Illustration — no photo of this home on file yet

Casa Verdugo

Small home·Licensed for 6·Oceanside, California

Licensed since 2015Licence #374603413
  • Care approvals on fileDementia · Hospice · BedriddenState licensing record · September 27, 2026
  • Starting rate$5,000 a monthListed by the home on Seniorly · September 9, 2026
  • Home sizeLicensed for 6Small care home · a licensed care home (RCFE)
  • Room at the last state visit4 of 6 beds occupiedApril 30, 2026 · not a current opening
  • Ways to payAsk the homeMedi-Cal ALW participation not on file
  • Last state visitSeptember 18, 2026CDSS inspection record

Casa Verdugo is a small care home in Oceanside — a licensed residential care facility for the elderly (RCFE), the licence category behind “assisted living” and “board and care.” It is licensed for 6 residents since 2015. Wheelchair and non-ambulatory care is not on file.

Built from CDSS public records · September 27, 2026. Every fact below names its source and date.

Quick answers and the state record

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

Quick answers about Casa Verdugo

Is Casa Verdugo licensed?

The state lists this license as “Licensed,” per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.

How many residents is Casa Verdugo licensed for?

6 residents — a small home, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.

Has Casa Verdugo been cited?

1 Type A and 1 Type B citations since 2015, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026. Those records count 13 state visits over the same years.

Is Casa Verdugo still open?

This license was on the CDSS roster as of September 28, 2026.

What does Casa Verdugo cost?

$5,000 a month to start — listed by the home on Seniorly · September 9, 2026.

The home lists this starting rate on Seniorly for assisted living shared bedroom, seen September 9, 2026.

Among 18 other homes of a similar licensed size in Oceanside that publish a starting rate, the middle half runs $4,500 to $6,000 a month, and the middle figure is $5,100 (n = 18 other homes publishing a starting rate).

Each of those is a home’s own published figure, gathered on its own date in September 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.

Does Casa Verdugo take Medi-Cal?

On Medi-Cal’s Assisted Living Waiver: this home is not on the DHCS participation list dated September 23, 2026. Ask the program about current options. The waiver pays for care services, not room and board.

Who holds the license?

The license is held by Casa Verdugo, Inc., per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.

Can Casa Verdugo keep a resident on hospice?

Hospice care is approved on this license, covering up to 6 residents, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.

Casa Verdugo license and inspection record

  • Name on the license: “CASA VERDUGO”, per the CDSS roster as of May 25, 2025.
  • License #374603413. The state lists this license as “Licensed,” per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.
  • Licensed for 6 residents — a small home, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.
  • Licensed to Casa Verdugo, Inc., per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.
  • First licensed in 2015, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.
  • 13 state inspection visits since 2015, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.
  • 1 Type A and 1 Type B citations on file since 2015, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026. The same records count 13 state visits in that period.
  • 3 complaints and 2 substantiated allegations on file since 2015, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026. One complaint can carry several allegations.
  • The most recent state visit on file is September 18, 2026, per CDSS records as of September 27, 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

Can they support the care needed?

California licenses a home for specific kinds of care. The state’s record lists what this home is approved for; the home’s own answers fill in what changes as needs change.

  • Wheelchair / non-ambulatoryNot on file · ask the home
  • Dementia / memory careApproved by the state
  • Hospice careApproved · covers up to 6 residents
  • BedriddenApproved by the state

State licensing record · September 27, 2026. An approval may cover specific rooms or residents; it does not establish an opening.

Read the state’s own wording
SIX (6) BEDRIDDEN; MAY NOT BE HOUSED IN BEDROOM WEST OF KITCHEN. HOSPICE WAIVER FOR SIX (6) RESIDENTS.

983 - RCFE / DEMENTIA

CDSS record, verbatim · September 27, 2026

As needs change

  • Staying through hospice

    Hospice waiver on file · covers up to 6 — care may continue at the end of life

    Ask: “If hospice is needed, can care continue here until the end?”

    State licensing record · September 27, 2026

  • If memory loss develops

    Dementia-care designation on file

    Ask: “Can we read the dementia care disclosure and discuss how daily support works?”

    State licensing record · September 27, 2026

3 more questions to ask the home
  • Two-person transfers or a lift

    Not on file

    Ask: “If two people or a lift are needed to transfer, can the person stay?”

  • Someone awake overnight

    Not on file

    Ask: “Who is awake overnight, and how do residents ask for help?”

  • Medicines

    Not on file

    Ask: “Who manages the medicines, and what happens when a dose is missed?”

What it costs here

This home’s starting rate

$5,000a month to start

Listed by the home on Seniorly · September 9, 2026 · See listing

Likely monthly total

$5,000a month

Likely $5,000–$5,600

With a shared room and basic help.

An estimate for planning, not a quote. The price is made in the phone call.

See the full cost breakdownRoom, care and fees · how people pay · where the price comes from
Room
Daily care
Sharing the room
  • Starting monthly rate$5,000this home

    The home lists this starting rate on Seniorly for assisted living shared bedroom, seen September 9, 2026.

  • 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 (45 California homes publish a care-level range, seen in September 2026).

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

    Homes that list a one-time entry or community fee charge a median of $2,000 (134 California listings; middle half $1,000–$4,000). Many homes list none — ask.

Likely monthly totalLikely $5,000–$5,600
$5,000
First monthWith a one-time move-in fee · likely $5,000–$9,100
$7,000
How people payPrivate pay, Medi-Cal waiver, SSI/SSP, veterans, insurance
  • 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 is not on the DHCS participation list dated September 23, 2026. Ask the program about current options. The waiver pays for care services, not 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.
  • MedicareDoes not pay for room and board in a care home. It can still cover hospice or home-health visits inside one.
If the money runs out, what Medi-Cal covers
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 community 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.

  • What is the full monthly cost for the room and care we need, and what does it include?
  • What would the next care level cost, and who decides when it changes?
  • What is billed separately, and is there a one-time fee or deposit at move-in?
  • Is any private-pay period required before another payment program can begin?
How this estimate worksWhere this price comes from

The home lists this starting rate on Seniorly for assisted living shared bedroom, seen September 9, 2026.

13 homes like this within 3 miles publish starting rates mostly between $3,500–$6,000.

  • 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.
Show the 13 nearby homes behind this estimate

Where it is

  • 5164 E Parker St, Oceanside, CA 92057Address from the public record · September 27, 2026. Confirm the entrance with the home before visiting.

Opening the neighborhood map…

The state record

California inspects every licensed home and publishes what it found. Here are the dated documents and the state’s own words, beside what is typical for homes this size.

Since 2023, the state has filed 13 documents for this home, and its records count 13 visits since 2015. The most recent is a facility evaluation report, dated September 9, 2026.

On file since
2023
State visits
13
Most recent visit
September 18, 2026
Occupied · April 30, 2026 visit
4 of 6 bedsa count on that day, not an opening

We hold 3 complaint reports the state published for this home, dated July 21, 2025 to April 30, 2026. 3 of the 3 carry the state's recorded outcome word: “Substantiated” (2), “Unsubstantiated” (1). 3 include the transcribed allegation the state investigated, word for word. Summary composed by computer from the 3 complaint reports below — every count derives from them, and the documents themselves are the state's records, verbatim. We never grade, score, or color a record.

Beside homes the same size

  • Type A citations1typical 0
  • Type B citations1typical 0
  • Substantiated allegations2typical 0
  • Total complaints3typical 0

“Typical” is the statewide median across the 6,808 licensed small board-and-care homes (6 or fewer beds) in the state record — larger, longer-licensed homes accumulate more visits and reports, so compare like with like. One complaint can contain several allegations. Counts cover this licence since 2015.

Year by year
YearVisitsDocumentsSubstantiated2026331202555120243302023220

The last 36 months — 12 of 13 documents

20263 state visits · 3 documents
Sep 9, 2026Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Case Management - Incident

Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) Arian Golbakhsh and Eryn Kane conducted an unannounced Case Management visit to the facility. LPAs were welcomed by, identified themselves to, and discussed the purpose of the visit to Staff Alexis Verdugo. Staff Carolina Garcia and Administrator Natalia Verdugo arrived later during the visit. During today's visit, there were four (4) residents in care. The purpose of LPAs' visit was to follow-up on a recent 3-day eviction request submitted by the facility for a resident identified as R1 (Please see LIC 811 for List of Confidential Names), which was denied by the Department on 8/26/26. LPAs provided guidance and consultation on eviction procedures with staff members Verdugo, Garcia, and Administrator Verdugo. During today's visit, an interview with R1 could not be conducted as they were out of the facility for medical treatment. No deficiencies were cited during the inspection. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator Verdugo to whom a copy of this report, the LIC 811, and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC 9058) were provided. Their signature below confirms receipt of these documents.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Sep 9, 2026
Apr 30, 2026Complaint investigation reportSubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Unlawful Eviction

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Rebecca Borunda conducted an unannounced complaint visit to open an investigation and deliver findings regarding the above mentioned allegation. LPA was greeted by, identified herself to, and explained the purpose of the visit and the basic elements of the complaint with Administrator Natalia Verdugo. During today’s visit, LPA toured the facility, observed residents in care, reviewed and obtained copies of facility records, and interviewed residents and staff. LPA was away from the facility for approximately one hour between 12:40pm and 1:40pm. The Department's investigation consisted of interviews with residents, staff, and outside sources, records review, and a tour of the facility. It was alleged that the Licensee issued an unlawful eviction to Resident 1 (R1). Continued on LIC9099-C page... Substantiated Review of R1's records revealed that on 4/16/2026, the Administrator provided R1 with a handwritten 30-day eviction notice stating that R1 required a higher level of care. Review of R1's pre-admission assessment documents revealed that R1 required assistance with transferring and repositioning, toileting, bathing, grooming, and dressing, and had expressions of frustration. Interviews with the Administrator confirmed that R1's care needs had not changed since R1's admission to the facility on 4/11/2026. Review of the 30-day eviction notice revealed that the document did not have all of the required elements, including the effective date of the eviction, resources for relocation, specific reasons for the eviction, or language required by Health and Safety Code 1569.683. Additionally, interviews with the Administrator confirmed that a copy of the eviction notice was not submitted to the Department within 5 calendar days of issuing the eviction notice. The Department has investigated the above-mentioned allegation and based on interviews and records review, the preponderance of the evidence has been met, therefore, the allegation is deemed substantiated. The following deficiency was cited for unlawful eviction and noted on the attached LIC9099-D page. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator Natalia Verdugo, whose signature below confirms receipt of a copy of this report and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22).the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 30, 2026 · control 08-AS-20260423163421

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87224(d)(1) · Plan of correction due date: May 29, 2026

87224 Eviction Procedures (d) The licensee shall set forth in the notice to quit the reasons relied upon for the eviction... (1) The notice to quit shall include the following information: This requirement has not been met as evidenced by: Based on interviews and records review, the Licensee did not comply with the section cited above in that the eviction notice issued to R1 did not contain all required elements, which poses a potential personal rights risk to 4 of 4 residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 30, 2026

Plan of correction: Administrator will attend training regarding eviction procedures and will submit proof of training to the Department by POC due date of 5/29/2026.

Jan 21, 2026Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Rebecca Borunda conducted an unannounced Required 1-Year visit. The facility file was reviewed prior to the visit. LPA was greeted by, identified herself to, and explained the purpose of the visit with Administrator Natalia Verdugo. The facility has a licensed capacity of 6 bedridden residents and has a hospice waiver for 6 residents. During today’s visit, the facility had a census of 4 residents, 2 of which were on hospice. The Administrator for the facility is Natalia Verudgo and their certificate was valid and current. During today’s visit, LPA inspected each room of the facility, including resident and staff rooms, common bathrooms, kitchen, garage, common areas, and outside space. The facility has a fenced-in pool in the backyard that is locked and inaccessible to residents. No delayed egress or secured perimeter were observed on the premises. The facility was found to be clean, safe, and in good repair with no pathway obstructions. LPA observed linens and hygiene products for resident use. The facility’s ambient temperature and water temperature were measured within regulatory requirements. LPA observed locked storage for resident medications and hazardous and/or toxic chemicals, both of which were stored separately from food supplies. According to Natalia Verdugo, no firearms or weapons are stored on the premises. LPA observed a minimum supply of 2-days of perishable food and 7-days of non-perishable food. The refrigerator and freezer temperatures were kept within requirements. Staff present at the facility had a criminal background clearance and association. LPA reviewed multiple resident and staff records. An LIC9102TA Technical Advisory regarding annual visits with medical professionals was provided. No deficiencies were cited on today's date. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator Natalia Verudgo, whose signature below confirms receipt of a copy of this report, the LIC9102TA, and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22).the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jan 21, 2026

The state marks this report as 3 pages; the online copy we transcribed has 2. You can request the full file from the county licensing office.

20255 state visits · 5 documents
Dec 9, 2025Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Questionable deaths Staff restrained residents

On 12/09/2025 at 3:30PM, Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) J. Clancy-Czuleger meet virtually via Teams to deliver findings for the above allegations. LPA explained the purpose of the visit with Administrator Natalia Verdugo During the course of the investigation, The Department conducted interviews with staff, residents, and witnesses. The Department collected and reviewed the following documents: R1’s facility file, R2’s facility file, R3’s facility file, R4’s facility file, R5’s facility file, R6’s facility file, and the facility staff roster. On the allegation: Questionable deaths R1 had atherosclerosis of coronary artery bypass, and carcinoma in situ of prostate. R1 was discharged from the skilled nursing facility (SNF) on 9/20/2023 and admitted to the facility on the same date. While at the SNF R1 was evaluated for hospice on 9/12/2023. R2 had unspecified encephalopathy, Chronic Continued on LIC 9099C... Unsubstantiated ...Continued from 9099 obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with acute exacerbation.R2 was discharged from SNF on 9/21/23. In R2’s discharge notes it states that “resident will be admitted to Cabrillo hospice services as resident requested”. R2 died three days later on 9/24/2023. R3 moved into the facility on 9/02/2023 after being discharged from Carmel Mountain Rehabilitation & healthcare. R3 was transferred to the facility by Cabrillo Hospice and their SNF discharge plan states that Cabrillo Hospice would be providing home health and DME for R3. R4 had compression fracture of t-11 and t-12. R4’s Transfer had been arranged by Cabrillo hospice, after they were discharged from Bella Vista Health Center on 8/28/2023. In R4’s Care notes from Bella Vista on 8/24/2023 state that R4 “may have hospice eval by Cabrillo Hospice and may discharge on 8/28”. R5 was on hospice and had been declining before their death on 9/22/23. On the allegation: Staff restrained residents R6 was admitted to the facility on 7/21/23 and was in hospice. R6 was admitted with DME and supplies including a hospital bed. At admission R6 was listed as a fall risk. In R6’s hospice notes there is no mention of encouraging R6 to get out of bed. The hospice care notes mention repositioning R6 on 8/21/23 and 9/4/23 and referred to teaching caregiver to turn R6 every two hours as tolerated by the patient. 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. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 9, 2025 · control 08-AS-20231003160105
Jul 21, 2025Complaint investigation reportSubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Lack of supervision resulting in resident elopement

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Rebecca Borunda conducted an unannounced complaint visit to conduct follow up and deliver findings regarding the above-mentioned allegation. LPA identified herself to and was granted entry by Caregiver Rosales Adrianna Ramirez. LPA explained the purpose of the visit to Licensee Natalia Verdugo, who arrived shortly after LPA was granted entry. During today's visit, LPA observed residents in care and interviewed the Licensee. The Department’s investigation consisted of interviews with residents, staff and outside sources, review of facility records, and a tour of the facility. It was alleged that lack of supervision resulted in Resident 1’s (R1) elopement from the facility. Interviews with staff and outside sources and review of the incident report submitted to the Department by the facility on 4/3/2025 revealed that R1 did not return to the facility following their medical appointment on 3/26/2025. Continued on LIC9099-C page... Substantiated Interviews with staff and outside sources revealed that R1 had a diagnosis of major neurocognitive impairment and had limited verbal skills, however, medical and assessment records for R1 were not available during the investigation. Interviews with staff and outside sources revealed that R1 received outside transportation to and from appointments and R1 was not accompanied. The Licensee stated that R1’s responsible party had made an agreement with the transportation service to have the driver walk R1 to the facility’s front door, however the Department was unable to confirm this information. Interviews with the Licensee and outside sources revealed that on 3/26/2025, R1 had a medical appointment in the morning. Interviews with the Licensee and review of the incident report received on 4/3/2025 revealed that R1 was picked up from the facility by the transportation service at around 8:30am. Interviews with the Licensee revealed that R1 was supposed to return to the facility sometime around 2:00pm, however R1 did not return to the facility at that time. Information obtained during interviews was unclear if facility staff were notified by R1’s responsible party when R1 was on their way back to the facility via the transportation service. Sometime around 3:00pm, the Licensee called R1’s responsible party stating that R1 had not returned to the facility. Interviews with the Licensee revealed that R1’s responsible party called law enforcement to report R1 missing and both the Licensee and R1’s responsible party called the transportation service. According to Licensee and outside sources, the transportation service stated that R1 had been walked to the front door and entered the facility sometime between 2:30pm and 3:00pm. However, the Licensee stated staff claimed that R1 did not enter the facility following the appointment. The Licensee stated that the driver dropped R1 off at the front gate and R1 walked away from the property without supervision. While the details of how R1 was dropped off after R1's appointment are unclear, both the Licensee and outside sources confirmed that R1 walked away from the facility property without supervision. Interviews with the Licensee and outside sources confirmed that R1 was discovered to be at an address in the neighborhood by an outside individual, who contacted local law enforcement and paramedics at approximately 3:40pm. R1 was returned to the facility by law enforcement at approximately 5:30pm. The Department has investigated the above-mentioned allegation and based on interviews and record review, the preponderance of the evidence has been met, therefore, this allegation is deemed substantiated. The following deficiency was cited for lack of supervision and noted on the attached LIC9099-D page. Additionally, a civil penalty in the amount of $500 for lack of supervision was assessed and noted on an LIC421IM form. An exit interview was conducted with Licensee Natalia Verdugo, whose signature below confirms receipt of a copy of this report, the LIC421IM, and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22).the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 21, 2025 · control 08-AS-20250328093905

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type A · Section cited: CCR 87468.2(a) · Plan of correction due date: Aug 4, 2025

87468.2 (a) ...residents... shall have all of the following personal rights: (4) To care, supervision, and services that meet their individual needs... This requirement has not been met as evidenced by: Based on interviews and records review, the licensee did not comply with the section above in that R1 eloped from the facility without staff knowledge after being dropped off by a transportation service. This posed an immediate safety risk to 1 of 5 residents.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 21, 2025

Plan of correction: Licensee stated staff will obtain transportation contact information and will make sure that residents are brought to the front door of the facility following transportation. The Licensee will submit a copy of the staff sign in sheet to the Department by POC due date of 8/4/2025. Licensee stated that staff now take pictures and videos of residents when they use transportation services.

May 7, 2025Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: POC

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Hannah Rodgers conducted a plan of correction visit. LPA was greeted by, identified herself to, and explained the purpose of the visit to Licensee Natalia Verdugo. The purpose of the visit was to verify if the deficiency issued on 4/02/2025 had been corrected. On 4/02/2025, the licensee was issued a deficiency with a correction due date of 5/02/2025. During today’s visit, LPA Rodgers verified that the licensee corrected the deficiency regarding Resident 1 and Resident 2's (R1 and R2) incomplete records. Review of resident records verified that R1 and R2 now had complete and current records located in their files. Therefore, the deficiency for resident records is corrected. LPA provided Licensee Verdugo with a letter of Deficiency Cleared. An exit interview was conducted with Licensee Verdugo, whose signature below confirms receipt of a copy of this report and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22).the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 7, 2025
Apr 2, 2025Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Case Management - Deficiencies

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Rebecca Borunda conducted an unannounced case management visit to cite a deficiency observed during a complaint visit that is unrelated to the complaint allegations. LPA identified herself to, was greeted by, and explained the purpose of the visit to Licensee Natalia Verdugo. During the unrelated complaint visit, LPA reviewed resident records and determined that the records for Resident 1 and Resident 2 (R1 and R2) were incomplete. [Licensee was provided with an LIC811 Confidential Names List to identify R1 and R2] Review of both resident's files and an interview with Licensee Verdugo revealed that both R1 and R2 moved into the facility in early March 2025, and as of 4/2/2025, both R1 and R2 did not have medical assessments or appraisal documents on file. During the visit, Licensee Verdugo was able to obtain and provide LPA with an electronic copy of R2's medical assessment dated 3/5/2025. Therefore, a deficiency regarding resident records is being cited per California Code of Regulations Title 22 and noted on the attached LIC809-D page. An exit interview was conducted with Licensee Natalia Verdugo, whose signature below confirms receipt of a copy of this report, LIC811, and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22).the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 2, 2025

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87506(a) · Plan of correction due date: May 2, 2025

87506(a) The licensee shall ensure that a separate, complete, and current record is maintained for each resident in the facility... This requirement is not met as evidenced by: Based on interviews and record review, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above in that 2 of 5 resident records (R1 & R2) were incomplete which poses a potential health risk to 2 of 5 residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 2, 2025

Plan of correction: Licensee will fill out and obtain copies of required documents for R1 and R2 and maintain those records at the facility. Licensee will notify LPA via email when the records are complete by POC due date of 5/2/2025.

Jan 27, 2025Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Case Management - Annual Continuation

Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) Rebecca Borunda and Carmen Lopez conducted an unannounced Case Management Annual Continuation visit. The facility file was reviewed prior to the visit. LPAs were greeted by, identified themselves to, and explained the purpose of the visit with Administrator Natalia Verdugo. The facility is licensed for a maximum capacity of 6 bedridden residents, with a hospice waiver for 6 residents. During today’s visit, the facility had a census of 5 residents. The Administrator for the facility is Natalia Verdugo and their certificate was valid and current. During visits on 12/17/2024 and 1/27/2025, LPAs toured the facility and inspected each room of the facility, including resident rooms, bathrooms for resident and staff use, kitchen, garage, common areas, and outside space. The facility has a fenced-in pool in the backyard that is locked and inaccessible to residents. LPAs did not observe any aspects of delayed egress or secured perimeter. The facility was found to be clean, safe, and in good repair with no pathway obstructions. The facility’s water temperature was measured at 119.2 and 111.2 degrees Fahrenheit in bathrooms for resident use. The facility’s internal temperature was measured at 69 degrees Fahrenheit. LPA observed locked storage for all hazardous and/or toxic chemicals and were stored separately from food supplies. According to Natalia Verdugo, no firearms or weapons are stored on the premises. LPA also observed locked storage for resident medications and resident and staff files. LPAs observed that 5 of 5 resident medications are not stored in their original container and are instead stored in multi-day pill boxes. LPA observed a minimum of a 2-day supply of perishable food and a 7-day supply of non-perishable food present at the facility. The facility refrigerator was kept at 40 degrees Fahrenheit, and the facility freezer was kept at 0 degrees Fahrenheit. LPA observed linens and hygiene products provided to the residents that are in good repair and sufficient to meet their needs. LPAs reviewed multiple resident and staff records. Continued on LIC809-C page… During the visit, LPAs determined that Staff 1 (S1) was not associated to the facility and did not have an active fingerprint clearance. [Administrator was provided with an LIC811 Confidential Names List to identify S1] Interviews with S1 and Administrator revealed that S1 had been working at the facility for more than 5 calendar days. LPAs notified Administrator that S1 could not be present or working at the facility until S1 was associated to the facility. LPAs observed S1 leave the facility during the visit. LPA spoke with staff and residents present at the facility during the time of the inspection and those interviews did not reveal any licensing or regulatory concerns. The following deficiencies were cited for medication stored in non-original containers and for staff without criminal background clearance and noted on the attached LIC809-D pages. Additionally, a civil penalty in the amount of $500 was assessed for staff without a criminal background clearance and noted on the attached LIC421BG form. LPAs also provided Administrator with an LIC9102TV Technical Violation regarding reporting requirements. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator Natalia Verdugo, whose signature below confirms receipt of a copy of this report, the LIC811, the LIC9102TV, and the LIC421BG and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22).the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jan 27, 2025

The state marks this report as 5 pages; the online copy we transcribed has 4. You can request the full file from the county licensing office.

20243 state visits · 3 documents
Dec 17, 2024Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Rebecca Ruiz conducted an unannounced Required 1-Year visit. The facility file was reviewed prior to the visit. LPA was greeted by, identified herself to, and explained the purpose of the visit with Administrator Natalia Ozorio-Verdugo. During today's visit, LPA toured the facility, reviewed facility records, and observed residents in care. Review of resident records revealed that the LIC602 physician's report for Resident 1 (R1) noted that R1 had a diagnosis of dementia and was dated 2/15/2023 and the LIC602 physician's report for Resident 2 (R2) noted that R2 had a diagnosis of dementia and was dated 6/6/2023. [Administrator was provided with an LIC811 Confidential Names List to identify R1 and R2]. LPA was away from the facility for approximately one hour between 1:15pm and 2:15pm. Due to time constraints, the annual inspection could not be completed and a return visit on a subsequent day is needed. The following deficiency was cited for annual medical assessments and noted on the attached LIC809-D page. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator Natalia Ozorio-Verdugo, whose signature below confirms receipt of a copy of this report, the LIC811, and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22).the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 17, 2024
Feb 20, 2024Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: POC

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Rebecca Ruiz conducted a plan of correction visit. LPA was greeted by, identified herself to, and explained the purpose of the visit to Caregiver Araceli Ramirez. Licensee Natalia Verdugo arrived during the visit. The purpose of the visit was to verify if the two deficiencies regarding resident and staff files issued on 1/19/2024 had been corrected by the correction due date of 2/16/2024. During today’s visit, LPA Ruiz spoke with Licensee Natalia and Caregiver Carolina Garcia regarding the POC documentation and reviewed resident and staff records. Resident and staff records were not complete and the Licensee confirmed that the records present at the facility had not been updated. An immediate civil penalty of $100 per day totalling $400 for 2/17/2024 to 2/20/2024 is being assessed on an LIC421FC for failure to correct the resident records by POC due date. The Licensee completed the required paperwork for resident records during the visit, which LPA verified. Therefore, the deficiency 87506(a) regarding resident files has been corrected as of 2/20/2024 and LPA provided Licensee with a letter of Deficiency Cleared. Staff records were not complete and the Licensee stated that the delay was due to waiting on availability for doctor appointments. Licensee requested a POC due date extension, which LPA granted until 3/19/2024. LPA provided Licensee with technical assistance regarding requesting POC due date extensions. An exit interview was conducted with Licensee Natalia Verdugo, whose signature below confirms receipt of a copy of this report, the LIC421FC, LIC178, LIC9102TA, LIC811, Letter of Deficiency Cleared, and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22).the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 20, 2024
Jan 19, 2024Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Rebecca Ruiz conducted an unannounced Required 1-Year visit. The facility file was reviewed prior to the visit. LPA was greeted by, identified herself to, and explained the purpose of the visit with Caregiver Araceli Ramirez. Administrator Natalia Verdugo arrived during the visit. The facility is licensed for a maximum capacity of 6 bedridden residents. The facility has a waiver for 6 hospice residents. During today’s visit, the facility had a census of 4 residents, none of which were bedridden and 1 of which was on hospice. The facility does not have a clearance for delayed egress or secured perimeter and LPA did not observe any aspects of delayed egress or secured perimeter. The Administrator for the facility is Natalia Verdugo and their certificate was valid and current. During today’s visit, LPA toured the facility and inspected each room of the facility, including resident and staff rooms, bathrooms for resident and staff use, kitchen, garage, common areas, and outside space. The facility has a fenced-in pool in the backyard that is locked and inaccessible to residents. According to Natalia Verdugo, no firearms or weapons are stored on the premises. The facility was found to be clean, safe, and in good repair with no pathway obstructions. The facility’s water temperature was measured at 119.5 degrees Fahrenheit and 119.8 degrees Fahrenheit in two common resident bathrooms. The facility’s internal temperature was measured at 71 degrees Fahrenheit. LPA observed unlocked hazardous and toxic chemicals in the facility kitchen, facility garage, and under the sink in a common bathroom for resident use. Administrator removed the hazardous and toxic items and locked them in the garage during the visit. LPA observed locked storage for resident medications and resident and staff files. Resident medications are stored in their original container and label. LPA observed a 2-day supply of perishable food and a 7-day supply of non-perishable food present at the facility. The facility refrigerator was kept at 37 degrees Fahrenheit, and the facility freezer was kept at 0 degrees Fahrenheit. Continued on LIC809-C page... LPA observed linens and hygiene products provided to the residents that are in good repair and sufficient to meet their needs. Staff present at the facility during the time of the inspection had a criminal background clearance, were associated to the facility, and had a first aid certificate. LPA reviewed multiple resident and staff records. Review of resident records revealed that 4 resident records were incomplete and were missing documents. Review of 5 staff files revealed that 3 staff records were incomplete and were missing documents. LPA spoke with staff and residents present at the facility during the time of the inspection and those interviews did not reveal any licensing or regulatory concerns. The Administrator will submit copies of the LIC500 Personnel Report, LIC610E Disaster Plan, and current liability insurance to the Department within 15 business days. The following deficiencies for unlocked hazardous and toxic chemicals, incomplete staff records, and incomplete resident records were cited per California Code of Regulations Title 22 and noted on the attached LIC809-D pages. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator Natalia Verdugo, whose signature below confirms receipt of a copy of this report, LIC811 Confidential Names List, LIC9102TV, and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC9058 01/16).the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jan 19, 2024

The state marks this report as 5 pages; the online copy we transcribed has 4. You can request the full file from the county licensing office.

20231 state visit · 1 document
Oct 4, 2023Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Case Management - Deficiencies

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Rebecca Ruiz conducted an unannounced case management visit to cite a deficiency unrelated to a complaint investigation. LPA was greeted by, identified herself to, and explained the purpose of the visit to Administrator Natalia Verdugo. During today’s visit, LPA toured the facility, observed residents in care, reviewed and obtained copies of facility records and spoke with the Administrator. During today's visit, LPA reviewed 14 files for residents who were present at the facility for the 2023 calendar year but were no longer current residents (Residents 1-14). LPA spoke with Administrator Natalia who informed LPA that the majority of her previous residents had passed away at the facility. The Administrator informed LPA that she would call the Department when an unusual incident occurred at the facility but that she did not call the Department for a resident's death. The Administrator stated that she did not submit incident or death reports to the Department. Review of the incident and death reports submitted to the Department did not reveal any incident or death reports submitted to the Department from the facility for R1 - R14. The following deficiency is cited per CA Code of Regulations Title 22 and noted on the attached LIC809-D page. LPA provided the Administrator with copies of LIC624 and LIC624A and regulation 87211 Reporting Requirements. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator Natalia Verdugo, whose signature below confirms receipt of a copy of this report and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC9058 01/16).the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Oct 4, 2023

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87211(a)(1) · Plan of correction due date: Oct 31, 2023

87211 Reporting Requirements (a)(1) A written report shall be submitted to the licensing agency and to the person responsible for the resident within seven days of the occurrence... This requirement has not been met as evidenced by: Based on interviews and records review, the Administrator did not submit death reports to the Department for the deaths of R1-R14. This poses a potential safety risk to 4 of 4 residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Oct 4, 2023

Plan of correction: Administrator stated she will take an online training regarding reporting requirements and submit proof of completion to the Department by POC due date of 10/31/2023.

What the state’s words mean
Substantiatedthe 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 and the questions below stand in their place.

Life here

Rooms, meals, the rhythm of a day, faith and language, pets and house rules — as the home describes them. Tap any detail for its source and date; nothing here is graded.

Find a detail about life at this home.

Pets, routines & independence

  • Residents may bring a pet

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

Before you call

Ask every home the same questions — the state’s record does not answer these. Keep the ones that matter and they travel with your saved homes.

  1. What is included in the monthly rate, and what costs extra?
  2. Who is awake overnight, and how do residents ask for help?
  3. Can we read the dementia care disclosure and discuss how daily support works?
  4. What could change whether someone can stay here?
  5. Can we see a bedroom and share a meal during a visit?

Other homes nearby

The nearest licensed homes in San Diego County, closest first. Every listed home appears on the same terms.

Explore San Diego County