F-0825 |
| Feb 12, 2026 | 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 |
| Feb 12, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · F-0867 |
| Feb 12, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area. · F-0919 |
| Dec 22, 2025 | ▲ 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 |
| Jun 30, 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. · from a complaint · F-0880 |
| Jan 11, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate. · F-0554 |
| Jan 11, 2024 | 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 11, 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. · F-0677 |
| Jan 11, 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. · F-0693 |
| Jan 11, 2024 | 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 |
| Nov 8, 2023 | ▲ 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 26, 2023 | ▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, 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. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Oct 26, 2023 | ▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, pattern | The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint · F-0610 |
| Oct 26, 2023 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, 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. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| May 23, 2022 | ▲ 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 |
| May 23, 2022 | 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 |
| May 23, 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 |
| May 23, 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 |
| May 23, 2022 | 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. · F-0755 |
| May 23, 2022 | 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. · F-0756 |
| May 23, 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 |
| May 23, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · F-0867 |
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (5 → 7).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 8 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2023 | 4 | 4 | K ▲ |
| 2024 | 5 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 2 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 7 | 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 →
1 fine totaling $20,318.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Oct 26, 2023 | Fine | $20,318 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Utah avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.03 | 3.87 | 3.95 | bottom 16% in Utah; bottom 15% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.87 | 1.17 | 0.69 | bottom 32% in Utah; top 23% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.70 | 3.39 | 3.50 | bottom 16% in Utah; bottom 16% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.81 | 0.88 | 0.48 | top 47% in Utah; top 11% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 48.9 | 50.7 | 45.8 | top 47% in Utah; bottom 40% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 52.2 | 40.6 | 42.9 | bottom 34% in Utah; bottom 32% 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 3.71, RN 1.06, weekend 3.30.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.71 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.
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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Rocky Mountain Care - Hunter Hollow. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
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 →
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beaver City Corporation | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 11/01/2015 |
| Bangerte, Nathan | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2025 |
| Bangerter, Edward | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2025 |
| Bangerter, Edward | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/05/2019 |
| Bangerter, Johnathan | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2025 |
| Bangerter, Johnathan | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/05/2020 |
| Barney, Janett | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2012 |
| BCVV, INC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2015 |
| BCVV, INC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/15/2025 |
| Beeman, Raymond | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/22/2022 |
| Boardman, Laura | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/22/2022 |
| Brown, Gary | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2011 |
| Darby, Megan | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2025 |
| Gatherum, Jason | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2025 |
| Hale, Fredrick | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/22/2022 |
| Hansen, Kent | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2025 |
| Langford, Scott | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2018 |
| Martinez, Mark | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2023 |
| Martinez, Mark | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2023 |
| Mikesell, Bradley | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/22/2022 |
Showing 20 of 34 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 14 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
CMS lists this facility under the chain Rocky Mountain Care — 10 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.
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 9 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Meadow Peak Rehabilitation | 1.6 mi | Taylorsville, UT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Alpine Meadow Rehabilitation and Nursing | 2.9 mi | West Valley City, UT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Legacy Village Rehabilitation | 3.3 mi | Taylorsville, UT | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Monument Healthcare Taylorsville | 5.0 mi | Salt Lake City, UT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Little Cottonwood Rehabilitation and Nursing | 5.3 mi | South Salt Lake, UT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Aspen Ridge West Transitional Rehab | 5.4 mi | Murray, UT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Pine Creek Rehabilitation and Nursing | 5.7 mi | Salt Lake City, UT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Paramount Health and Rehabilitation | 5.8 mi | Salt Lake City, UT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Meadow Brook Rehabilitation and Nursing | 5.8 mi | Salt Lake City, UT | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Monument Healthcare South Salt Lake | 5.9 mi | Salt Lake City, UT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | SFF |
| Midtown Manor | 6.0 mi | Salt Lake City, UT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| St Joseph Villa | 6.1 mi | Salt Lake City, UT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in Salt Lake, UT — 35 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 465075.
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