Skip to main content
CovelightCare
  • Start your search

    • MapExplore homes by area and what matters to you.
    • Directory
    • Guided search
    • Medi-Cal care homes

    Take a closer look

    • Check a home
    • Compare homes
    • Ask homes for me
  • Step by step

    • All care guidesEvery guide, in the order you’ll need them.
    • 1Step 1: Learn the kinds of care homes
    • 2Step 2: Ways to pay for care
    • 3Step 3: Find homes and check them
    • 4Step 4: Visit, and get the papers before you sign
    • 5Step 5: Move in
    • 6Step 6: The first months, and your rights

    Start with a question

    • Who pays for a care home?
    • Does Medi-Cal pay for a care home?
    • Board and care or assisted living?
    • Leaving the hospital soon?
    • Can a care home make someone leave?
    • Print a visit checklist
    • Check a home’s license
  • Professional tools

    • All professional tools
    • Discharge planning
    • Care management
    • Fiduciaries
    • Elder-law attorneys
    • Public-record worklist

    Care home operators

    • Manage your home’s profileYour home’s information and family inquiries.
    • Claim a home
    • Operator sign in
  • Get to know Covelight

    • How we work
    • Our data & sources
    • What’s new
    • Suggest a correction
    • Contact us
Saved homesGuided search
  • Start your search

    • MapExplore homes by area and what matters to you.
    • Directory
    • Guided search
    • Medi-Cal care homes

    Take a closer look

    • Check a home
    • Compare homes
    • Ask homes for me
  • Step by step

    • All care guidesEvery guide, in the order you’ll need them.
    • 1Step 1: Learn the kinds of care homes
    • 2Step 2: Ways to pay for care
    • 3Step 3: Find homes and check them
    • 4Step 4: Visit, and get the papers before you sign
    • 5Step 5: Move in
    • 6Step 6: The first months, and your rights

    Start with a question

    • Who pays for a care home?
    • Does Medi-Cal pay for a care home?
    • Board and care or assisted living?
    • Leaving the hospital soon?
    • Can a care home make someone leave?
    • Print a visit checklist
    • Check a home’s license
  • Professional tools

    • All professional tools
    • Discharge planning
    • Care management
    • Fiduciaries
    • Elder-law attorneys
    • Public-record worklist

    Care home operators

    • Manage your home’s profileYour home’s information and family inquiries.
    • Claim a home
    • Operator sign in
  • Get to know Covelight

    • How we work
    • Our data & sources
    • What’s new
    • Suggest a correction
    • Contact us
Guided search
Beverly Hills Loving CareLicense #197603601 · Covelight Care
Covelight CareBeverly Hills Loving CareLicense #197603601 · 1019 S. Wooster Street, Los Angeles, CA · (310) 652-3555Record printed from covelightcare.com — data as of the dates shown on each item.
Home/California/Los Angeles County/Los Angeles/Beverly Hills Loving Care
Map · 1019 S. Wooster Street

© Protomaps © OpenStreetMap

Estimated starting rate$3,150/mo

Covelight estimate · likely $2,450–$4,050 · See costs

Check availability

Request a tour

More days
  • AskThe cost, or your own question
  • (310) 652-3555

    From the state licensing record · October 26, 2026

Free for families. A home gets your number only if you say yes.

BH

Call Beverly Hills Loving Care

Los Angeles · Licensed for 176

(310) 652-3555

From the state licensing record · October 26, 2026

or

Let us do the legwork

  • We ask about availability, price and the care you describe.
  • If it’s a fit, you choose whether they call you. Either way, you get every answer.
Check availabilityFree

Large community · Licensed for 176 · Los Angeles

Beverly Hills Loving Care

1019 S. Wooster Street, Los Angeles, CA 90035 · Licensed since 2003

  • Overview
  • Care
  • Costs
  • Daily life
  • Location
  • State record

Beverly Hills Loving Care

Overview

Estimated starting rate

$3,150 a month

Covelight estimate · likely $2,450–$4,050 See costs

No openings reported

  • Approved by the state: Wheelchair · BedriddenState licensing record · October 26, 2026
  • Languages spoken: EnglishReported on Caring.com · September 9, 2026
  • Ways to pay: Medi-Cal ALW acceptedDHCS participant list · October 1, 2026

Ask this home

Check availability

Request a tour

More days
  • AskThe cost, or your own question

Free for families. A home gets your number only if you say yes.

Care and support

  • Wheelchairup to 64 residents
  • Bedridden

Not on file: dementia and hospice approvals.

Approved by the state · State licensing record · October 26, 2026. An approval may cover specific rooms or residents; it does not establish an opening.

Read the state’s own wording
64 NON-AMBULATORY AND 5 BEDRIDDEN IN ROOM # 104, #106, #108, #118 AND #128.

935 - ELDERLY

CDSS record, verbatim · October 26, 2026

Care services

These are the home’s own statements about its day-to-day practice — they are not part of the state licensing record, and the state has not approved or reviewed them.

  • Help with bathing or showering

    Reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.

  • Help with dressing and grooming

    Reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.

  • Pharmacy services on site

    Reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.

  • Companion care

    Reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.

As needs change

  • Medicines

    Level of medication service: reminders only

    Caring.com · September 9, 2026

We’ll ask for you. Not on file for Beverly Hills Loving Care: two-person transfers or a lift, who is awake overnight, staying through hospice and care if memory loss develops. When we check availability, we ask about these too.

Check availability

What it costs here

Covelight estimate

$3,150a month to start

Likely $2,450–$4,050

From 11 nearby homes that publish rates · this home’s rate is not on file

Monthly cost breakdownWith a studio and basic help · room, care and fees$3,150likely a month
Room
Daily care
Sharing the room

Memory care is not priced here: a dementia-care designation is not on file for this home. Ask the home.

  • Starting monthly rate$3,150likely $2,450–$4,050

    Covelight’s estimate starts from the rates 11 communities with 50 or more beds within 3 miles publish, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices. In testing, the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 homes. This home’s own rate is not on file.

  • Basic help with daily careUsually includedup to $600

    Basic help is usually part of the starting rate. Homes that price care by level start around $600 a month (44 California homes publish a care-level range, seen in September 2026).

  • One-time move-in fee$2,500one time · likely $0–$4,000

    Homes that list a one-time entry or community fee charge a median of $2,500 (133 California listings; middle half $1,000–$4,000). Many homes list none — ask.

Likely monthly totalLikely $2,450–$4,250
$3,150
First monthWith a one-time move-in fee · likely $3,050–$7,500
$5,650
How people payOn the Medi-Cal waiver list · private pay, SSI/SSP, veterans, insurance
  • MedicareDoes not pay for room and board in a care home. It can still cover hospice or home-health visits inside one.
  • Private payMost residents pay from savings, a home sale or family help. Ask for the rate and what it includes in writing.
  • Medi-Cal Assisted Living WaiverThis home appears on the DHCS participation list, October 1, 2026. Confirm eligibility and current participation with the program. The waiver pays for care services, not room and board. On the waiver, a resident on SSI/SSP pays the home $1,444.07 a month for room and board.
  • SSI/SSPCalifornia’s 2026 standard is $1,626.07 a month; $1,444.07 of it goes to the home and $182 stays with the resident. Whether this home accepts it is not on file — ask.
  • VeteransVA Aid & Attendance can add to a veteran’s or surviving spouse’s pension. Ask whether residents here have used it.
  • Long-term care insuranceMost policies pay for licensed care homes. Ask what paperwork the home provides for claims.
If the money runs out, what Medi-Cal covers
Rates at nearby homes11 nearby homes publish starting rates of $2,500 to $11,200

$2,450$11,200

EstimateLikely rangeA nearby home’s published starting rate

11 homes like this within 3 miles publish starting rates mostly between $2,700–$9,600.

  • Sunny Hills Assisted Living (Memory Care)Los Angeles · 0.1 mi · Large community
    $2,500Listed on Seniorly · assisted living private room · seen September 9, 2026
  • Oakmont of Beverly HillsBeverly Hills · 0.8 mi · Large community
    $8,795Listed on A Place for Mom · seen September 9, 2026
  • The Pinnacles at BurtonLos Angeles · 0.9 mi · Large community
    $4,500Listed on A Place for Mom · seen September 9, 2026
  • Sunrise of Beverly HillsBeverly Hills · 1.1 mi · Large community
    $10,000Listed on its own website · studio · seen October 27, 2026
  • The Leonard on Beverly A Clearwater CommunityLos Angeles · 1.5 mi · Large community
    $8,240Listed on A Place for Mom · seen September 9, 2026
  • Hayworth TerraceLos Angeles · 1.7 mi · Large community
    $3,500Listed on Seniorly · assisted living studio · seen September 9, 2026
  • Nazareth HouseLos Angeles · 2.4 mi · Large community
    $3,000Listed on Seniorly · assisted living studio · seen September 9, 2026
  • City View LaLos Angeles · 2.7 mi · Large community
    $6,000Listed on AssistedLiving.com · seen September 9, 2026
  • Belmont Village WestwoodLos Angeles · 2.8 mi · Large community
    $11,200Listed on Seniorly · seen September 9, 2026
  • Golden Manor Rest HomeLos Angeles · 2.9 mi · Large community
    $3,000Listed on Seniorly · assisted living private room · seen September 9, 2026
  • The Plaza at WestwoodLos Angeles · 3.0 mi · Large community
    $3,500Listed on Seniorly · seen September 9, 2026
How this estimate worksWithin 25% for 7 in 10 homes in testing

Covelight’s estimate starts from the rates 11 communities with 50 or more beds within 3 miles publish, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices. In testing, the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 homes. This home’s own rate is not on file.

  • Only prices a home put out itself count: its own website, a listing it supplied, or a price Seniorly says the home confirmed. Prices a listing site shows without saying where they came from are left out.
  • Nearby homes are the nearest of the same size that publish a rate, widening from 3 to 40 miles until at least 8 do. The estimate starts from what they charge, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices.
  • Room, care-level, second-person and move-in lines come from what California homes publish on listing sites. Memory care uses Covelight’s researched premium over assisted living.
  • Totals add each line’s figure and combine the lines’ ranges as separate charges, because a home is rarely at the top, or the bottom, of every line at once.
  • We tested this estimate on 1,546 California homes that publish their own starting rate. It was within 10% of the real rate for 3 in 10 homes and within 25% for 7 in 10; the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 (September 12, 2026).
  • It cannot see this home’s specials, how it assesses care, or which rooms are open.
Avoid surprises on the billWhat changes the price, and what to ask
  • The care level

    Some homes charge one all-inclusive rate. Others add levels or points as needs grow. Ask how the level is set, who decides, and what the next level costs.

  • What is billed separately

    Medication management, incontinence supplies, transportation and a second person in the room are often extra. Ask for the list in writing.

  • Move-in costs

    A one-time move-in fee or deposit is common. Ask what it covers and whether any of it comes back if the stay is short.

  • Increases

    California requires at least 90 days’ written notice, with reasons, before a rate rises (Health & Safety Code §1569.655). A change in the resident’s care level is the section’s own exception and can be billed sooner.

Ask for the price

An estimate for planning, not a quote. A home sets the price after hearing about the care needed.

Daily life

Rooms, meals, activities and house rules, in the home’s own words. Open any detail to see where it came from.

Rooms & the spaces they will use (4)Cable or satellite TV · Laundry · Amenities
  • Cable or satellite TV

    Reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.

  • LaundryDone by staff

    Reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.

  • AmenitiesHeating/Air conditioning

    Reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.

  • Housekeeping

    Reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.

Meals, preferences & familiar food (2)Meals are cooked in the home's own kitchen · Kosher food
  • Meals are cooked in the home's own kitchen

    Reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.

  • Kosher foodKosher style

    Reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.

Activities & the rhythm of a day (1)Exercise or fitness program
  • Exercise or fitness programGeneral fitness

    Reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.

Faith, culture & language (1)Languages spoken by caregivers
  • Languages spoken by caregiversEnglish

    Reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.

Where it is

1019 S. Wooster Street, Los Angeles, CA 90035Address from the public record · October 26, 2026. Confirm the entrance with the home before visiting.

Opening the neighborhood map…

  1. 1Cedars-Sinai Medical CenterHospital · General acute care, on the state’s list1.2 mi

Straight-line distances; check the drive or the walk. Hospital: the nearest general acute care hospital on the state’s list (CDPH, September 16, 2026).

Open directions ↗

The state record

California inspects every licensed home and publishes what it found. A citation does not make a home unsafe, and an empty file does not make a home good.

CDSS public record, read October 26, 2026 · License #197603601 · See the state’s own record ↗

The last 36 months — 13 of 19 documents

Complaint outcomes in these 36 months, in the state’s words: 10 “Unsubstantiated”.

20266 state visits · 7 documents

Aug 28, 2026Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Staff did not meet resident's hygenic needs.

On 08/28/2026, LPA Watson conducted a subsequent complaint visit to the facility listed above. LPA Watson met with the Administrator Lida Zarafashan and explained the reason for the visit. LPA Watson was granted entry into the facility. Investigation consisted of the following: On 08/27/2026, the department requested, obtained, and reviewed the following documentation: Resident Roster, Staff Roster, Admission Record (Culver West Health Center) for R1 dated 08/03/2026, Medical Assessment for R1 dated 05/08/2025, Appraisal Needs and Services for R1 dated 09/16/2026, Unusual Incident Reports for R1 dated 08/13/2026, 08/19/2026, and 07/20/2026, Transfer/Discharge Report for R1 dated 08/04/2026, and Discharge Summary for R1 dated 08/04/2026. CONTINUED ON LIC9099-C Unsubstantiated The department interviewed Staff #1–#5 (S1–S5) and Residents #2–#7 (R2–R7). An attempt to interview Resident #1 (R1) was made, but R1 was not present at the facility during the time of interviews. Investigation revealed the following: Allegation: Staff did not meet resident’s hygienic needs. It is alleged that staff neglected the resident’s hygienic needs, resulting in the resident being diagnosed with scabies and head lice. On 08/27/2026, the department interviewed the Administrator Lida Zarafashan, Staff #1 (S1). S1 was asked by the department if staff meet residents’ hygienic needs. S1 answered yes. S1 stated that staff provide showers to all of the residents three times a week or as needed, wash residents’ laundry, change their briefs, clean resident rooms daily, send linens out weekly or as needed for sterilization, and assist with Activities of Daily Living (ADL's) daily. During the interview, S1 was asked if staff observed any signs of R1’s skin irritation, itching, rash, or discomfort prior to R1’s hospital admission, and whether S1 knew R1 had scabies prior to admission. S1 stated that no resident in the facility had been diagnosed with scabies or head lice, and that there were no scabies or lice outbreak in the facility. S1 also stated that any rashes observed on R1 was typically due to medication, allergies, or dry skin. S1 was also asked if R1 ever refused hygiene assistance. S1 stated yes, R1 sometimes refused assistance because he was independent. The department further asked whether any other residents or staff had reported symptoms consistent with scabies or lice within the past 60 days. S1 answered no. The department toured the facility with S1 and found the facility clean and in good repair. On 08/27/2026, the department interviewed Staff #1–#5 (S1–S5) and Residents #2–#7 (R2–R7). Out of those interviewed, 5 out of 5 staff and 6 out of 6 residents denied the above allegation. An attempt to interview Resident #1 (R1) was made, but R1 was not present at the facility during the time of the interviews. On 08/29/2026 the department reviewed R1’s Medical Assessment dated 05/08/2025 and it showed no infectious diseases. The department then reviewed R1’s Appraisal Needs and Services Plan, which indicated that R1 requires supervision while bathing and that caregivers follow a bathing schedule for him. CONTINUED ON LIC9099-C On 07/23/2026, R1 was admitted to Culver West Health Center. The department reviewed the transfer/discharge report from Culver West, which showed R1 was treated for several health conditions, but no treatment for scabies or head lice was. The department also reviewed R1’s Unusual Incident Report dated 08/13/2026, indicating that R1 was transferred to Cedar Sinai Medical Center and was not scheduled for treatment related to scabies or head lice. Based on the information gathered, interviews conducted, and an analysis of records reviewed, the department found no evidence to support the allegation mentioned above. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur; therefore, the allegation is Unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with the Administrator Lida Zarafashan, and a copy of this report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 28, 2026 · control 11-AS-20260821143814
Aug 28, 2026Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Staff did not seek medical attention in a timely manner. Staff did not provided emergency services with resident's medical records. Staff does not effectively communicate with residents due to language barrier.

On 08/28/2026 at approximately 09:15 AM LPA Watson conducted a subsequent complaint visit to the facility listed above. LPA Watson met with the Administrator Lida Zarafashan and explained the reason for the visit. LPA Watson was granted entry into the facility to conduct the complaint visit. Investigation consisted of the following: On 08/27/2026, between 10:39 AM and 04:30 PM, the department requested, obtained, and reviewed the following documentation: Staff Roster, Resident Roster, Unusual Incident Reports dated 06/13/2024 and 08/14/2026, Appraisal Needs and Services dated 07/16/2026, and Medical Assessment for R1 dated 07/24/2026. On 08/27/2026 between 10:39 AM and 04:30 PM, the department interviewed Staff #1–#5 (S1–S5) and Residents #1–#7 (R1–R7). CONTINUED ON LIC9099-C Unsubstantiated Investigation consisted of the following: Allegation: Staff did not seek medical attention in a timely manner. It is alleged that staff did not seek timely medical attention for a resident who was described as dizzy and disoriented following a fall. The department interviewed Administrator Lida Zarafashan (S1) regarding the incident on 08/12/2026. During an interview with S1, the department asked if staff sought medical attention for R1 in a timely manner. S1 said that staff sought medical attention immediately by calling the Medtech, calling 911, and contacting R1’s authorized representative. S1 also said paramedics arrived, but the resident refused to be transported to the hospital. On 08/27/2026 between 10:39 AM and 04:30 PM, the department interviewed Staff #1–#5 (S1–S5) and Residents #1–#7 (R1–R7). Out of those interviewed, 5 out of 5 staff and 7 out of 7 residents denied the above allegation. On 08/28/2026, between 09:15 am and 02:30pm the department reviewed the Unusual Incident Report dated 08/17/2026. The report showed that on 08/14/2026 at 6:10 PM, R1 had a fall in her room, and a cut was observed on the top of her left eyebrow. The report also indicated that the facility’s Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) and Medtech found R1 on the floor, called for assistance, contacted 911, and paramedics arrived. It also showed that R1’s primary care physician was notified and that R1’s relative refused hospitalization. Further review of the report showed that R1 stated she lost her balance while getting something from the refrigerator. Based on the information gathered, interviews conducted, and an analysis of records reviewed, the department found no evidence to support the allegation mentioned above. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur. Therefore, the allegation is Unsubstantiated. CONTINUED ON LIC9099-C Allegation: Staff did not provide emergency services with R1’s medical records. It is alleged that staff were unable to provide paramedics with the residents’ medical information, hindering emergency care. On 08/27/2026, the department interviewed the Administrator Lida Zarafashan (S1). During the interview, the department asked S1 if staff provided emergency services with R1’s medical records. S1 said that on 08/12/2026, the resident fell and sustained an eyebrow injury, staff called 911, and notified the resident’s relative, and both the resident and relative refused hospitalization. S1 also said that staff have access to all residents’ emergency files, and when emergency services are contacted, staff routinely make copies of the resident’s emergency packet to provide to paramedics prior to their arrival. On 08/27/2026 between 10:39 AM and 04:30 PM, the department interviewed Staff #1–#5 (S1–S5) and Residents #1–#7 (R1–R7). Out of those interviewed, 5 out of 5 staff and 7 out of 7 residents denied the above allegation. On 08/28/2026, between 09:15 am and 02:30pm, the department reviewed R1’s Unusual Incident Reports dated 06/13/2024 and 08/14/2026, which showed that the facility filed both reports in a timely manner and immediately offered R1 assistance at the time of each occurrence. Based on the information gathered, interviews conducted, and an analysis of records reviewed, the department found no evidence to support the allegation mentioned above. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur. Therefore, the allegation is Unsubstantiated. Allegation: Staff do not effectively communicate with residents due to language barriers. It is alleged that staff are often unable to communicate effectively with several residents, noting that many of the residents are Persian. CONTINUED ON LIC9099-C On 08/27/2026, the department interviewed Administrator Lida Zarafashan (S1) regarding communication with the residents. During the interview, S1 was asked if staff effectively communicated with the residents. S1 said that most caregivers speak or understand Farsi and can communicate effectively with residents. S1 also said that if additional help in translation is needed, staff will contact the administrator or on-call personnel, who will provide translation assistance 24 hours a day. On 08/27/2026 between 10:39 AM and 04:30 PM, the department interviewed Staff #1–#5 (S1–S5) and Residents #1–#7 (R1–R7). Out of those interviewed, 5 out of 5 staff and 7 out of 7 residents denied the above allegation. On 08/28/2026, between 09:15 am and 02:30pm the department interviewed R1, who was asked if they ever had trouble communicating with staff because of language differences and whether it affected how quickly they received help when needed, and R1 said no. Based on the information gathered, interviews conducted, and an analysis of records reviewed, the department found no evidence to support the allegation mentioned above. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur. Therefore, the allegation is Unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with the Administrator Lida Zarafashan, and a copy of this report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 28, 2026 · control 11-AS-20260817103402
Jul 22, 2026Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Staff do not ensure residents' medication records are up to date.

On July 22, 2026, the California Department of Social Services/Community Care Licensing (CDSS/CCL) Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Ernand Dabuet conducted an initial unannounced complaint visit. LIDA ZARFSHAN the Administrator, greeted the LPA and explained that the purpose of the visit was to investigate the allegation mentioned above. The investigation involved collecting documents and inspecting the facility. A review was conducted of the Personnel Report LIC 500 (dated July 22, 2026), the Facility Resident Roster (dated July 08, 2026). Physician Orders (dated 07/08/26 – 08/06/26), MARs (dated 07/08/26 – 08/06/26), and Centrally Stored Medication logs and other pertinent records associated with this complaint. Interviews with Resident #1- #9 and Staff #1 - #4. (Evaluation Report continues LIC 9099-C) Unsubstantiated INVESTIGATION REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: Allegation: Staff do not ensure residents’ medication records are up to date. It is alleged that facility staff do not ensure residents’ medication records are up to date. Reports indicated concerns that facility staff are not authorized to discuss medications over the phone, which hinders efficient patient care. Further reports noted difficulties in getting updated patient medication lists, which are often outdated and pose risks to patient safety. Additionally, reports mentioned that staff members seem to be out of the office frequently. No further detailed information was provided. On July 22, 2026, between 10:55 AM and 12:20 PM, the Department interviewed residents identified as Resident #1 through Resident #9 (R1-R9). Nine (9) out of the nine (9) resident members who receive medication assistance could not corroborate this claim. Residents expressed a positive experience regarding the assistance they receive with their medications. They noted that staff consistently provide reliable support and that they have not encountered any problems related to incorrect, missing, or outdated medication information. Furthermore, residents appreciate communication from staff regarding any changes in their medications, ensuring they are well-informed and supported throughout the process. expected. All residents reported no staffing issues and confirmed staff are always available to assist. On July 22, 2026, between 10:30 AM and 1:30 PM, the Department interviewed staff members identified as Staff #1 through Staff #4 (S1-S4). Four (4) out of the four (4) staff members could not support this claim. According to staff members S3 and S4, those responsible for medication administration maintain up-to-date medication records, promptly receive and file physician orders, and update Medication Administration Records (MARs) and Centrally Stored Medication logs when changes occur. The staff described their procedures for receiving new orders, documenting changes, and communicating updates during shift transitions. Additionally, for prescription refills of PRN medications, the facility collaborates with Omnicare, and all refills are processed electronically without delays. (S3 and S4) mentioned that the facility typically only receives requests for medication lists when a resident is hospitalized. At that point, a request for a physician’s medication order is faxed to the hospital. (Evaluation Report continues LIC 9099-C) (S1- S4) emphasized that discussions regarding residents’ medications by telephone are rare due to the requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). (S2) noted that all staff have completed American Health Care training on (HIPAA), and a registered nurse conducts audits of the Physician Orders and MARs for accuracy weekly. According to (S1-S4) our med team is well-staffed, with four med-technicians on the morning shift, three on the evening shift, and one available for the NOC shift, ensuring full coverage throughout the day and night. The Department's review of medication administration records for a sample of residents showed that Physician Orders (dated 07/08/26 – 08/06/26), MARs (dated 07/08/26 – 08/06/26), and Centrally Stored Medication logs were consistent and current. No discrepancies were observed between the medications present in the facility and the written records reviewed. No documentation was found to indicate outdated or inaccurate medication records. Additional review of staff American Health Care Academy (HIPAA) training. Further review of Personnel Report LIC 500 (dated 07/22/26) verified med team staffing for all shifts. Based on interviews conducted and records reviewed, there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation mentioned above. Based on the information collected from the facility inspection, observations, interviews, and records analysis, the Department found no evidence to support the above allegation. The allegation may have happened or is valid, but there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. Therefore, the allegation is Unsubstantiated. No deficiencies cited. An exit interview was conducted with LIDA ZARAFSHAN, and copies of the reports were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 22, 2026 · control 11-AS-20260715204314
Jul 6, 2026Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Facility staff did not seek timely medical attention for a resident who developed an abscess.

On 07/06/2026 at 10:10 am, the Department conducted a initial visit at the facility to deliver the complaint investigation findings. During today’s visit, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Zina Brown met with Administrator Lida Zarafshan and explained the purpose of the visit. The investigation consisted of the following: On 04/15/2026, the Department conducted interviews between 8:49am – 1:41pm with the Administrator (A1), Staff (S1–S9), and Residents (R2–R9). On 05/19/2026 between 9:46am – 9:51am, the Department interviewed R1. The Department contacted the W1 on 04/14/2026 at 2:05pm, 05/20/2026 at 10:10am, and 07/06/2026 at 8:26am, with no response. Additional attempts were made on 05/18/2026 at 1:38pm and 06/04/2026 at 4:19pm, to speak with W2 also with no response. LPA also reviewed the following records for R1: LIC 601 Identification & Emergency Information (dated 02/04/2025); LIC 602 Physician Report for RCFE (dated 01/30/2026), LIC 603A Preplacement Appraisal Information (dated 02/04/2025), LIC 625: Needs & Appraisal Service (dated 02/10/2026), Medication Administrator Record (MAR) (dated 09/2025 - 05/19/2026), LIC 624 Unusual Incident Injury Report (dated 04/09/2026), Admission Agreement (dated 02/04/2026) and the discharge packet from Beachwood Post Acute & Rehab (dated 04/30/2026). Unsubstantiated On 04/27/2026 between 10:00am – 10:30am, the Department reviewed records and observed that the LIC 624 (dated 04/08/2026) documented R1’s transfer to Cedars Sinai Medical Center due to the discovery of a lump under the left armpit area. The LIC 602 (dated 01/30/2026) indicated “No” under Section I, item M: History of Skin Condition or Breakdown. On 05/18/2026 between 3:15pm – 3:25pm, the Department reviewed the discharge packet from Beachwood Post Acute & Rehab. Records showed that R1 was hospitalized from 04/08/2026 – 04/20/2026 and admitted to rehab from 04/20/2026 – 04/30/2026. The admission record documented diagnoses including cutaneous abscess of limb, cutaneous abscess of chest wall, and MRSA infection. The discharge summary noted that R1 received nursing care and therapy services during the rehab stay. Based on interviews and record reviews, there is not enough evidence to support the allegation. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur. Therefore, the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. Exit interview conducted with Lida Zarafshan (Administrator) and a copy of this report was provided. The investigation revealed the following: Allegation: Staff did not seek timely medical attention for a resident who developed an abscess It was alleged that a resident developed a lump under the left armpit area that required hospital evaluation, and concerns were raised about whether the condition had been identified and addressed in a timely manner On 04/15/2026 between 10:42am – 11:01am, the Department interviewed A1 regarding the allegation. A1 denied the allegation. A1 stated that on 04/08/2026, when R1 was taking a shower, a caregiver observed swelling and an abscess under the resident’s left armpit. A1 reported that R1 and R1’s primary care physician were informed immediately, and a family member arrived at the facility and was present during transportation. A1 stated that R1 was transported to Cedars Sinai Hospital per physician order without delay, and an incident report was submitted to the Department on 04/09/2026. On 06/16/2026 at 3:45 PM, the Department contacted A1 for further clarification. A1 reiterated that the caregiver discovered the swelling and abscess during R1’s shower on 04/08/2026, that the primary care physician and family were notified immediately, and that R1 was transported to the hospital per physician order. On 04/15/2026 between 8:49am – 11:32am, the Department interviewed nine (9) staff. 9 out of 9 staff denied the allegation. Staff reported awareness that R1 had been transported to the hospital but did not report any concerns or delays related to the facility’s response to the abscess. On 04/15/2026 between 11:43am – 1:41pm, and on 05/19/2026 between 9:46am – 9:51am, the Department interviewed nine (9) residents. 9 out of 9 residents denied the allegation. Residents did not report concerns regarding staff response to medical needs or delays in seeking medical attention. Investigation continues on LIC 9099-Cthe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 6, 2026 · control 11-AS-20260706082126
May 20, 2026Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Staff did not maintain the facility hallways free of obstructions Staff are not properly trained Staff retained expired food at the facility Staff did not practice proper hand hygiene when handling foods

On 05/20/2026, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA), Wendy Gibbs, conducted an unannounced Complaint Visit to the facility listed above. LPA met with Administrator Controller, Ilana Yazdi, and the purpose of today’s visit was explained. LPA was granted entry into the facility. The investigation consisted of the following: During today’s visit, LPA inspected the facility, observed lunch being served, interviewed Staff S1-S8, interviewed Residents R1-R9, and received and reviewed documents pertinent to the investigation. The following documents were received and reviewed Staff Roster, Resident Roster, Medication Technician Training, California Board of Registered Nursing Licensing Details, kitchen staff California Food Handler Certificate and receipts from West Pico Distributor (dated 05/05/26), Good Quality Produce Inc (dated 05/21/2026), Pacific Fresh Fish Co (dated 05/20/2026), and Dairy King (dated 05/20/26). The investigation revealed the following: Unsubstantiated Allegation: Staff did not maintain the hallway facility free of obstructions The allegation alleges that staff have placed tables in the hallways which is a hazard in case of an emergency. During the facility inspection, LPA and S1 walked all hallways in the facility. LPA observed all walkways and hallways were clean, clear, and free of debris, hazards, and obstructions. LPA did observe, while residents were participating in activities and having meals, staff were placing walkers in the hallway, outside the door. LPA observed that with the walkers lined up against the walls, there was still ample space for residents, residents with a walker or wheelchair, and staff, to pass through safely. Additionally, LPA observed that hallways have small trash cans and fans pressed up against the walls, not obstructing hallways. During interviews with Staff S1-S8, were asked if the walkways and hallways were kept clear and free of obstructions, eight (8) out of eight (8) stated yes, the hallways and walkways are kept clear. During interviews with Residents R1-R9, were asked if staff keep the hallways clear of obstructions, nine (9) out of nine (9) stated yes, staff ensure hallways are kept clear. Additionally, Residents R1-R9 were asked if staff have placed items such as a table, chairs, or cabinet in the hallway that limits their access to get through, nine (9) out of nine (9) stated no, there are not items like that placed in the hallways. Allegation: Staff are not properly trained The allegation alleges that caregivers have been assigned to be med techs but have not been fully trained. During record review, LPA received and reviewed the medication technician training records and observed medication technicians have received the 24-hours initial training, including 16- hours of shadowing. Medication Technicians received the following training regarding medications, Medication Pass Fundamental Video Training that consists of Preparation, Errors, Safety Security and Controlled Substances, Route Specific Administration and Common Errors: Oral, Ophthalmic, Otic, Nasal, Enteral, Topical, Inhaled, Subcutaneous and Suppositories. Additional training includes Personal Rights of the Resident, personal and Direct care, Medication Management, Psychosocial Needs of the Elderly, Occupational Health, Resident Health, Surveillance and Disease Reporting, Hand Hygiene, Standard and Transmission Based Precautions, Respiratory Hygiene and Source Control, Injection Safety, and Environmental Cleaning. Med Techs additionally receive training from Omnicell Nurse Training including Cycle Counting Module, Basic Workflow Training, Restocking Module, Super User Task Module, and Overview Training. During interviews with Staff S1-S6, were asked if they received the required 24-hours of training for assisting residents with self-administration of medications, six (6) out of six (6) stated yes, they initially received 8-hours of instruction and 16-hours of shadowing for a total of 24-hours. During interviews with Residents R1-R9, were asked if they have any concerns regarding the medication technicians training, nine (9) out of nine (9) stated no, they have no concerns regarding medication technician’s training. Allegation: Staff retained expired food at the facility The allegation alleges that expired milk was observed in the refrigerator in the kitchen. During the facility inspection, LPA reviewed the dates on perishable foods and non-perishable foods. LPA observed fresh produce in the refrigerator properly stored and dated when delivered and opened. LPA checked the dates on the dairy products, eggs, grains, and meats and observed the best before dates have not passed. During record review, LPA received and reviewed receipts for food purchased for the month of May 2026. The receipts are from the following West Pico Distributor (dated 05/05/26), Good Quality Produce Inc (dated 05/21/2026), Pacific Fresh Fish Co (dated 05/20/2026), and Dairy King (dated 05/20/26). During interviews with staff S1-S8, were asked if expired food is retained by staff and served to the residents, eight (8) out of eight (8) stated no, to their knowledge expired food is not retained or served to residents. Additionally, Staff S1-S8 were asked if there has been any complaint about the food being spoiled, one (1) out of eight (8) stated there was once a while ago that a resident complained their food smelled rancid. During interviews with Resident R1-R8 were asked if they had been served expired or spoiled food, eight (8) out of eight (8) stated no, they have not been served expired or spoiled food. Allegation: Staff did not practice proper hand hygiene when handling foods During record review, LPA received and reviewed the kitchen staff’s Certificate of Achievement California Food Handler. LPA observed all California Food Handlers Certificates are valid till various dates in 2027. During the facility inspection, LPA observed kitchen staff preparing plates for lunch service. LPA observed staff had gloves on their hands, and were using spoons, spatulas, and tongs to serve food. LPA observed a kitchen staff assist a caregiver in the dining room, and when he returned to the kitchen, he washed his hands and put on a new pair of gloves. During interviews with Staff S1-S8, were asked if kitchen staff practice proper hand hygiene when handling food, five (5) out of eight (8) stated yes, staff practice proper hand hygiene when handling foods. Two (2) out of the eight (8) stated they are trained to practice proper hand hygiene and believe the kitchen staff are practicing proper hand hygiene. Additionally, Staff S1-S8 were asked if kitchen staff use gloves while preparing and serving food eight (8) out of eight (8) stated they see staff using gloves while serving food. During interview with Resident R1-R9, were asked if kitchen staff practice proper hand hygiene when handling food, nine (9) out of nine (9) stated yes, staff practice proper hand hygiene when handling food During the course of the investigation, LPA was unable to find evidence to support the allegation(s). Although the allegation(s) may have happened or is valid, there is no preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore the allegation(s) is/are unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 20, 2026 · control 11-AS-20260511095526
May 19, 2026Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Staff do not provide residents with medication as prescribed. Staff do not ensure that the facility is kept clean.

On 05/19/2026 at 9:00am, the Department conducted an subsequent visit at this facility deliver the complaint investigation findings. During today's visit, the Department met with Lida Zarafshan (Administrator) and explained the purpose of the visit. The investigation consisted of the following: On 04/15/2026, the Department conducted interviews between the hours of 8:49am - 1:41pm with Administrator (A1), Staff (S1- S9), Resident (R2 - R9) and on 05/19/2026 between the hours of 9:46am - 9:51am interview was conducted with R1. The Department requested copies of the staff roster (dated 04/09/2026) and resident roster (dated 03/02/2026, 04/08/2026, 04/14/2026). LPA also reviewed the following records for R1: LIC 601 Identification & Emergency Information (dated 02/04/2025); LIC 602 Physician Report for RCFE (dated 01/30/2026), LIC 603A Preplacement Appraisal Information (dated 02/04/2025), LIC 625: Needs & Appraisal Service (dated 02/10/2026), Medication Administrator Record (MAR) (dated September 2025 - May 19, 2026), LIC 624 Unusual Incident Injury Report (dated 04/09/2026), Admission Agreement (dated 02/04/2026) and Discharge Summary (dated 04/30/2026) Unsubstantiated The investigation revealed the following: Allegation: Staff do not provide residents with medication as prescribed. It was alleged that a resident has had scabies since on or around 10/20/2025 and that facility staff have not been applying the medicated cream prescribed for treatment of the condition. It was further alleged that despite the ongoing nature of the condition, no improvement has been observed, raising concerns that the prescribed topical treatment has not been consistently administered as ordered. On 04/15/2026 between 10:42am – 11:01am, the Department interviewed A1. A1, who denied the allegation, stated that the resident received treatment for suspected scabies; however, no biopsy confirming scabies were present for R1. A1 reported that a medicated cream was prescribed and administered by the medtech, and that topical treatments are documented on daily communication logs. A1 stated the resident had been transported to Cedars Sinai Hospital on 04/08/2026 for an abscess near the armpit, and an incident report was filed to the Department on 04/09/2026. On 04/15/2026, between 8:49am – 11:32am, the Department interviewed 9 staff regarding the allegation. 6 of 9 denied the allegation and stated that they were responsible for medication administration. These six (6) staff reported verifying topical treatments through labels, physician orders, and the MAR, and stated they had never skipped a prescribed topical treatment. Staff mentioned awareness of residents receiving scabies treatment and stated treatments were applied as ordered. 3 out of 9 staff were unaware of the allegation and did not know about any failure to administer prescribed medication. On 04/15/2026, between 11:43am – 1:41pm, and on 05/19/2026, between the hours of 9:46am - 9:51am, the Department interviewed 9 Residents (R1–R9) regarding the allegation. 9 out of 9 residents denied the allegation. Residents consistently stated that staff provide medications on time and as prescribed, and none reported missed doses. On 04/27/2026, between 10:00am – 10:30am the Department conducted a records review and observed that according to the LIC 624 (dated 04/08/2026), R1 was transferred to Cedars Sinai Medical Center per physician direction due to the discovery of a lump on the left armpit area. A review of the LIC 602 Medical Assessment for Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (dated 01/30/2026) showed that on page 4 of 9, under Section I: Overall Physical Health, item M. “History of Skin Condition or Breakdown” was marked No, indicating no documented history of skin breakdown or chronic skin conditions at the time of assessment. On 05/18/2026, between 3:15pm– 3:25pm, the Department reviewed the discharge packet provided by the Administrator. Records showed that R1 was hospitalized at Cedars Sinai from 04/08/2026 - 04/20/2026, and subsequently admitted to Beachwood Post Acute & Rehab from 04/20/2026 - 04/30/2026. The admission record documented multiple diagnoses, including cutaneous abscess of limb, cutaneous abscess of chest wall, and MRSA infection. The discharge summary dated 04/30/2026 indicated that R1 received nursing care, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech therapy during the rehab stay. The clinical recap documented that R1’s skin was clear at discharge, R1 was alert, and no concerns were noted regarding medication administration. The discharge packet included a reconciled medication list provided to the resident representative and confirmed that medications and treatments were reconciled by the physician and prior to discharge. The discharge summary further documented that R1 was discharged home with home health services and that the family initiated the immediate discharge to an assisted living facility. No documentation in the rehab records indicated missed, delayed, or improperly administered medications, and no records referenced scabies treatment or a confirmed scabies diagnosis during the rehab stay. On 05/19/2026, between 9:15am – 9:45am, the Department conducted a medication records review for R1 (September 2025 - April 2026) and for six residents including R1 (for May 2026 medication). For the month of May 2026, beginning with the new medication cycle on 05/09/2026, the Department observed that residents in Rooms 100, 102, 116, 124, and 134 were administered all medications as prescribed by their primary physicians from 05/09/2026 to the date of review 05/19/2026. No discrepancies, missed doses, or irregularities were observed in theMARs reviewed. Based on information gathered through interviews and record reviews, there is not enough evidence to support the allegation. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur. Therefore, the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. Allegation : Staff do not ensure that the facility is kept clean. It was alleged that the facility is not maintained in a clean condition and that staff are engaging in cross-contamination practices. It was further alleged that the overall cleanliness of the facility is inadequate, posing a potential health and safety risk to residents. On 04/15/2026 between 10:42am – 11:01am, the Department interviewed A1. A1 denied the allegation. A1 stated that housekeeping cleans the facility daily, infection control procedures include PPE, handwashing, and quarantining residents with rashes, and no complaints regarding cleanliness had been received. On 04/15/2026, between 8:49am – 11:32am, the Department interviewed 9 staff regarding the allegation. 9 out of 9 staff denied the allegation. Staff reported that housekeeping performs daily cleaning and that caregivers assist only as needed, such as when linens or clothing are soiled. Staff stated they follow infection control procedures, including glove use, handwashing, and PPE removal before exiting resident rooms. Housekeeping staff confirmed daily cleaning routines, including linen changes, bathroom sanitation, dusting, sweeping, mopping, and towel replacement. No staff reported concerns regarding cleanliness or cross-contamination. On 04/15/2026, between 11:43am – 1:41pm and on 05/19/2026, between the hours of 9:46am - 9:51am, the Department interviewed 9 Residents (R1–R9) regarding the allegation. 9 out of 9 residents denied the allegation. Residents consistently described the facility as clean, reported that their rooms are cleaned daily, and stated they observe staff changing gloves or washing hands between assisting residents. No residents reported concerns regarding cleanliness or cross - contamination. 04/15/2026, between the hours of 1:43pm - 1:53pm and on 05/19/2026 between the hours of 9:41am - 9:43am, the Department conducted a walk-through of the facility and observed the following: In Rooms 100, 102, 116, 124, 134, and 228 were observed to be clean, with beds made, linens in place, and no visible debris or odors. Floors were free of spills or clutter, and trash receptacles were not overflowing. Resident bathrooms observed during the walk through were clean, with stocked supplies and no visible sanitation concerns. Staff were observed wearing gloves while assisting residents and removing gloves before exiting resident rooms. No cross contamination concerns were observed during the walk through. Based on information gathered through interviews and record reviews, there is not enough evidence to support the allegation. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur. Therefore, the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. Exit interview conducted with Lida Zarafshan (Administrator) and a copy of this report was providedthe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 19, 2026 · control 11-AS-20260413125505
Jan 15, 2026Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

On 1/15/2026, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Alfonso Iniguez conducted an unannounced annual required visit using the CARE Inspection Tool. LPA met with Lida Zarafshan/Administrator. LPA explained the purpose of today’s visit. The facility is licensed to serve (176) elderly adults ages 60 and above, of which (64) can be non-ambulatory and (5) bedridden on rooms:104, 106, 108, 118, and 128. Currently the facility has (80) residents. This facility consists of two buildings. Wooster Building consists of 50 bedrooms with private bathrooms, a dining room, kitchen, activity rooms, and an underground garage. Olympic Building consists of 62 bedrooms with private bathrooms, a dining room, kitchen, activity rooms and an underground garage. LPA Iniguez and the Administrator toured the physical plant. There were no bodies of water or obstructions on the premises. LPA inspected a total of (6) bedrooms and (6) bathrooms. The beds and bedding supplies were in good condition, adequate lighting was provided, and storage for the residents’ personal belongings was observed. The bathrooms were found to be within Title 22 regulations and were operational. Smoke and carbon monoxide detectors were in operable condition. The water temperature ranged from 104.0°F to 116°F. The evaluation Report continues on the next page, LIC 809-C, providing further details of the inspection findings. During the visit, LPA Iniguez observed that the facility was clean, sanitary, and appropriately furnished. Storage areas for personal hygiene were in place. Cleaning supplies, toxins, and sharp objects were stored in a way that made them inaccessible to residents in care. The kitchen was inspected, and there were sufficient perishable and non-perishable food available, which was adequately maintained. All fire extinguishers were charged and operable. The last Fire/Disaster Drills were conducted on 1/15/26. A review of (4) residents' service files and (4) staff personnel files was maintained in order. LPA reviewed (4) Medication Administration Records (MARs) and found no discrepancies. LPA observed the facility's infection control practices. All mandated inspection control posters were displayed throughout the facility. A copy of liability insurance was provided to LPA. Facility Annual Fess current. According to the California Code of Regulations (Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8), LPA did not observe deficiencies during this visit; therefore, no citations were issued. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of the Facility Evaluation Report was provided to Lida Zarafshan/Administrator.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jan 15, 2026

20252 state visits · 2 documents

Feb 19, 2025Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Staff did not keep facility free of bed bugs.

On 02/19/25, the department conducted an unannounced complaint visit to investigate the above-mentioned allegation. The department met with Administrator, Lida Zarafshan, and the purpose of today’s visit was explained. The investigation consisted of the following: The department requested, and received the following documents: staff roster, resident roster, and pest control records (dated: 11/09/24, 11/27/24, 12/09/24, 12/27/24, 01/09/25, and 01/30/25). The department interviewed staff #1-#6 and resident’s #1-#6 (R1-R6). Furthermore, the department conducted a tour of the entire facility and inspected rooms #103, #104, #109, #111, #115, and #121, #127, #201, #202, and #217. Continued on LIC9099-C Unsubstantiated The investigation revealed the following: Allegation: Staff did not keep facility free of bed bugs. It is being alleged that multiple residents have bed bug bites. Based on interviews conducted, 6 out of 6 staff interviewed denied the allegation. 6 out of 6 staff interviewed stated they have not observed any bed bugs in the facility. 6 out 6 staff interviewed stated that the resident’s rooms are cleaned daily and as needed. 6 out of 6 staff interviewed stated there is a pest control company that comes and provides services twice a month. Based on interviews conducted, 6 out of 6 residents interviewed stated they have not observed any bed bugs, in their rooms or in the facility. 6 out of 6 residents interviewed stated that their rooms are cleaned daily, and bed sheets are changed once a week. 6 out of 6 residents interviewed stated they have seen a pest control company come to the facility and provide services. 6 out of 6 residents interviewed stated that they are overall satisfied with the facility and the services they are receiving. During the facility inspection, the department did not observe bed bugs or any traces of them. The facility and rooms inspected were observed to be clean and sanitary. During Record review, the department received and reviewed receipts from American City Pest & Termite dated 11/11/09/24 through 01/30/25. The department observed American City Pest & Termite has come out twice a month to provide services. S2 stated that American City Pest & Termite is scheduled to come this month to provide services as well. Based on interviews and records reviewed, there is not sufficient evidence to support the allegation mentioned above. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is Unsubstantiated. No deficiencies were cited during this visit. An exit interview was conducted with, Administrator, Lida Zarafshan, and a copy of this report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 19, 2025 · control 11-AS-20250212122159
Jan 29, 2025Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

On 1/29/2025, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Alfonso Iniguez conducted an unannounced annual required visit using the CARE Inspection Tool. LPA met with Lida Zarafshan/Administrator. LPA explained the purpose of today’s visit. The facility is licensed to serve (176) elderly adults ages 60 and above, of which (64) can be non-ambulatory and (5) bedridden on rooms:104, 106, 108, 118, and 128. Currently the facility has (80) residents. This facility consists of two buildings. Wooster Building consists of 50 bedrooms with private bathrooms, a dining room, kitchen, activity rooms, and an underground garage. Olympic Building consists of 62 bedrooms with private bathrooms, a dining room, kitchen, activity rooms and an underground garage. LPA Iniguez and the Administrator toured the physical plant. There were no bodies of water or obstructions on the premises. LPA inspected a total of (8) bedrooms and (8) bathrooms. The beds and bedding supplies were in good condition, adequate lighting was provided, and storage for the residents’ personal belongings was observed. The bathrooms were found to be within Title 22 regulations and were operational. Smoke and carbon monoxide detectors were in operable condition. The water temperature ranged from 105.0°F to 117.2°F, and the room temperature ranged from 76°F to 78°F. The evaluation Report continues on the next page, LIC 809-C, providing further details of the inspection findings. During the visit, LPA Iniguez observed that the facility was clean, sanitary, and appropriately furnished. Storage areas for personal hygiene were in place. Cleaning supplies, toxins, and sharp objects were stored in a way that made them inaccessible to residents in care. The kitchen was inspected, and there was sufficient perishable and non-perishable food available, which was adequately maintained. All fire extinguishers were charged and operable. The last Fire/Disaster Drills were conducted on 1/28/25. A review of (4) residents' service files and (4) staff personnel files was maintained in order. LPA reviewed (4) Medication Administration Records (MARs) and found no discrepancies. LPA observed the facility's infection control practices. All mandated inspection control posters were displayed throughout the facility. A copy of liability insurance will be email to LPA. Facility Annual Fess current. According to the California Code of Regulations (Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8), LPA did not observe deficiencies during this visit; therefore, no citations were issued. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of the Facility Evaluation Report was provided to Lida Zarafshan/Administrator.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jan 29, 2025

20244 state visits · 4 documents

Oct 21, 2024Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Staff neglect/lack of supervision resulted in a resident sustaining a serious injury. Facility ramp is unsafe causing resident to fall. Staff did not respond to resident's request for assistance as needed.

On 10/21/2024 LPA Alfonso Iniguez conducted an unannounced subsequent complaint visit. LPA Iniguez met with Lida Zarafshan/Administrator. LPA explained the purpose of this visit. Investigation Consisted of: Investigations Branch (IB) referral accepted dated 12/12/23 and completed investigation on 8/22/24. CCLD staff conducted the following interviews: Administrator Interview (A#1) 1/11/24, Facility Staff 1 Interview (S#1) 1/11/24, Witness Interview 1 (W#1) 1/31/24, Resident 1 Interview (R#1) 3/15/24, Witness Interview 2 (W#2) 4/15/24, Resident 2 Interview (R#2) 5/23/24, Resident 3 Interview (R#3) 5/23/24, Resident 4 Interview (R#4) 5/23/24, Resident 5 Interview (R#5) 5/23/24, Resident 6 Interview (R#6) 5/23/24, Facility Staff 2 Interview (S#2) 5/23/24, Facility Staff 3 Interview (S#3) 6/18/24. CCLD staff gathered the following documents: (R#1)’s Resident Appraisal/Needs and Services Plan dated 6/16/21, (R#1)’s Unusual Incident Reports dated: 10/28/2019, 11/21/2019, 02/24/2020, 04/18/2022, 05/18/2022 and 10/6/2023 and (R#1)’s medical records from Cedar Sinai Hospital dated 2/14/24. On 10/21/2024, the department interviewed the facility administrator (A#1), facility staff (S#1-S#5), residents (R#7-R#13) and conducted a health and safety check. Evaluation Report continues LIC 9099-C Unsubstantiated Investigation Revealed the Following: Allegation: Staff neglect/lack of supervision resulted in a resident sustaining a serious injury. The details of the complaint alleged that (R#1) sustained a serious injury due to staff neglect/lack of supervision. During records review gathered by CCLD staff, LPA Iniguez observed that on (R#1)’s Resident Appraisal/Needs and Services Plan dated 6/16/21, there was no indication of a fall risk or prior falls. In addition, (2) out of (5) Unusual Incident Reports from facility regarding (R#1), are related to falls. Moreover, LPA Iniguez observed (R#1)’s medical report from Cedar Sinai Hospital dated 2/14/24. Hospital records does not state that (R#1) has a history of falls. Also, the department reviewed (R#1)’s Physician’s Report for Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly or LIC 602A dated 7/14/22, it is marked that (R#1) is ambulatory and can independently transfer to and from bed. During an interview conducted by CCLD staff with facility administrator (A#1) on 1/11/24, she stated that on 10/4/23 the facility was hosting a party, (R#1) informed the facility staff that they did not want to attend the party. (A#1) stated that later that day, (R#1) changed their mind and decided they wanted to attend the party, (R#1) made the decision to walk using their walker unassisted from their room towards where the party was held. During an interview conducted by CCLD staff with facility staff (S#1-S#3), (3) out of (3) stated that (R#1) did not wanted to go to the party but, later they changed their mind and decided to walk with their walker without telling the facility staff. In addition, (3) out of (3) facility staff stated that they are always assisting residents in care. Evaluation Report continues LIC 9099-C During an interview conducted by CCLD staff with resident 1 (R#1), (R#1) was not able to answer (IB) investigator questions due to cognitive impairment. During an interview conducted by CCLD staff with residents (R#2-R#6), (5) out of (6) stated that facility staff are always attentive and checking on them frequently. During an interview conducted by CCLD staff with (R#1)’s Primary physician (W#2), (IB) investigator asked him “if he had ever stipulated an updated in (R#1)’s care plan regarding them able to walk unassisted, (W#2) stated “no to his knowledge”. Allegation: Facility ramp is unsafe causing resident to fall. The details of the complaint alleged that (R#1) sustained a serious injury due to facility ramp is unsafe. During a physical tour of the facility, the department observed that the facility ramp was built from cement and seemed sturdy. Also, the department observed metal railings on both sides of the ramp and an anti-slippery mat where the ramp is. During an interview with the facility administrator (A#1), she stated, "Yes, the ramp is safe for the residents; it has railings on both sides to help residents grab an anti-slippery mat." During an interview with facility staff (S#1-S#5), (5) out of (5) stated that the facility ramp is safe for the residents to use. During an interview with residents (R#7-R#14), (7) out of (7) stated that the facility ramp is safe to use. Evaluation Report continues LIC 9099-C Allegation: Staff did not respond to resident's request for assistance as needed. The details of the complaint alleged that facility staff does not respond to resident’s request for assistance. During an interview with the facility administrator (A#1), she stated that yes, the facility staff responded to the resident’s request immediately, in less than 5 minutes. There’s always an extra caregiver to assist with the call light when the resident requests assistance. During an interview with facility staff (S#1-S#5), (5) out of (5) stated that they do assist the residents promptly; it takes them less than 5 minutes to help them. During an interview with residents (R#7-R#14), (7) out of (7) stated that the facility staff assisted them in a timely manner, and it took them less than 5 minutes. During this investigation, LPA found did not find sufficient evident to support the above-mentioned allegations. Based on the evidence gathered, interviews conducted, and records reviewed, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met; therefore, the above-mentioned allegation(s) are found to be UNSUBSTANTIATED. Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of the Complaint Report was given to Lida Zarafshan /Administrator.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Oct 21, 2024 · control 11-AS-20231221160832
Apr 17, 2024Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Staff did not adequately assist resident with mobility needs. Staff accepted money outside of monthly rent fees from resident.

On 4/17/2024 LPA Alfonso Iniguez conducted an unannounced complaint visit. LPA Iniguez met with Lida Zarafshan /Administrator and explained the purpose of this visit. Investigation Consisted of: Interview with Administrator(A#1), Facility Staff (S#1-S#5), Residents (R#1-R#8), Witnesses (W#1 and W#2) and Reporting Party (RP). LPA Iniguez reviewed the following records: Staff Roster, Residents Roster, (R#1-R#5) Physicians Report for Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly or LIC 602, (R#1-R#5) Admissions Agreement, (R#1-R#5) Identification and Emergency Information LIC 625, (R#1-R#5) Appraisal/Needs Service Plan LIC 625, (R#1-R#5) Medication Administration Record (MARS) for the month of March 2024, copies of staff training regarding residents falls. Evaluation Report continues LIC 9099-C Unsubstantiated Investigation Revealed the Following: Allegation: Staff did not adequately assist resident with mobility needs. The details of the complaint alleged that facility staff are did not adequately assist resident with mobility needs while in care. As part of the records review, LPA carefully examined (R#1)'s Physicians Report for Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFE) or LIC 602A. According to the report, (R#1)'s mental condition does not hinder their ability to make decisions, follow instructions, or communicate their needs. Moreover, (R#1) can transfer to and from the bed independently and uses a walker as an assistive device. During interview with the Administrator (A#1), she mentioned that the facility takes several measures to prevent residents from falling. These measures include in-services for all employees, regular checks on residents' medications to determine if there are any changes that might increase the risk of falling and advising residents to pull the call cord to receive assistance in getting up and prevent falling. (A#1) also stated that (R#1) has fallen no more than four times recently, and only twice recently. However, if a resident falls consecutively, the facility will immediately inform their physician and family. The facility also provides fall prevention services for all staff every three months, and all staff members are available to assist residents whenever they ask for help. During an interview with witnesses (W#1 and W#2), they both confirmed that they perceive (R#1) as safe and well taken care of at the facility. They also agreed that whenever (R#1) requests assistance from the staff, they are prompt to come and help, although it may take around 20 minutes. Furthermore, (W#1) and (W#2) clarified that (R#1) has only fallen twice recently, and not more than that. They also stated that the staff is not responsible for (R#1)'s falls. Evaluation Report continues LIC 9099-C During interviews with residents (R#2-R#8), (7) out of (7) residents stated that they feel safe living here and that they get assistance from staff when they request it. In addition, (7) out of (7) state that they have not fallen due to lack of help from staff. During interviews with staff (S#1-S#5), (5) out of (5) staff members stated that the facility has a process in place that allows them to identify fall-risk residents; also, they said that when a resident needs assistance, they always use the "call light" and we go and check on them. In addition, (5) out of (5) staff members stated that they do not know (R#1) falling more than four times recently or another resident in care; also, they stated that they received training every three months regarding Fall Prevention and they all state that when (R#1) or another resident in care needed assistance, they always providing it. Allegation: Staff accepted money outside of monthly rent fees from resident. The details of the complaint alleged that facility accepted money outside monthly rent fees from resident. During the records review, LPA Iniguez examined (R#1)'s admission agreement. The agreement stated that the facility is not responsible for managing (R#1)'s finances and that the family is responsible for it. Evaluation Report continues LIC 9099-C During an interview with the administrator (A#1), it was mentioned that (R#1)'s family, (W#1) and (W#2), manage their finances, and that (R#1) does not have any money with them at the facility. Additionally, (A#1) stated that the facility staff, including herself, do not accept gifts or tips from residents. If a resident wishes to give the staff a gift or a tip, they must inform the administrator beforehand. This is because some residents in care have a medical condition that would make them forget about it, and they will not remember giving the gift the next day. However, it is okay for families to provide gifts. Furthermore, (A#1) denies any financial abuse towards (R#1) or any other resident in her care. During an interview with witnesses (W#1 and W#2), both stated that (R#1) does not give monetary tips to facility staff since (W#1) manages (R#1) financial affairs. Also, they both state that facility staff has yet to ask (R#1) for extra money. In addition, both (W#1) and (W#2) state that they feel they can trust the facility staff to take care of (R#1). During interviews with residents (R#2-R#8), (7) out of (7) residents stated that they do not give monetary tips to facility staff, and facility staff has yet to ask them for additional money. In addition, (7) out of (7) state that they feel they can trust the facility staff to take care of them. During interviews with staff (S#1-S#5), all (5) staff members categorically denied receiving monetary tips from (R#1) or any other resident in care. They also vehemently denied any instances of financial abuse towards (R#1) or any other resident in care, thereby affirming their integrity. Evaluation Report continues LIC 9099-C During this investigation, LPA found did not find sufficient evidence to support the above-mentioned allegations. Based on the evidence gathered, interviews conducted, and records reviewed, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met; therefore, the above-mentioned allegation(s) are found to be UNSUBSTANTIATED. Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are unsubstantiated. According to the California Code of Regulations (Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8), LPA did not observe deficiencies therefore no citations were issued at this time. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of the Complaint Report was given to Lida Zarafshan /Administrator.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 17, 2024 · control 11-AS-20240412095519
Feb 7, 2024Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

On 2/7/24 Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Elvira Gonzalez conducted an unannounced annual required visit. LPA met with the facility’s administrator Lida Zarafshan and the purpose of today’s visit was explained. LPA was granted access to this facility. The facility is licensed to serve one hundred seventy-six (176) residents sixty-four (64) non-ambulatory and five (5) bedridden in rooms # 104, #106, #108, #118 and #128. There are currently eighty (80) residents in placement. This facility consists of two buildings. Wooster Building consists of 50 bedrooms with private bathrooms, a dining room, kitchen, activity rooms, and an underground garage. Olympic Building consists of 62 bedrooms with private bathrooms, a dining room, kitchen, activity rooms and an underground garage. LPA Gonzalez and administrator Lida Zarafshan toured the inside and outside grounds of the facility. As part of this inspection LPA checked rooms #105, #110, #111, #119 in Olympic building and rooms #103, #104, #109, #115 in Wooster building. All resident bedrooms had the required furniture, bed linens and closet/drawer space to accommodate each resident comfortably. Resident bathrooms were checked. Toilets and water faucets worked properly, the shower was free of mold/mildew and a non-skid mat was in place. The water temperature measured between 105.0 F and 120.0 F in all bathrooms. Extra linen, bath towels, toiletries and personal hygiene supplies were adequately stocked. Common areas were clean and clear of hazards; doorways were free of obstructions. LPA did not observe any bodies of water. A comfortable temperature was maintained in both buildings. LPA observed the facility to be clean and appropriately furnished at the time of visit. The kitchen was checked and observed to be within Title 22 regulations. Sufficient perishable and non-perishable food supply was maintained adequately. All sharps, toxins, cleaning solutions, hazardous items, and medications were securely locked and inaccessible to clients. Continued on LIC 809-C The facility has a landline telephone on-site in working condition. Medications were centrally stored and properly locked. Smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors were operational and working properly. LPA observed a fully charged fire extinguishers. LPA observed a stocked First Aid kit along with manual locked and inaccessible to clients. Outside grounds were toured and no bodies of water were observed. Walkways around the home were clear of hazards. During the visit, LPA observed the facility infection control practices. LPA observed screening protocols for visitors, staff and residents, LPA observed sanitizing stations located in common areas and restrooms. LPA observed all the required postings throughout the facility. LPA observed the facility has a 30-day supply of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). The facility has an approved CCLD Mitigation Plan. During this inspection LPA did not observe any deficiencies, therefore no citations were issued at this time. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of the Report and Appeal Rights was provided to administrator Lida Zarafshan.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 7, 2024
Jan 11, 2024Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Staff forged resident's documents

On 1/11/24, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Felisa Shirley conducted an unannounced subsequent visit to this facility. LPA was met by Director, Lida Zarafshan, and explained the purpose of the visit is to deliver findings for the allegations mentioned above and was granted access to the facility. The investigation consisted of the following: On 1/5/24 LPA reviewed resident files and toured the facility. LPA reviewed and requested copies of the following records: Resident Roster, Staff Roster, resident files and payment standards for requested residents. The investigation revealed the following: Cont'd 9099-C Unsubstantiated Allegation: Staff forged resident’s documents It is alleged that R-1 was asked to sign a document that they believe did not belong to them as all the information on the document was incorrect. On 1/5/24 LPA Shirley reviewed resident files. During file review, found there to be no evidence of forged documents. LPA did not find a description of a document that R-1 claims they were requested to sign. LPA described said document to the director at the facility and director does not recall any such document. LPA verified SSA# on file with R-1. Resident answered with the correct number. LPA verified address on file with R-1 and resident was confused about which side of the facility she lived on, as this facility uses two mailing addresses. The address assigned is determined by the location of your room. On 1/5/24 LPA conducted interviews with both staff and residents. LPA interviewed staff, staff 1 – staff 7 (S-1 – S-7). LPA asked staff, “Do you forge resident’s document.” Of those interviewed 7 out of 7 stated no. LPA interviewed residents 1 – resident 7 (R-1 – R-7). LPA asked residents, if they believe that staff has forged their documentation. Of those interviewed, 6 out of 7 answered, no. Based on information gathered, the department did not find sufficient evidence to support allegations "Staff forged resident’s documents.” Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of the LIC 9099 was provided to Director Lida Zarafshan.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jan 11, 2024 · control 11-AS-20231228141222
Earlier years2022 to 2023 · 6 documents

20233 state visits · 4 documents

May 24, 2023Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Facility failed to safeguard residents property.

On 05/24/2023, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Perry Scott conducted a continuation of a complaint visit that was done on 01/11/2022. LPA Scott met with Administrator, Lida Zarafshan (S1) and Administrator Controller, Ilana Yazdi (S2), and explained the purpose of this visit is to deliver findings from a previous complaint. On 1/11/22, Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) Martessa Brown and Gail Johnson initiated an unannounced complaint investigation regarding the above listed allegation. LPAs was met by Lida Zarafshan, the facility Administrator and Ilana Yazdi, the Director. LPA explained the purpose of today’s visit. The investigation consisted of the following: On 1/11/22 LPAs toured the physical plants, bedrooms, bathrooms, dining rooms, kitchen area, TV rooms and outside shaded area. LPAs conducted Health and Safety check and Residents appeared to be doing fine. LPA requested obtained Resident & Staff Roster and requested the following documents: Recent Incident Reports by 1/12/22. Report continued on LIC9099-C Unsubstantiated The investigation revealed the following: Regarding allegation #1: Facility failed to safeguard residents’ property. On 05/24/23, LPA interviewed S1-S6. 6 of 6 staff all denied the allegation that the Facility failed to safeguard residents’ property. All staff reported that there was never an incident where one resident stole another residents’ wheelchair. All staff states that the resident is confused and did not have a wheelchair upon admittance. LPA conducted a review of the residents’ (R1) file and on the client/resident personal property and valuables form, there is no mention of a wheelchair, only personal clothing. Moreover, on the residents clothing and possessions form there isn’t anything that states the resident had a wheelchair upon admittance to the facility. S1 stated that there is a safe in S2s office that can be used by the residents if they have valuables to store. They would need to itemize the inventory on a document, sign, and then store it in the safe. Otherwise, they all have keys to their rooms and can lock the door once they leave. On 05/24/23, LPA interviewed R1-R10. R2-R10 denied the allegation that the Facility failed to safeguard residents’ property. R2-R10 all state that the facility does a great job at safeguarding their valuables. R1 stated that a resident was seated in the dining-room and R1s wheelchair was lined up with other wheelchairs to the side. When R1 went to retrieve R1s wheelchair, it was missing. R1 indicates that R1 has seen another resident with R1s wheelchair (name of other resident is unknown). LPA interviewed residents and staff and could not corroborate that the incident occurred. Based on interviews and records reviewed there is insufficient evidence to support the allegation: Facility failed to safeguard residents’ property. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is Unsubstantiated. There were no deficiencies cited on today’s visit. An exit interview has been conducted and a copy of the Complaint Report was provided to Administrator, Lida Zarafshan.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 24, 2023 · control 11-AS-20220107103647
May 24, 2023Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Facility has cockroaches Residents have scabbies Bathrooms are moldy Carpets are dirty Furniture is falling apart

On 05/24/2023, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Perry Scott conducted a continuation of a complaint visit that was done on 06/21/2021. LPA Scott met with Administrator, Lida Zarafshan (S1) and Administrator Controller, Ilana Yazdi (S2), and explained the purpose of this visit is to deliver findings from a previous complaint. On 06/21/2021, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Martessa Brown initiated a complaint investigation for the allegations listed above. LPA met with Ilana and Lida, the facility's Administrators. Investigation consisted of the following: LPA Brown interviewed the Administrators. LPA conducted a Health and Safety Check. LPA toured the facility’s physical plants: Tv rooms, kitchens/dining areas, bathrooms, and bedrooms. LPA observed carpet on the 2nd floors stairs and residents R1 bedroom that needed to be clean. LPA did not observe any broken furniture during visit. Residents in the facility appeared to be fine. LPA obtained residents roster and requested the following documents to be sent by 6/25/21: Staff Roster & Pest Control Invoices. It has been determined that further documentation is needed. On 05/24/2023, the investigation consisted of the following: During today’s visit LPA toured the entire facility. LPA interviewed staff S1-S6, residents R1-R10. LPA reviewed files, obtained copies of staff and resident rosters; ID emergency information, physicians report, appraisals/needs and service plan for residents R1-R10 and pest control invoices. Report continued on LIC9099-C Unsubstantiated The investigation revealed the following: Regarding allegation #1: Facility has cockroaches. On 05/24/23, LPA interviewed S1-S6. 6 of 6 all denied the allegation that the Facility has cockroaches. All staff stated that the facility has a contract with a pest control company that comes bi-weekly to treat for pests. LPA verified this account by gathering invoices from the pest control company. LPA conducted a tour of the facility, including bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchen, and other parts of the facility where the residents congregate; and LPA did not notice any cockroaches in the facility. On 05/24/23, LPA interviewed R1-R10. 9 of 10 residents all denied the allegation that the Facility has cockroaches. Most of the residents stated that the facility does not have cockroaches. While one resident stated that they have seen one or two, but nothing that would cause concern. Based on interviews, observations, and records reviewed there is insufficient evidence to support the allegation: Facility has cockroaches. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is Unsubstantiated. Regarding allegation #2: Residents have scabies On 05/24/23, LPA interviewed S1-S6. 6 of 6 staff all denied the allegation that the Residents have scabies. All staff stated that whenever there is a confirmed case of an infectious disease, they would notify the Department of Health and Community Care Licensing once the doctor has confirmed the diagnosis. LPA reviewed 10 focused and random resident files, which contained physicians’ reports, appraisal/needs and service plans; there were no reports in the file that confirms the residents ever had scabies. One staff stated that there are a lot of trees around the facility which brings mosquitos in contact with the residents, and they are bitten. S1 went on to say that there has not been a confirmed case of scabies by a doctor. On 05/24/23, LPA interviewed R1-R10. 10 of 10 residents denied the allegation that Residents have scabies. All residents interviewed denied that they personally had the disease or new of anyone else in the facility that had it. Based on interviews, observations, and records reviewed there is insufficient evidence to support the allegation: Residents have scabies. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is Unsubstantiated. Report continued on LIC9099-C Regarding allegation #3: Bathrooms are moldy. On 05/24/23, LPA interviewed S1-S6. 6 of 6 staff all denied the allegation that the Bathrooms are moldy. All staff corroborated that the bathrooms and rooms are cleaned daily and that there is no mold in the bathrooms. Some staff went on to say that depending on the resident and their situation, the bathrooms are cleaned multiple times during the day. LPA conducted a tour of the facility which included the bathrooms and did not observe any signs of mold. On 05/24/23, LPA interviewed R1-R10. 10 of 10 residents denied the allegation that the Bathrooms are moldy. All residents stated that there was no issue with mold in their bathrooms. Based on interviews and observations there is insufficient evidence to support the allegation: Bathrooms are moldy. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is Unsubstantiated. Regarding allegation #4: Carpets are dirty. On 05/24/23, LPA interviewed S1-S6. 6 of 6 staff all denied the allegation that the Carpets are dirty. All staff commented that they haven’t had carpeting in years. And that all carpeting has been removed and replaced with hardwood flooring. LPA conducted a tour of the facility and observed that the flooring has been replaced with hardwood floors and there was not any sign of dirty carpets or a dirty facility. On 05/24/23, LPA interviewed R1-R10. 10 of 10 residents denied the allegation that the Carpets are dirty. All residents maintain that the facility is doing a good job cleaning the facility daily. Based on interviews and observations there is insufficient evidence to support the allegation: Carpets are dirty. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is Unsubstantiated. Regarding allegation #5: Furniture is falling apart. On 05/24/23, LPA interviewed S1-S6. 6 of 6 staff all denied the allegation that the Furniture is falling apart. All staff maintained that the furniture in the facility is in good repair. LPA conducted a tour of the facility and did not find any furniture that was in disrepair or falling apart. On 05/24/23, LPA interviewed R1-R10. 10 of 10 residents denied the allegation that the Furniture is falling apart. All residents maintain that the furniture is in good repair and that they have not noticed any of the furniture to be falling apart. Based on interviews and observations there is insufficient evidence to support the allegation: Furniture is falling apart. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is Unsubstantiated. There were no deficiencies cited on today’s visit. An exit interview has been conducted and a copy of the Complaint Report was provided to Administrator, Lida Zarafshan.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 24, 2023 · control 11-AS-20210618160313
Feb 6, 2023Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) David Espana and Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Antonine Richard, and Licensing Program Analyst (LPM) Ulysses Coronel conducted an unannounced Annual required visit with a primary focus on infection control measures. LPAs and LPM was met by Ilana Yazdi, Controller, and the purpose of today’s visit was explained. The facility is licensed to serve 176 residents 64 non-ambulatory and 5 bedridden in room # 104, #106, #108, #118 and #128. There are currently 82 residents in placement total. Wooster Building: consists of 50 resident bedrooms w/ private bathrooms, dining room, kitchen, activity rooms. and an underground garage. Olympic Building: consists of 62 resident bedrooms w/ private bathrooms, dining room, kitchen, activity rooms. and an underground garage. LPA and staff toured the physical plant. There are no bodies of water or firearm/ammunition on the premises. All client rooms were checked. Beds and bedding were in good condition, adequate lighting provided, storage for client personal belongings was observed. Walls and floors were in good repair, except for bedrooms number 226 and 230 which had damage due to recent fire incident. Beds had a Bed linens, comforters, and bath towels were adequately stocked at the time of visit. Bathrooms were found to be within Title 22 regulations and were clean and operational. During today visit 2/6/23 team observed room 109 water temperature at 123.5F and room 127 water temperature at 125.4F. In building Wooster, A comfortable temperature is maintained in the facility. LPA observed the facility to be clean and appropriately furnished at the time of visit. Storage areas for personal hygiene, cleaning agents, toxins, and sharps were inaccessible to clients. The kitchen was inspected and there is not enough non-perishable food available which is stored properly. Fire extinguisher was charged, smoke detectors and Carbon Monoxide were operable. During the visit, LPA observed the facility infection control practices. LPA observed screening protocols for visitors, staff and residents, sanitizing stations ( Located in common areas and restrooms). LPA observed staff and residents were wearing face coverings, an isolation room and required postings throughout the facility. LPA observed the facility has a 30-day supply of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). LPA advised the Administrator to continuously monitor the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) website and Community Care Likening Provider Informational Notices (PIN) for any updates relating to COVID-19 guidance. During today’s visit there were deficiencies observed, Title 22 Regulations are being cited, please LIC809D. Exit interview held, and plans of corrections developed. A copy of the report and appeals was provided to LIDA ZARAFSHAN, Administrator.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 6, 2023
Jan 17, 2023Facility evaluation reportCase Management - IncidentReport on file

Type of visit: Case Management - Incident

On 1/17/2023 Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Antonia Alvizar conducted an unannounced case management visit to the above facility. LPA met with Manager, Ilana Yazdi and Administrator Lida Zarafshan and explained the purpose of today’s visit was to conduct case management for the incident that occurred on 1/15/2023. LPA and Manager, Ilana Yazdi toured the physical plant to ensure no health and safety risks were present. The following documents were requested: Facility Roster, Staff Roster Public Health Inspection Report and R#1-R#6; Identification and Emergency Information, Admission Agreement, Physician Report for Community Care Facilities, Appraisal/Needs and Services Plan and Unusual Incident/Injury Reports. LPA observed room #226 had fire damaged other rooms were not effected by the fire. Resident in room #226 was relocated due to fire damage in room. Residents in rooms #206, #216, #222, #222, #216 and #228 were relocated (vacant rooms) for one(1) night to remove water delivered by automatic sprinklers in the facility. Resident in room #210 was relocated due to health assessment. No deficiencies cited, exit interview was conducted, a copy of this report is being provided to Administrator, Lida Zarafshan.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jan 17, 2023

20222 state visits · 2 documents

Oct 27, 2022Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Staff did not address a resident's change in medical condition.

On 10/27/22, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Ernand Dabuet conducted an unannounced visit at this facility and was greeted by Administrator Lida Zarafsahan and Controller Ilana Yazdi. LPA spoke to Yazdi prior to entering the facility to conduct a risk assessment. Yazdi informed LPA that the facility has no COVID cases nor do any of the residents or staff have symptoms. LPA explained the purpose of this visit is to investigate the allegation mentioned above. The investigation consisted of the following: Interview with facility administrator Zarasfsha (S1) and staff #2-#3 (S2-S3), witnesses #1 (W1), and resident #1-#8 (R1-R8) A reveiw of (R1's) service records and other pertinent documents associated with this complaint. An entire tour of the facility was conducted with Yazdi. Evaluation Report continues on LIC 9099-C Unsubstantiated INVESTIGATION REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: Allegation: Staff did not address a resident's change in medical condition. The details of the complaint alleges the staff did not address resident #1 (R1's) change in medical condition. The complainant states the (R1) has ongoing issues in which mental, financial and medical self neglect are ongoing concerns. According to the complainant, the facility staff and management are compliant. There is no "neglect or lack of care" for (R1) at this facility. (R1) is being provided shelter, food and assisted daily living activities (ADLs) as well as in-house medical physician for (R1's) health services. The complainant reported it is (R1) who is not in compliant with the rules and regulations and there are concerns for (R1's) mental and physical health condition who refuses to receive medical care. (R1) self-admitted at this facility on 8/29/22. Since (R1's) admittance, (R1) has an obligation to pay rent which he has not comply since his move-in. The complainant states (R1) was served with an 30-Day Notice to Vacate on 10/12/22. The Department interviewed resident #1 (R1) who was unwilling to release any information. (R1) admitted refusal to medical services provided by facility. (R1) gave inconsistent information in regard to his eviction. The Department observed the facility continues to provide shelter, meals, medications and care services to (R1). These services have not been interrupted in lieu of the resident's eviction. Interviews conducted with residents #2-#8 (R2-R8) were complimentary of overall operation of staff and management. (R2-R8) claimed the staff are responsive to changes in their medical condition and did not have issues on this matter. Interviews with (S1-S3) verified the facility continues to provided shelter and services to (R1) and there has been no neglect or lack of care in association to (R1's) well-being. (S1-S3) verified (R1) has been served with a 30-Day Notice to Vacate for failure to comply with the Admissions Agreement despite multiple warnings and counseling. Based on the information gathered, an inspection of the facility, observation, analysis of (R1’s) service records, and interviews conducted, the Department found no evidence to support the allegation mentioned in this complaint. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation, did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is Unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Yazdi, and a copy of the report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Oct 27, 2022 · control 11-AS-20221020171622
Jan 11, 2022Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

Licensing Program Analysts (LPA) Martessa Brown and Gail Johnson conducted an unannounced Annual required visit with a primary focus on infection control measures. LPAs was met by Administrator, Linda Zarafshan and the purpose of today’s visit was explained. The facility is an Elderly Residential licensed to serve 176. 60 years and older which may include 64 Non-Ambulatory and 5 Bedridden in Rooms # 104, 106,108,118 and 128. The facility is a three-story structure located in a residential neighborhood. It consists of the following: 175 bedrooms with bathrooms located in each room, 2 main bathrooms, 2 dining rooms, 2 kitchens, Tv rooms, outside shaded area and laundry room. LPA and staff toured the physical plant. There are no bodies of water or firearm/ammunition on the premises. Checked residents rooms were checked. Beds and bedding were in good condition, adequate lighting provided. Walls and floors were in good repair. Bed linens, comforters, and bath towels were adequately stocked at the time of visit. Bathrooms were found to be within Title 22 regulations and were clean and operational. The water temperature measured in restroom #1 116.8 and #2 staff restroom was at 125 F.1 F. The facility is a comfortable temperature is maintained in the facility. LPA observed the facility to be clean and appropriately furnished at the time of visit. Storage areas for cleaning agents, toxins, and sharps are inaccessible to residents. The kitchen was inspected and there is a enough perishable and non-perishable food available which is stored properly. Fire extinguisher was charged, smoke detectors and Carbon Monoxide were operable. During the visit, LPA observed the facility infection control practices. LPA observed screening protocols for visitors, staff and residents, sanitizing stations (Located in common areas and restrooms). LPA observed staff and residents were wearing face coverings, an isolation room and required postings throughout the facility. LPA observed the facility has a 30-day supply of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). LPA advised the Administrator to continuously monitor the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) website and Community Care Likening Provider Informational Notices (PIN) for any updates relating to COVID-19 guidance. During today’s visit there were no deficiencies observed. Exit interview held. A copy of the report was provided to Administrator, Linda Zarafshan.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jan 11, 2022

95 of 176 beds were occupied at the August 28, 2026 state visit, the most recent — a count on that day, not an opening.

License holder

Iranian Jewish Senior Center, licensed since 2003.

The state’s totals for this licenseSince 2003, as the state’s facility page counts them
State visits on file
20
Total complaints
14
Substantiated allegations
0
Type A citations
0
Type B citations
0

These are the state’s own totals for this license since 2003, per CDSS records. The state counts them apart from the documents above, and they can differ from what those documents show; the documents say what each visit found. One complaint can contain several allegations.

Compare with homes the same size
This homeTypical
Type A citations00
Type B citations01
Substantiated allegations02
Total complaints146

“Typical” is the statewide median for licensed homes this size. It does not adjust for years licensed, and older licenses have had more visits and reports. The median is across the 1,354 licensed larger communities (16+ beds) in the state record. The figures compared are the state’s totals, not the documents.

What the state’s words mean
Routine visita visit the state records as “Required” — a scheduled visit, not one made in answer to a complaintSubstantiatedthe state found the allegation more likely true than notUnsubstantiatedthere was not enough evidence to prove a violation occurred — not a finding of wrongdoingUnfoundedthe evidence showed the allegation was false, could not have happened, or had no reasonable basisType A citationa violation that poses an immediate risk to health, safety or personal rights if it is not correctedType B citationa violation that could become a risk if not corrected, or one involving records, resources or required services

CDSS citation definitions (PDF) ↗ · CDSS complaint outcomes ↗

An “unsubstantiated” complaint is not a finding of wrongdoing — it means the state investigated and could not confirm the allegation. Outcome words are the state’s own; we never grade, score, or color a record, and we publish no reviews — the state’s dated documents stand in their place.

Open CDSS facility search ↗Report a record errorOperate this home? Respond or correct, free →
Frequently asked questions

A citation does not make a home unsafe, and an empty file does not make a home good.

Quick answers about Beverly Hills Loving Care

Is Beverly Hills Loving Care licensed?

The state lists this license as “Licensed,” per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.

How many residents is Beverly Hills Loving Care licensed for?

176 residents — a large community, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.

Has Beverly Hills Loving Care been cited?

0 Type A and 0 Type B citations since 2003, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026. Those records count 20 state visits over the same years.

Is Beverly Hills Loving Care still open?

This license was on the CDSS roster as of November 12, 2026.

What does Beverly Hills Loving Care cost?

$3,150 a month to start is a Covelight estimate, likely $2,450–$4,050. This home’s own rate is not on file. Ask: “What is the all-in monthly rate, and what would push it higher?”

Covelight’s estimate starts from the rates 11 communities with 50 or more beds within 3 miles publish, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices. In testing, the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 homes. This home’s own rate is not on file.

Among 17 other homes of a similar licensed size in Los Angeles that publish a starting rate, the middle half runs $3,000 to $6,311 a month, and the middle figure is $3,594 (n = 17 other homes publishing a starting rate).

Each of those is a home’s own published figure, gathered on its own date between September and October 2026 — not an average of ours, and not a survey. Similar size means small and mid-size homes counted together, and large communities counted on their own, because they are different markets.

A home outside the band is not overcharging or underpricing: a starting rate covers different things in different homes, which is the first thing to ask about.

The price is made in the phone call. Nothing here is a quote, an offer or a discount.

A starting rate is the room and the base care. California homes commonly bill care levels, medication management, supplies, transport and a second person in the room as extras. Many also charge a one-time fee at move-in. Ask for that list in writing before anything is signed.

Only prices a home put out itself count here: its own website, a listing it supplied, or a price a listing site says the home confirmed. Prices a site shows without saying where they came from are left out. What Medi-Cal’s Assisted Living Waiver covers in a care home.

Does Beverly Hills Loving Care take Medi-Cal?

On Medi-Cal’s Assisted Living Waiver: this home appears on the DHCS participation list, October 1, 2026. Confirm eligibility and current participation with the program. The waiver pays for care services, not room and board.

Who holds the license?

The license is held by Iranian Jewish Senior Center, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.

Is there a hospital nearby?

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center is 1.2 miles away in a straight line, per the CDPH licensed-hospital list dated September 16, 2026. See licensed care homes near it.

Can Beverly Hills Loving Care keep a resident on hospice?

Not on file — the state’s record does not list hospice care on this license. Ask: “Can a resident stay here on hospice, and under what conditions?”

Beverly Hills Loving Care license and inspection record

  • Name on the license: “BEVERLY HILLS LOVING CARE”, per the CDSS roster as of May 25, 2025.
  • License #197603601. The state lists this license as “Licensed,” per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
  • Licensed for 176 residents — a large community, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
  • Licensed to Iranian Jewish Senior Center, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
  • First licensed in 2003, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
  • 20 state inspection visits since 2003, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
  • 0 Type A and 0 Type B citations on file since 2003, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026. The same records count 20 state visits in that period.
  • 14 complaints and 0 substantiated allegations on file since 2003, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026. One complaint can carry several allegations.
  • The most recent state visit on file is August 28, 2026, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
Type A citationa violation that poses an immediate risk to health, safety or personal rights if it is not correctedType B citationa violation that could become a risk if not corrected, or one involving records, resources or required services

California writes these definitions for every licensed home, not for this one. CDSS citation definitions (PDF) ↗

See the state’s own record

Nearby

Other homes nearby

Licensed homes near this one in Los Angeles County, most information on file first. Every listed home appears on the same terms.

  • Map

    Los Angeles · 0.1 mi

    Sunny Hills Assisted Living (Memory Care)

    Large community · licensed for 120

    Starting rate

    $2,500 a month to start

    Listed by the home on Seniorly · September 9, 2026

    On the state record

    • Wheelchair: on the state record
    • Hospice: on the state record
    • Bedridden: on the state record
  • Map

    Los Angeles · 0.7 mi

    Beit Shalom Group

    Small home · licensed for 6

    Estimated starting rate

    $5,750 a month to start

    Covelight estimate · likely $4,750–$7,100

    On the state record

    • Wheelchair: on the state record
    • Hospice: on the state record
    • Bedridden: on the state record
  • Map

    Los Angeles · 0.4 mi

    Beverly Hills Terrace

    Large community · licensed for 110

    Estimated starting rate

    $4,000 a month to start

    Covelight estimate · likely $3,100–$5,050

    On the state record

    • Wheelchair: on the state record
    • Dementia: on the state record
    • Hospice: on the state record
  • Map

    Los Angeles · 0.7 mi

    Eilat's Manor

    Small home · licensed for 6

    Estimated starting rate

    $5,750 a month to start

    Covelight estimate · likely $4,700–$7,100

    On the state record

    • Wheelchair: on the state record
    • Hospice: on the state record
    • Bedridden: on the state record
  • Map

    Los Angeles · 0.7 mi

    Mini Manor Home

    Small home · licensed for 6

    Estimated starting rate

    $5,950 a month to start

    Covelight estimate · likely $4,900–$7,300

    On the state record

    • Wheelchair: on the state record
    • Dementia: on the state record
    • Hospice: on the state record
    • Bedridden: on the state record
  • Map

    Los Angeles · 0.7 mi

    West Pico Terrace Assisted Living Center

    Large community · licensed for 136

    Estimated starting rate

    $3,800 a month to start

    Covelight estimate · likely $2,950–$4,850

    On the state record

    • Wheelchair: on the state record
    • Hospice: on the state record

Street maps © Protomaps · © OpenStreetMap

Explore Los Angeles County ↗

Do you run this home?

Add your photos, care details, and contact information. Your public profile is free.

Claim this home
Visiting in person? Print a visit sheetHow we source information
CallAsk this home
BH

Call Beverly Hills Loving Care

Los Angeles · Licensed for 176

(310) 652-3555

From the state licensing record · October 26, 2026

or

Let us do the legwork

  • We ask about availability, price and the care you describe.
  • If it’s a fit, you choose whether they call you. Either way, you get every answer.
Check availabilityFree

Ask Beverly Hills Loving Care

Check availability

Request a tour

More days
  • AskThe cost, or your own question

Free for families. A home gets your number only if you say yes.

Covelight Care

A free directory of every licensed care home in California, built from CDSS public records.

Find your next step

Find a homeSaved homesHelp me chooseCheck a home

Make sense of care

Care guidesMedi-Cal & careYour rightsHow we workAbout this site

Work with Covelight

For professionalsFor home operatorsSuggest a correctionDevelopersContact us

© 2026 Covelight Care LLC. Homes never pay to appear or rank higher.

Covelight Care is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by the sources named on this page.

3104 O St Unit #1023, Sacramento, CA 95816

PrivacyTermsText messages