How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Torrington Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation LLC
80 Fern Dr, Torrington, CT 06790 (opens Google Maps) · Nw Hills County · (860) 294-7300· 75 certified beds · avg 70 residents/day · certified since Sep 1, 1971 · 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: ESSENTIAL HEALTHCARE (6 facilities, chain avg rating 2.5★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Aug 28, 2024
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Sep 19, 2019
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.71
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 · Sep 19, 2019 · 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 · Sep 19, 2019 · 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: Sep 19, 2019 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 41 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. · from a complaint F-0585
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
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
View all 41 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 11, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. · from a complaint · F-0585 |
| Feb 27, 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 |
| Feb 27, 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 |
| Feb 27, 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 |
| Aug 28, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Aug 28, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council. · F-0565 |
| Aug 28, 2024 | 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 |
| Aug 28, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide the social services residents need — such as counseling, help with adjustment, or connecting to outside resources — to achieve the best possible quality of life. · F-0745 |
| Aug 28, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective. · F-0881 |
| Aug 28, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program. · F-0882 |
| Aug 28, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Aug 28, 2024 | 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 |
| Aug 28, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not properly plan a resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs after leaving. · F-0660 |
| Aug 28, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · F-0679 |
| Aug 28, 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 |
| Aug 28, 2024 | 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 |
| Aug 28, 2024 | 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 |
| Aug 28, 2024 | 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 |
| Aug 28, 2024 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. · F-0623 |
| Aug 28, 2024 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that. · F-0636 |
| Aug 28, 2024 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not update each resident's care assessment at least once every 3 months. These regular check-ins keep the resident's care plan matched to their current condition. · F-0638 |
| Mar 11, 2024 | 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 |
| Mar 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 |
| Mar 24, 2022 | 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 |
| Mar 24, 2022 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Mar 24, 2022 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require. · F-0640 |
| Sep 19, 2019 | ▲ 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 |
| Sep 19, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Sep 19, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 19, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · F-0908 |
| Sep 19, 2019 | 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 |
| Sep 19, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Sep 19, 2019 | 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 |
| Sep 19, 2019 | 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 |
| Sep 19, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · F-0679 |
| Sep 19, 2019 | 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 19, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698 |
| Sep 19, 2019 | 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 |
| Sep 19, 2019 | 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 |
| Sep 19, 2019 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. · F-0585 |
| Sep 19, 2019 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require. · F-0640 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (4 → 17).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2019
All citations: 15
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2022
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 18
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 1
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 15 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2022 | 4 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 18 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 3 | 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.
Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityConnecticut averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 4.71
Connecticut average: 3.80
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 1.20
Connecticut average: 0.70
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.96
Connecticut average: 3.43
U.S. average: 3.50
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) | 4.71 | 3.80 | 3.95 | top 12% in Connecticut; top 18% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.20 | 0.70 | 0.69 | top 9% in Connecticut; top 9% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.96 | 3.43 | 3.50 | top 20% in Connecticut; top 24% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.69 | 0.46 | 0.48 | top 14% in Connecticut; top 16% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 21.1 | 37.4 | 45.8 | top 5% in Connecticut; top 4% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 38.9 | 38.6 | 42.9 | bottom 49% in Connecticut; top 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 4.51, RN 1.15, weekend 3.80.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.51 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.
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: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Torrington Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation LLC. 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.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Landa, Joshua | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 38% | 11/01/2021 |
| Landa, Sari | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 6% | 11/01/2021 |
| Mayer, Abraham | Individual | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2022 |
| Mayer, Berry | Individual | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2022 |
| Mayer, Moshe | Individual | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2022 |
| Mayer, Yossi | Individual | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2022 |
| Salamon, Menajem | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 44% | 11/01/2021 |
| Salamon, Mordejai | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 7% | 11/01/2021 |
| Brown, Natalie | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/25/2025 |
| Brown, Natalie | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/13/2025 |
| Burg & Weingarten, Cpa, PC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2021 |
| Gewirtz, Jonathan | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2022 |
| Landa, Joshua | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/13/2025 |
| Landa, Sari | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/13/2025 |
| Raad, Marc | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2021 |
| Raad, Marc | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/17/2025 |
| Salamon, Menajem | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2016 |
| Salamon, Menajem | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/13/2025 |
| Salamon, Mordejai | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/13/2025 |
| Zella Healthcare Consulting LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2021 |
All 20 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 Essential Healthcare — 6 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.
- Waterbury Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation LLC — Waterbury, CT · overall 5/5
- West Haven Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation — West Haven, CT · overall 2/5
- Advanced Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation — New Haven, CT · overall 1/5abuse
- New Haven Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation LLC — New Haven, CT · overall 1/5abuse
- Southport Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation LLC — Southport, CT · overall 2/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking.
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?"
- "Walk me through what happens when a resident or family files a grievance — who responds and how fast?"
- "If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"
- "Does your facility have an active resident council, and how does management respond to its concerns?"
- "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
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 21% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 20 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 35 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wolcott Hall Nursing Center, INC | 1.0 mi | Torrington, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Havencare at Litchfield Woods | 1.7 mi | Torrington, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Havencare at Valerie Manor | 1.9 mi | Torrington, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Cherry Brook Health Care Center | 9.8 mi | Canton, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Cook Willow Health & Rehabilitation Center, INC. | 10.2 mi | Plymouth, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Ingraham Manor Rehab and Nursing | 12.4 mi | Bristol, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Pines at Bristol for Nursing & Rehabilitation, the | 12.7 mi | Bristol, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Avon Health Center | 13.0 mi | Avon, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Apple Rehab Avon | 13.1 mi | Avon, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Civita Care Sheriden Woods | 13.2 mi | Bristol, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Village Green Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center | 13.9 mi | Bristol, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| McLean Health Center | 15.5 mi | Simsbury, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Nw Hills, CT — 9 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Village Crest Center for Health & Rehabilitation — New Milford, CT · overall 4/5
- Candlewood Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center — New Milford, CT · overall 3/5
- Geer Nursing and Rehabilitation — Canaan, CT · overall 5/5
- Noble Horizons — Salisbury, CT · overall 2/5SFF
- Sharon Center for Health & Rehabilitation — Sharon, CT · overall 4/5
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 075105.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).