8565 Jericho Turnpike, Woodbury, NY 11797 (opens Google Maps) · Nassau County · (516) 367-3400· 200 certified beds · avg 177 residents/day · certified since Oct 30, 1987 · 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 →
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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Nov 20, 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: Jan 6, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 24 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint F-0689
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 used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. F-0604
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 20, 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 |
| Sep 8, 2025 | 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 |
| Sep 8, 2025 | 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 |
| Sep 8, 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 |
| Sep 8, 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 |
| Sep 8, 2025 | 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 8, 2025 | 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 |
| Sep 8, 2025 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not conduct and document a facility-wide assessment of what staff, supplies, and resources it needs to care for its residents properly — during everyday operations, nights, weekends, and emergencies. · F-0838 |
| Mar 9, 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. · F-0609 |
| Mar 9, 2024 | 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. · F-0610 |
| Mar 9, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. · F-0655 |
| Mar 9, 2024 | 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 |
| Mar 9, 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 |
| Mar 9, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · F-0677 |
| Mar 9, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline. · F-0688 |
| Mar 9, 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 |
| Mar 9, 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 |
| Mar 9, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755 |
| Mar 9, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. · F-0802 |
| Apr 13, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate. · F-0554 |
| Apr 13, 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 |
| Apr 13, 2022 | 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 |
| Apr 13, 2022 | 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 13, 2022 | 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 |
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (11 → 7).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 5 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 11 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 8 | 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 →
1 fine totaling $8,278.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 20, 2025 | Fine | $8,278 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | New York avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.55 | 3.58 | 3.95 | top 43% in New York; bottom 39% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.52 | 0.68 | 0.69 | bottom 39% in New York; bottom 40% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.34 | 3.13 | 3.50 | top 31% in New York; bottom 49% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.44 | 0.48 | 0.48 | top 35% in New York; top 42% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 22.4 | 40.3 | 45.8 | top 9% in New York; top 4% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 43.5 | 39.8 | 42.9 | bottom 38% in New York; bottom 46% 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 3.73, RN 0.54, weekend 3.51.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.73 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: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for White Oaks Rehabilitation and Nursing Center. 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 - Partnership
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| White, Jeffrey | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 51% | 01/01/1998 |
| White, Jeffrey | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/1998 |
| White, Jeffrey | Individual | General Partnership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/19/2005 |
All 3 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Excel at Woodbury for Rehabilitation and Nursing, | 0.1 mi | Woodbury, NY | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Woodbury Heights Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 0.7 mi | Woodbury, NY | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Huntington Hills Center for Health and Rehabilitat | 3.2 mi | Melville, NY | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Central Island Healthcare | 3.2 mi | Plainview, NY | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Apex Rehabilitation & Care Center | 3.6 mi | Huntington Station, NY | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Pine Forest Car Center for Rehab & Healthcare | 4.3 mi | Huntington, NY | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Carillon Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 4.5 mi | Huntington, NY | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Daleview Care Center | 6.2 mi | East Farmingdale, NY | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Gurwin Jewish Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 8.4 mi | Commack, NY | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Fulton Commons Care Center INC | 9.0 mi | East Meadow, NY | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Emerge Nursing and Rehabilitation at Glen Cove | 9.3 mi | Glen Cove, NY | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Glen Cove Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation | 9.3 mi | Glen Cove, NY | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in Nassau, NY — 36 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 335690.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details