3310 W Commerce Rd, Milford, MI 48380 (opens Google Maps) · Oakland County · (248) 685-1400· 101 certified beds · avg 65 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1976 · 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: THE PEPLINSKI GROUP (10 facilities, chain avg rating 2.1★)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5 · 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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 20, 2026 · 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 12, 2026 (Past Non-Compliance)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Oct 29, 2025 · F-0604 · triggered by a complaint
The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment.
Why it matters: Unneeded restraints can cause injuries, muscle loss, and deep emotional distress.
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 25, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Aug 26, 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: Sep 12, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Apr 10, 2024 · 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 (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: Apr 30, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Feb 7, 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: Mar 5, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Aug 29, 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: Sep 27, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 40 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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
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
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2026 | 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 |
| Jun 3, 2026 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Jun 3, 2026 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Mar 9, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure a transfer or discharge met the resident's needs and preferences, or did not properly prepare the resident to leave safely. · from a complaint · F-0627 |
| Mar 9, 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 |
| Jan 20, 2026 | ▲ 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 20, 2026 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0761 |
| Oct 29, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · from a complaint · F-0604 |
| Oct 29, 2025 | 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 26, 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 |
| Aug 26, 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 |
| Jul 24, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0584 |
| Mar 13, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. · F-0557 |
| Mar 13, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide basic life support, such as CPR, before emergency medical help arrived — care that's required when it matches the doctor's orders and the resident's own written wishes. · F-0678 |
| Mar 13, 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 |
| Mar 13, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not arrange hospice services for a resident who needed them, or help the resident move to a facility that could arrange hospice. Hospice provides comfort-focused care for people nearing the end of life. · F-0849 |
| Dec 16, 2024 | 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 |
| Dec 16, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0758 |
| Sep 25, 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 |
| Sep 25, 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 |
| Sep 25, 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Apr 10, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual 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 |
| Apr 10, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · from a complaint · F-0755 |
| Apr 10, 2024 | 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 7, 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 |
| Feb 7, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Feb 7, 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 |
| Feb 7, 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. · F-0557 |
| Feb 7, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time. · F-0561 |
| Feb 7, 2024 | 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 |
| Feb 7, 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. · from a complaint · F-0658 |
| Feb 7, 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 |
| Feb 7, 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 |
| Feb 7, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Feb 7, 2024 | 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 |
| Feb 7, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. · from a complaint · F-0806 |
| Feb 7, 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 7, 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 |
| Aug 29, 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 |
| Aug 29, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide necessary behavioral health care and services — support for residents' mental and emotional wellbeing, including conditions like depression and anxiety. · from a complaint · F-0740 |
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (4 → 3).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 2 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2024 | 22 | 2 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 9 | 2 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 7 | 1 | G ▲ |
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 →
3 fines totaling $135,784.
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 29, 2025 | Fine | $81,480 |
| Apr 10, 2024 | Fine | $15,593 |
| Feb 7, 2024 | Fine | $38,711 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Michigan avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 4.48 | 4.32 | 3.95 | top 29% in Michigan; top 24% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.64 | 0.84 | 0.69 | bottom 33% in Michigan; top 44% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.95 | 3.79 | 3.50 | top 29% in Michigan; top 24% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.38 | 0.49 | 0.48 | bottom 43% in Michigan; bottom 49% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 67.9 | 44.1 | 45.8 | bottom 3% in Michigan; bottom 7% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 53.8 | 39.2 | 42.9 | bottom 23% in Michigan; bottom 30% 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 3.97, RN 0.56, weekend 3.50.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.97 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: —/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for West Hickory Haven. 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 - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ackerman, Amy | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 10% | 01/01/2012 |
| Ackerman, Ricky | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 10% | 01/01/2012 |
| Baumgarten, Michael | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 10% | 01/01/2012 |
| Baumgarten, Therese | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 10% | 01/01/2012 |
| Peplinski, Sheli | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 10% | 01/01/2012 |
| Peplinski, Todd | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 10% | 01/01/2012 |
| Schade, Jeffery | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 10% | 01/01/2012 |
| Schade, Tamara | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 10% | 01/01/2012 |
| Thompson, Brian | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 10% | 01/01/2012 |
| Thompson, Shelly | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 10% | 01/01/2012 |
| Ackerman, Amy | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2012 |
| Ackerman, Ricky | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2012 |
| Ackerman, Ricky | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2012 |
| Ackerman, Ricky | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2012 |
| Baumgarten, Michael | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2012 |
| Baumgarten, Therese | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2012 |
| Muszall, Jennifer | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/16/2024 |
| Muszall, Jennifer | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/16/2024 |
| Peplinski, Sheli | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2012 |
| Peplinski, Todd | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2012 |
Showing 20 of 38 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 18 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
CMS lists this facility under the chain The Peplinski Group — 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Medilodge of Milford | 3.0 mi | Milford, MI | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Caretel Inns of Brighton | 7.7 mi | Brighton, MI | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Westlake Health Campus | 8.5 mi | Commerce, MI | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| The Neighborhoods of White Lake | 9.0 mi | White Lake, MI | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Wellbridge of Brighton | 9.0 mi | Howell, MI | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| South Lyon Senior Care and Rehab Center | 10.5 mi | South Lyon, MI | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Wellbridge of Novi | 10.9 mi | Novi, MI | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Maple Manor Rehab Center of Novi INC | 11.3 mi | Novi, MI | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Fox Run Village | 12.2 mi | Novi, MI | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Novi Lakes Health Campus | 12.6 mi | Novi, MI | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Regency at Whitmore Lake | 12.6 mi | Whitmore Lake, MI | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| The Villa at Green Lake Estates | 12.7 mi | Orchard Lake, MI | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in Oakland, MI — 43 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 235262.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details