Woodcrest of Country Manor.
Woodcrest of Country Manor is Grade C, ranked in the top 50% of Minnesota memory care with 1 MDH citation on record; last inspected Jan 2025.
A large home, reviewed on public record.
Ranked against 138 Minnesota facilities.
ALF memory care · 36-month window. Higher percentile = better. Source: Minnesota Dept. of Health · Health Regulation Division.
FACILITY WATCH · BETA
Woodcrest of Country Manor has 1 citation on record. Know the moment anything changes.
New findings, complaint investigations, or status changes — emailed to you free.
Citation history, plotted month by month.
1 deficiencie on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.
Finding distribution
1 total · 36 monthsScope × Severity (CMS A–L)
Questions to ask before you visit.
A short pre-tour checklist tailored to Woodcrest of Country Manor's record and state requirements.
The January 14, 2025 inspection found zero deficiencies across all 115 licensed beds — can you walk us through the written policies and staff training records that support dementia care delivery, so we understand how the community maintains compliance with Minnesota Statutes chapter 144G?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
One complaint was filed with the Minnesota Department of Health during the inspection period on file — was that complaint substantiated, and can you share the facility's internal documentation of how it was investigated and resolved?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
This community holds an Assisted Living Facility with Dementia Care license under Minnesota law — what specific dementia care programming, environmental adaptations, and staff competencies differentiate this designation from standard assisted living, and can you show families the written dementia care plan?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
Every MDH visit, verbatim.
2 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.
2025-01-14Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
A routine inspection of this memory care facility was conducted January 13-14, 2025, when it had 97 residents, 38 of whom were receiving dementia care services. The Minnesota Department of Health issued correction orders for violations of state statutes, with no immediate fines assessed for this survey. The facility is required to document within the specified timeframe how it has corrected the deficiencies identified and what changes it made to prevent future violations.
Full inspector notes
correction orders and document the actions taken to comply in the facility's records. The Department reserves the right to return to the facility at any time should the Department receive a complaint or deem it necessary to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of residents in your care. STATE CORRECTION ORDERS The enclosed State Form documents the state correction orders. MDH documents state licensing correction orders using federal software. Tag numbers are assigned to Minnesota state statutes for Assisted Living Facilities. The assigned tag number appears in the far left column entitled "ID Prefix Tag." The state statute number and the corresponding text of the state statute out of compliance are listed in the "Summary Statement of Deficiencies" column. This column also includes the findings that are in violation of the state statute after the statement, "This MN Requirement is not met as evidenced by . . ." In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 144G.31 Subd. 4, MDH may assess fines based on the level and scope of the violations; h owever, no immediate fines are assessed for this survey of your facility. DOCUMENTATION OF ACTION TO COMPLY In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 144G.30, Subd. 5(c), the licensee must document actions taken to comply with the correction orders within the time period outlined on the state form; however, plans of correction are not required to be submitted for approval. The correction order documentation should include the following: An equal opportunity employer. Letter ID: IS7N REVISED 09/13/2021 Woodcrest of Country Manor February 20, 2025 Page 2 Identify how the area(s) of noncompliance was corrected related to the resident(s)/employee(s) identified in the correction order. Identify how the area(s) of noncompliance was corrected for all of the provider’s resident(s)/employees that may be affected by the noncompliance. Identify what changes to your systems and practices were made to ensure compliance with the specific statute(s). CORRECTION ORDER RECONSIDERATION PROCESS In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 144G.32, Subd. 2, you may challenge the correction order(s) issued, including the level and scope, and any fine assessed through the correction order reconsideration process. The request for reconsideration must be in writing and received by MDH within 15 calendar days of the correction order receipt date. To submit a reconsideration request, please visit: https://forms.web.health.state.mn.us/form/HRDAppealsForm The MDH Health Regulation Division (HRD) values your feedback about your experience during the survey and/or investigation process. Please fill out this anonymous provider feedback questionnaire at your convenience at this link: h ttps://forms.office.com/g/Bm5uQEpHVa. Your input is important to us and will enable MDH to improve its processes and communication with providers. If you have any questions regarding the questionnaire, please contact Susan Winkelmann at susan.winkelmann@state.mn.us or call 651-201-5952. You are encouraged to retain this document for your records. It is your responsibility to share the information contained in the letter and state form with your organization’s Governing Body. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Kelly Thorson, Supervisor State Evaluation Team Email: Kelly.Thorson@state.mn.us Telephone: 320-223-7336 Fax: 1-866-890-9290 HHH PRINTED: 02/20/2025 FORM APPROVED STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES (X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA (X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION (X3) DATE SURVEY AND PLAN OF CORRECTION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: COMPLETED A. BUILDING: ______________________ B. WING _____________________________ 33423 01/14/2025 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 1200 LANIGAN WAY SW WOODCREST OF COUNTRY MANOR SAINT JOSEPH, MN 56374 SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES PROVIDER'S PLAN OF CORRECTION (X4) ID ID (X5) PREFIX (EACH DEFICIENCY MUST BE PRECEDED BY FULL PREFIX (EACH CORRECTIVE ACTION SHOULD BE COMPLETE REGULATORY OR LSC IDENTIFYING INFORMATION) CROSS-REFERENCED TO THE APPROPRIATE DATE TAG TAG DEFICIENCY) 0 000 Initial Comments 0 000 ASSISTED LIVING PROVIDER LICENSING Minnesota Department of Health is CORRECTION ORDER(S) documenting the State Correction Orders using federal software. Tag numbers have In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section been assigned to Minnesota State 144G.08 to 144G.95, these correction orders are Statutes for Assisted Living Facilities. The issued pursuant to a survey. assigned tag number appears in the far left column entitled "ID Prefix Tag." The Determination of whether violations are corrected state Statute number and the requires compliance with all requirements corresponding text of the state Statute out provided at the Statute number indicated below. of compliance is listed in the "Summary When Minnesota Statute contains several items, Statement of Deficiencies" column. This failure to comply with any of the items will be column also includes the findings which considered lack of compliance. are in violation of the state requirement after the statement, "This Minnesota INITIAL COMMENTS: requirement is not met as evidenced by." Following the evaluators ' findings is the SL# 33423016 Time Period for Correction. On January 13, 2025, through January 14, 2025, PLEASE DISREGARD THE HEADING OF the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a THE FOURTH COLUMN WHICH full survey at the above provider. At the time of STATES,"PROVIDER'S PLAN OF the survey, there were 97 residents; 38 receiving CORRECTION." THIS APPLIES TO services under the Assisted Living Facility with FEDERAL DEFICIENCIES ONLY. THIS Dementia Care license. WILL APPEAR ON EACH PAGE. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT A PLAN OF CORRECTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF MINNESOTA STATE STATUTES. THE LETTER IN THE LEFT COLUMN IS USED FOR TRACKING PURPOSES AND REFLECTS THE SCOPE AND LEVEL ISSUED PURSUANT TO 144G.31 SUBDIVISION 1-3. 0 480 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Subd. 1a (a-b) Minimum 0 480 SS=F requirements; required food services LABORATORY DIRECTOR'S OR PROVIDER/SUPPLIER REPRESENTATIVE'S SIGNATURE TITLE (X6) DATE STATE FORM 6899 ZXLS11 If continuation sheet 1 of 7 PRINTED: 02/20/2025 FORM APPROVED STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES (X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA (X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION (X3) DATE SURVEY AND PLAN OF CORRECTION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: COMPLETED A. BUILDING: ______________________ B. WING _____________________________ 33423 01/14/2025 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 1200 LANIGAN WAY SW WOODCREST OF COUNTRY MANOR SAINT JOSEPH, MN 56374 SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES PROVIDER'S PLAN OF CORRECTION (X4) ID ID (X5) PREFIX (EACH DEFICIENCY MUST BE PRECEDED BY FULL PREFIX (EACH CORRECTIVE ACTION SHOULD BE COMPLETE REGULATORY OR LSC IDENTIFYING INFORMATION) CROSS-REFERENCED TO THE APPROPRIATE DATE TAG TAG DEFICIENCY) 0 480 Continued From page 1 0 480 (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), food must be prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code, Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626. (b) For an assisted living facility with a licensed capacity of ten or fewer residents: (1) notwithstanding Minnesota Rules, part 4626.0033, item A, the facility may share a certified food protection manager (CFPM) with one other facility located within a 60-mile radius and under common management provided the CFPM is present at each facility frequently enough to effectively administer, manage, and supervise each facility's food service operation; (2) notwithstanding Minnesota Rules, part 4626.0545, item A, kick plates that are not removable or cannot be rotated open are allowed unless the facility has been issued repeated correction orders for violations of Minnesota Rules, part 4626.1565 or 4626.1570; (3) notwithstanding Minnesota Rules, part 4626.0685, item A, the facility is not required to provide integral drainboards, utensil racks, or tables large enough to accommodate soiled and clean items that may accumulate during hours of operation provided soiled items do not contaminate clean items, surfaces, or food, and clean equipment and dishes are air dried in a manner that prevents contamination before storage; (4) notwithstanding Minnesota Rules, part 4626.1070, item A, the facility is not required to install a dedicated handwashing sink in its existing kitchen provided it designates one well of a two-compartment sink for use only as a handwashing sink; (5) notwithstanding Minnesota Rules, parts 4626.1325, 4626.1335, and 4626.1360, item A, existing floor, wall, and ceiling finishes are STATE FORM 6899 ZXLS11 If continuation sheet 2 of 7 PRINTED: 02/20/2025 FORM APPROVED STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES (X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA (X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION (X3) DATE SURVEY AND PLAN OF CORRECTION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: COMPLETED A. BUILDING: ______________________ B. WING _____________________________ 33423 01/14/2025 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 1200 LANIGAN WAY SW WOODCREST OF COUNTRY MANOR SAINT JOSEPH, MN 56374 SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES PROVIDER'S PLAN OF CORRECTION (X4) ID ID (X5) PREFIX (EACH DEFICIENCY MUST BE PRECEDED BY FULL PREFIX (EACH CORRECTIVE ACTION SHOULD BE COMPLETE REGULATORY OR LSC IDENTIFYING INFORMATION) CROSS-REFERENCED TO THE APPROPRIATE DATE TAG TAG DEFICIENCY) 0 480 Continued From page 2 0 480 allowed provided the facility keeps them clean and in good condition; (6) notwithstanding Minnesota Rules, part 4626.
2024-11-13Complaint Investigation1 · Substantiated Finding
Plain-language summary
Minnesota Department of Health investigated a complaint of financial exploitation by a facility staff member and substantiated that the employee stole money from multiple residents, blank checks from another resident, a cell phone from a fourth resident, and bank account information from a seventh resident. The investigation determined the staff member was responsible for the maltreatment and reviewed facility records, staff interviews, and law enforcement information to reach this conclusion. The facility conducted its own investigation after residents and family members reported missing money, personal items, and financial documents.
“MDH substantiated maltreatment or licensing violation finding”
Full inspector notes
Finding: Substantiated, individual responsibility Nature of Investigation: The Minnesota Department of Health investigated an allegation of maltreatment, in accordance with the Minnesota Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act, Minn. Stat. 626.557, and to evaluate compliance with applicable licensing standards for the provider type. Initial Investigation Allegation(s): The alleged perpetrator (AP), a facility staff member, financially exploited resident #1, resident #2, resident #3, resident #4, and resident #5, when the AP stole money, blank checks, a cell phone, and other personal items from the residents. Investigative Findings and Conclusion: The Minnesota Department of Health determined financial exploitation was substantiated. The AP was responsible for the maltreatment. The AP stole money from resident #1, resident #2, resident #5 and an additional resident, resident #6. The AP stole blank checks from resident #3 in an attempt to steal money, a cell phone from resident #4, and bank account information for an additional resident, resident #7. The investigator conducted interviews with facility staff members, including administrative staff, nursing staff, and unlicensed staff. The investigator interviewed residents’ family members and law enforcement. The investigation included review of the residents’ records, facility internal investigation, facility incident reports, staff schedules, related facility policy and procedures, and the AP’s personnel file. Resident #1 resided in the assisted living facility and received no services. Resident #1 was alert and oriented to person, place, and time. Resident #2 resided in the assisted living facility and received services. Resident #2’s diagnoses included Parkinson’s disease. Resident #2 was susceptible to abuse by others and was unable to manage her finances without family assistance. Resident #2 was alert and oriented to person, place, and time. Resident #3 resided in the assisted living facility’s memory care unit and received services. Resident #3’s diagnoses included age-related physical debility. Resident #3 was susceptible to being abused by others and was unable to manage his finances without family assistance. Resident #3 was not oriented to person, place, or time. Resident #4 resided in the assisted living facility’s memory care unit and received services. Resident #4’s diagnoses included dementia. Resident #4 was susceptible to being abuse by others and was unable to manage her finances without family assistance. Resident #4 was oriented to person only. Resident #5 resided in the assisted living facility and received no services. Resident #5 managed her own finances. Resident #6 resided in the assisted living facility side at the time of the alleged theft; moved into the facility’s memory care unit shortly after the incident and received services. Resident #6’s diagnoses included dementia. Resident #6’s was susceptible to being abused by others and was unable to manage her finances without family assistance. Resident #6 was not oriented to person, place, or time. Resident #7 resided in the in the assisted living facility and received services. Resident #7’s diagnoses included dementia. Resident #7 was susceptible to abuse by others and was unable to manage her finances without family assistance. Resident #7 was not oriented to person, place, or time. The facility’s investigation indicated one day resident #4’s family member reported resident #4’s cell phone was missing along with resident #4’s driver’s license and other missing credit cards that resident #4 kept in the cell phone case. Facility staff assisted resident #4 and family in the search for the missing phone, driver’s license, and credit cards without success. Fifteen days later, the AP stated he found resident #4’s driver’s license and credit cards in resident #4’s drawer, but the cell phone was not found by facility staff. The facility investigation indicated eleven days following the missing cell phone, resident #1 reported to leadership she was missing $60.00 cash. Resident #1 told leadership, resident #5 saw the AP leaving resident #1’s apartment the same day resident #1 discovered the missing money. Resident #1 did not receive services from the assisted living so the AP should not have been in resident #1’s apartment. Leadership talked with the AP who denied he was in resident #1’s apartment but was in another apartment down the hall. The facility investigation indicated three days later, resident #3 reported to leadership his checkbook was missing. Resident #3 could not recall the last time he saw his checkbook. Resident #3’s family member stated she placed resident #3’s checkbook inside his desk three weeks earlier after paying resident #3’s bills. Leadership and resident #3’s family member searched resident #3’s apartment but they were unable to find the missing checkbook. Leadership found an additional checkbook inside resident #3’s desk drawer. Leadership opened the checkbook and saw the last check was written by resident #3’s family member three weeks ago and was numbered #5209 but the top blank check was numbered #5215, noting five checks were missing from resident #3’s checkbook. Resident #3 was missing a checkbook and five additional blank checks. Resident #3’s family member closed resident #3’s bank accounts to prevent illicit activity. The facility investigation indicated that same day in the morning., resident #5 called leadership regarding an incident that occurred in the facility hallway about three weeks earlier. Resident #5 stated she fell in the hallway, causing the contents of her purse to spill on the floor. The AP arrived and assisted resident #5 off the floor and picked up resident #5’s belongings. As resident #5 turned and walked away she heard the AP yell, “found your wallet.” The AP handed resident #5 her wallet. Resident #5 stated later that night she woke up feeling that “something was off” with her encounter with the AP. Resident #5 checked her wallet and noticed $20.00 was missing. When questioned by leadership, the AP denied he took the money from resident #5 and stated he was only trying to help resident #5. The facility investigation indicated the following afternoon, leadership received a call from a staff member stating the AP used money from resident #3’s bank account to buy a vehicle from the staff member’s friends. The AP wrote the check from resident #3’s bank account for $1000.00. The staff member told leadership the check used to purchase the car did not clear the bank due to the signature being illegible. After the purchase was denied at resident #3’s bank, the staff member stated the AP transferred $1,350.00 from a Zelle application (used to transfer money between individuals from bank accounts) with resident #2’s bank account information to pay for the car. The staff member sent screenshots to leadership identifying resident #2’s name on the Zelle transaction for the purchase of the car. That same afternoon, leadership called law enforcement to report suspected theft in the facility. Police arrived at the facility and questioned the AP who was later arrested for theft and served a no trespassing order for the facility. When contacted, resident #2’s family member confirmed $1,350.00 was taken out of resident #2’s bank account one week earlier. During an interview, the staff member stated one day she received a call from her friend stating the AP’s check used to buy their car did not clear the bank. The staff member stated the next night at work she found out resident #3’s checkbook was missing. The staff member asked her friends what name was on the AP’s check, but the friends were unable to recall. The staff member asked her friends for a copy of the AP’s check stating, “Something is going on. I wanted to make sure it’s not what I think it is.” The staff member stated her friends sent her an audio and video recording of the bank telling her friends resident #3’s name was on the check the AP used to buy the car. The staff member stated she immediately reported the incident to leadership and sent the recording. The staff member stated later that day her friend called her asking if she knew resident #2 because the AP sent them $1,350.00 (the amount of the vehicle) through the Zelle cash app with resident #2’s name and information. The staff member’s friend sent her a screenshot of the Zelle transaction with resident #2’s information which she forwarded to leadership. During an interview, leadership stated they immediately called law enforcement when they confirmed the AP was the person responsible for resident #2 and resident #3’s stolen money and checks. Leadership stated the AP tried to “bolt” out of their conference room when questioned by law enforcement.
1 older inspection from 2022 are not shown in the free view.
1 older inspection (2022–2023) are available with a premium membership.
Family reviews
No reviews yet — be the first to share your experience
No published reviews yet. Use the button above to share your experience.