How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Victoria Care Center
3541 Puente Avenue, Baldwin Park, CA 91706 (opens Google Maps) · Los Angeles County · (626) 962-1043· 49 certified beds · avg 42 residents/day · certified since Feb 5, 1979 · 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: DAVID JOHNSON (48 facilities, chain avg rating 3.2★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Apr 9, 2026
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.24
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: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5 · 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.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 36 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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
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
View all 36 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 9, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Apr 9, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 9, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Apr 9, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 9, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Apr 9, 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 |
| Apr 9, 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 9, 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 |
| Apr 9, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 9, 2026 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms. · F-0912 |
| Jun 12, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · from a complaint · F-0641 |
| May 16, 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Feb 16, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · F-0578 |
| Feb 16, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Feb 16, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Feb 16, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 16, 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 |
| Feb 16, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 16, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 16, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms. · F-0912 |
| Nov 5, 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 |
| Jun 13, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not let a resident return after a hospital stay or approved leave that lasted longer than the facility's bed-hold policy allowed. Residents generally have the right to come back to the next available bed. · from a complaint · F-0626 |
| Feb 11, 2024 | 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 11, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698 |
| Feb 11, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Feb 11, 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. · F-0550 |
| Feb 11, 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 |
| Feb 11, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · F-0604 |
| Feb 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 |
| Feb 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 |
| Feb 11, 2024 | 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. · F-0726 |
| Feb 11, 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. · F-0756 |
| Feb 11, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
| Feb 11, 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 |
| Feb 11, 2024 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms. · F-0912 |
| Jan 9, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. · from a complaint · F-0557 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (8 → 10).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2024
All citations: 16
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 10
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 10
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 16 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 10 | 0 | E |
| 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)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityCalifornia averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 4.24
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.38
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.80
California average: 3.90
U.S. average: 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) | 4.24 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 42% in California; top 31% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.38 | 0.61 | 0.69 | bottom 29% in California; bottom 20% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.80 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 46% in California; top 29% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.27 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 26% in California; bottom 25% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 42.6 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 31% in California; top 43% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 33.3 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 40% in California; top 33% 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 4.55, RN 0.41, weekend 4.07.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.55 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Victoria 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Puente Partners LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 10/30/2008 |
| Brice, Joshua | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/24/2024 |
| Brice, Joshua | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/24/2024 |
| Chimwaza, Pearson | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/16/2024 |
| Chimwaza, Pearson | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/16/2024 |
| Dehghanmanesh, Adrian | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2021 |
| Dehghanmanesh, Adrian | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2021 |
| Dhiman, Naveen | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/10/2024 |
| Dhiman, Naveen | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2023 |
| Farrales, Mary | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2023 |
| Johnson, Frank | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/10/2008 |
| Johnson, Frank | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/10/2008 |
| Kochek, Joshua | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2022 |
| Kochek, Joshua | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2022 |
| Oxford, Micheal | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/03/2022 |
| Oxford, Micheal | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/03/2022 |
| Puente Partners LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/30/2008 |
| Puente Partners LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/30/2008 |
| Rose Baldwin Park Property LP | Organization | 5% or Greater Security Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/11/2025 |
| Rose Baldwin Park Property LP | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/11/2025 |
Showing 20 of 21 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 1 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain David Johnson — 48 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.
- Villa Del Sol Post Acute — Bellflower, CA · overall 2/5
- Villa Rancho Bernardo Care Center — San Diego, CA · overall 5/5
- Vineland Post Acute — North Hollywood, CA · overall 3/5
- Vista View Post Acute — Vista, CA · overall 4/5
- Las Vegas Post Acute & Rehabilitation — Las Vegas, NV · overall 4/5
- Torrey Pines Post Acute and Rehabilitation — Las Vegas, NV · overall 2/5abuse
- Alcott Rehabilitation Hospital — Los Angeles, CA · overall 5/5
- Anaheim Healthcare Center, LLC — Anaheim, CA · overall 3/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 47 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.
- "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
- "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?"
- "How many residents here use oxygen or breathing equipment, and who checks that equipment each shift?"
- "Where do you post your daily staffing numbers, and can I see today's?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "Can you give me examples of how you adjust daily routines and room setups to fit each resident's preferences?"
- "How do you decide when a feeding tube is truly needed, and how do staff care for residents who have one?"
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 43% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 21 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 224 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| West Covina Healthcare Center | 0.5 mi | West Covina, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| West Covina Medical Center D/P SNF | 0.7 mi | West Covina, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Garden View Post Acute Rehabilitation | 0.8 mi | Baldwin Park, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| West Haven Healthcare | 0.8 mi | West Covina, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Coast Care Convalescent Center | 1.2 mi | Baldwin Park, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Sierra View Care Center | 1.4 mi | Baldwin Park, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Clara Baldwin Stocker Home for Women | 1.4 mi | West Covina, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Beacon Healthcare Center | 1.8 mi | West Covina, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| The Rowland | 2.9 mi | Covina, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Harvard Creek Post Acute | 2.9 mi | Covina, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Penn Mar Healthcare Center | 3.4 mi | El Monte, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Eastland Subacute and Rehabilitation Center | 3.5 mi | El Monte, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Los Angeles, CA — 369 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- View Heights Conv Hosp — Los Angeles, CA · overall 2/5
- View Park Convalescent Center — Los Angeles, CA · overall 3/5
- Villa Del Rio — Bell Gardens, CA · overall 1/5SFF
- Villa Del Rio Gardens — Bell Gardens, CA · overall 2/5
- Villa Del Sol Post Acute — Bellflower, CA · overall 2/5
- Villa Gardens Health Care Unit — Pasadena, CA · overall 5/5
- Villa Scalabrini Special Care — Sun Valley, CA · overall 4/5
- Villa Serena Healthcare Center — Long Beach, CA · overall 5/5
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 555107.