How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
The Estates at Bloomington LLC
9200 Nicollet Avenue South, Bloomington, MN 55420 (opens Google Maps) · Hennepin County · (952) 881-8676· 68 certified beds · avg 66 residents/day · certified since Jul 1, 1986 · 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: MONARCH HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT (45 facilities, chain avg rating 2.2★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Apr 23, 2026
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Jan 5, 2024
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.95
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: 3/5 · 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 · Jan 5, 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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 5, 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: Jan 20, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 33 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. F-0550
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
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). F-0628
View all 33 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Apr 23, 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. · F-0550 |
| Apr 23, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 23, 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). · F-0628 |
| Apr 23, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 23, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 23, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason. · F-0757 |
| Apr 23, 2026 | 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 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. · F-0880 |
| Jan 30, 2025 | 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 |
| Jan 30, 2025 | 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 |
| Jan 30, 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 |
| Jan 30, 2025 | 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 |
| Jan 30, 2025 | 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 30, 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 |
| Jan 30, 2025 | 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 |
| Jan 30, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly. · F-0700 |
| Jan 30, 2025 | 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 |
| Jan 30, 2025 | 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 |
| Sep 4, 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 |
| Jan 5, 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 |
| Jan 5, 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. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| Dec 12, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give residents the required written notice of their rights, the facility's rules, the services offered, and what those services cost. · from a complaint · F-0572 |
| Dec 12, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| Nov 8, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not let a resident help develop and carry out their own plan of care — the written roadmap of the services and support they'll receive, built around their personal goals and preferences. · F-0553 |
| Nov 8, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need. · F-0644 |
| Nov 8, 2023 | 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 |
| Nov 8, 2023 | 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. · F-0686 |
| Nov 8, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Nov 8, 2023 | 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. · F-0808 |
| Nov 8, 2023 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Nov 8, 2023 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Aug 1, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| Aug 1, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (11 → 7).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 12
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2025
All citations: 11
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 7
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 12 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 3 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 11 | 0 | E |
| 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.
Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityMinnesota averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.95
Minnesota average: 4.83
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 1.34
Minnesota average: 1.22
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.59
Minnesota average: 4.27
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Minnesota avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.95 | 4.83 | 3.95 | bottom 13% in Minnesota; top 41% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.34 | 1.22 | 0.69 | top 30% in Minnesota; top 7% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.59 | 4.27 | 3.50 | bottom 18% in Minnesota; top 38% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 1.01 | 0.69 | 0.48 | top 16% in Minnesota; top 6% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 37.1 | 42.2 | 45.8 | top 42% in Minnesota; top 29% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 47.4 | 38.6 | 42.9 | bottom 33% in Minnesota; bottom 40% 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 3.33, RN 1.13, weekend 3.02.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.33 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: 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 The Estates at Bloomington LLC. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arem, Jeffrey | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 7% | 03/01/2017 |
| Halpert, Marc | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 30% | 03/01/2017 |
| HML LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 7% | 03/01/2017 |
| Jaffa, Noam | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 7% | 03/01/2017 |
| Legum, Joshua | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 30% | 03/01/2017 |
| Nij LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 7% | 03/01/2017 |
| Spartan Healthcare LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 30% | 03/01/2017 |
| Stern, William | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 20% | 03/01/2017 |
| Yazoma Holdings, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 30% | 03/01/2017 |
| Halpert, Marc | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2017 |
| Legum, Joshua | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2017 |
| Monarch Healthcare Operating IV LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2017 |
| Stern, William | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2017 |
All 13 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 Monarch Healthcare Management — 45 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.
- The Estates at Chateau LLC — Minneapolis, MN · overall 2/5
- The Estates at Delano LLC — Delano, MN · overall 4/5
- The Estates at Excelsior LLC — Excelsior, MN · overall 1/5abuse
- The Estates at Fridley LLC — Fridley, MN · overall 2/5abuse
- The Estates at Greeley LLC — Stillwater, MN · overall 4/5
- The Estates at Linden LLC — Stillwater, MN · overall 5/5
- The Estates at Lynnhurst LLC — Saint Paul, MN · overall 1/5
- The Estates at Roseville LLC — Roseville, MN · overall 2/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 44 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?"
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "Can you give me examples of how you adjust daily routines and room setups to fit each resident's preferences?"
- "What written notices do we get before any transfer or discharge, and what is your bed-hold policy?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "How many residents here use oxygen or breathing equipment, and who checks that equipment each shift?"
- "How often is each resident's medication list reviewed, and who decides when a drug can be reduced or stopped?"
- "Can we tour the whole building today, including resident bathrooms and common areas, not just the lobby?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the Minnesota 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 37% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 13 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 93 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Martin Luther Care Center | 1.4 mi | Bloomington, MN | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Presbyterian Homes of Bloomington | 1.8 mi | Bloomington, MN | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| The Villas at Richfield | 1.9 mi | Richfield, MN | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Edenbrook of Edina | 4.2 mi | Minneapolis, MN | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Aurora on France | 4.2 mi | Edina, MN | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Minnesota Masonic Home Care Center | 4.4 mi | Bloomington, MN | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Mount Olivet Careview Home | 4.6 mi | Minneapolis, MN | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Mount Olivet Home | 4.6 mi | Minneapolis, MN | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Friendship Village of Bloomington | 5.6 mi | Bloomington, MN | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Ebenezer Ridges Geriatric Care Center | 5.8 mi | Burnsville, MN | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Grand Avenue Rest Home | 6.3 mi | Minneapolis, MN | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| MN Veterans Home-Mpls | 6.4 mi | Minneapolis, MN | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Hennepin, MN — 54 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- The Estates at Chateau LLC — Minneapolis, MN · overall 2/5
- The Estates at Excelsior LLC — Excelsior, MN · overall 1/5abuse
- The Estates at St Louis Park LLC — Saint Louis Park, MN · overall 3/5
- The Terrace at Crystal LLC — Crystal, MN · overall —/5SFF
- The Villas at Brookview — Golden Valley, MN · overall 1/5
- The Villas at Osseo LLC — Osseo, MN · overall 1/5abuse
- The Villas at Robbinsdale — Robbinsdale, MN · overall 1/5
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 245324.