Lilisity

Assisted Living

Bayview Case Management

14199 Garrett Avenue, Apple Valley, MN 55124 · Map
Licensed for 5 residents · BAYVIEW CASE MANAGEMENT LLC

State license active
Is this your community? Claim this listing

Bayview Case Management is a state-licensed assisted living community in Apple Valley, Minnesota. It is licensed for 5 residents. Lilisity publishes no score or ranking for this community; the details below come from the state licensing record.

Assisted LivingCare offered
5 residentsLicensed capacity
State licensedAssisted living facility
$2,200 to $4,800/moTypical assisted living start in Minnesota, from 74 communities that publish prices

Prices

This community does not publish its prices.

Area costs

Assisted Living in Minnesota typically starts at $2,200 to $4,800 a month. Based on 74 communities that publish prices. These are area figures, not this community's price.

Lilisity’s independent report

What the public record shows

Gathered by Lilisity from state and federal sources. Communities can’t edit this part of the page.

State inspections

0Substantiated investigations

Last evaluation: Apr 14, 2026. See the record

License

Active, 5 residents

Assisted Living Facility 426041, current license dated Aug 1, 2026. Licensee BAYVIEW CASE MANAGEMENT LLC.

Nearest emergency room

3.1 miles

M Health Fairview Ridges Hospital, rated 4 of 5 stars by CMS.

Side by side with nearby communities

The 4 nearest communities that offer assisted living, by straight-line distance. Prices are starting prices each community publishes; we never show estimates.

CommunityDistanceLicensed capacityPublished starting priceLicenseInspection citations
Bayview Case Management this community5Not publishedActive0 substantiated
Apple Valley Villa0.4 mi230Not publishedActive0 substantiated
Serendipitous Living0.7 mi5Not publishedActive0 substantiated
Safe Harbor Residential Care H0.7 mi5Not publishedActive0 substantiated
Maple Care Homes0.7 mi8Not publishedActive2 substantiated
State inspection record0 substantiated
Last evaluation
April 14, 2026
Evaluations on record
2
Investigations substantiated
0 kept 7 years
Inconclusive
0 kept 4 years
Unsubstantiated
0 kept 3 years

Most recent evaluation (April 14, 2026, state report LJYV11)

MDH: “On April 13, 2026, through April 14, 2026, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider and the following correction orders are issued.”

Survey completed April 14, 2026: 8 correction orders

  • Tag 480: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Subd. 1a (a-b) Minimum requirements; required food services Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Please refer
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code. This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety) and was issued at a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has affected or has the potential to affect a large portion or all the [...]”

    Rule cited: “(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), food must be prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code, Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626. [...]”

  • Tag 510: 144G.41 Subd. 3 Infection control program Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days · fine: $500.00 assessed
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to establish and maintain an effective infection control program to comply with accepted health care, medical, and nursing standards for infection control.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to establish and maintain an effective infection control program to comply with accepted health care, medical, and nursing standards for infection control. [...]”

    Rule cited: “(a) All assisted living facilities must establish and maintain an infection control program that complies with accepted health care, medical, and nursing standards for infection control. [...]”

  • Tag 680: 144G.42 Subd. 10 Disaster planning and emergency preparedness Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to have a written emergency preparedness (EP) plan with all the required content.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to have a written emergency preparedness (EP) plan with all the required content. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors of the facility. [...]”

    Rule cited: “(a) The facility must meet the following requirements: (1) have a written emergency disaster plan that contains a plan for evacuation, addresses elements of sheltering in place, identifies temporary relocation sites, and details staff assignments in the event [...]”

  • Tag 700: 144G.43 Subdivision 1 Resident record Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure one of one resident's (R1) personal health and medical information was kept private.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure one of one resident's (R1) personal health and medical information was kept private. This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death), and was issued at an isolated scope (when one or a limited number of residents are [...]”

    Rule cited: “(b) Resident records, whether written or electronic, must be protected against loss, tampering, or unauthorized disclosure in compliance with chapter 13 and other applicable relevant federal and state laws. [...]”

  • Tag 775: 144G.45 Subd. 2. (a) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Two (2) days · fine: $500.00 assessed
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the physical environment of the facility was maintained in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 144G.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the physical environment of the facility was maintained in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 144G. [...]”

    Rule cited: “Each assisted living facility must comply with the State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511, and:”

Show all 8
  • Tag 780: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (1) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days · fine: $500.00 assessed
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the physical environment of the facility was maintained in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 144G.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the physical environment of the facility was maintained in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 144G. [...]”

    Rule cited: “(a) Each assisted living facility must comply with the State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511, and: (1) for dwellings or sleeping units, as defined in the State Fire Code: (i) provide smoke alarms in each room used for sleeping purposes; (ii) [...]”

  • Tag 800: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (4) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the physical environment of the facility was maintained in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 144G.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the physical environment of the facility was maintained in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 144G. [...]”

    Rule cited: “(4) keep the physical environment, including walls, floors, ceiling, all furnishings, grounds, systems, and equipment in a continuous state of good repair and operation with regard to the health, safety, comfort, and well-being of the residents in accordance [...]”

  • Tag 810: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (b-f) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty One (21) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the physical environment of the facility was maintained in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 144G.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the physical environment of the facility was maintained in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 144G. [...]”

    Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”

From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance.

Food and beverage inspection (included in this report): Food and beverage inspection report included

Fines assessed by MDH

  • Tag 510 (144g.41 Subd. 3 - Infection Control Program): $500.00
  • Tag 775 (144g.45 Subd. 2. (a) - Fire Protection And Physical Environment): $500.00
  • Tag 780 (144g.45 Subd. 2 (a) (1) - Fire Protection And Physical Environment): $500.00

Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $1,500.00.

Earlier evaluations (1)
  • October 25, 2023: report MBKR11 · 15 correction orders
    Details

    Survey completed October 25, 2023: 15 correction orders

    • Tag 110: 144G.10 Subdivision 1a Assisted living director license required Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Two (2) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure licensed assisted living director (LALD)-A was listed as the Director of Record for the licensee.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure licensed assisted living director (LALD)-A was listed as the Director of Record for the licensee. This had the potential to affect all the licensee's residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”

      Rule cited: “Each assisted living facility must employ an assisted living director licensed or permitted by the Board of Executives for Long Term Services and Supports.?”

    • Tag 430: 144G.40 Subd. 2 Uniform checklist disclosure of services Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the facility failed to revise and provide an up-to-date Uniform Disclosure of Assisted Living Services & Amenities (UDALSA).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to revise and provide an up-to-date Uniform Disclosure of Assisted Living Services & Amenities (UDALSA). This practice resulted in a level one violation (a violation that has no potential to cause more than a minimal impact on the resident and does not affect health or safety) and was issued at a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has affected or has potential to affect a large portion or [...]”

      Rule cited: “(a) All assisted living facilities must provide to prospective residents: (1) a disclosure of the categories of assisted living licenses available and the category of license held by the facility; (2) a written checklist listing all services permitted under [...]”

    • Tag 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Please refer to the FBEIR for any compliance dates
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code. This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety) and was issued at a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has affected or has the potential to affect a large portion or all the [...]”

      Rule cited: “(13) offer to provide or make available at least the following services to residents: (B) food must be prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code, Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626; and”

    • Tag 550: 144G.41 Subd. 7 Resident grievances; reporting maltreatment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to post the required information related to the grievance procedure as well as the required information related to the contact information for the state and applicable regional Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care and the Office of Ombudsman for Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to post the required information related to the grievance procedure as well as the required information related to the contact information for the state and applicable regional Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care and the Office of Ombudsman for Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”

      Rule cited: “All facilities must post in a conspicuous place information about the facilities' grievance procedure, and the name, telephone number, and email contact information for the individuals who are responsible for handling resident grievances. [...]”

    • Tag 640: 144G.42 Subd. 7 Posting information for reporting suspected c Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to support protection and safety by not posting information and phone numbers for reporting to the Minnesota Adult

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to support protection and safety by not posting information and phone numbers for reporting to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) and 911 emergency number as required. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”

      Rule cited: “The facility shall support protection and safety through access to the state's systems for reporting suspected criminal activity and suspected vulnerable adult maltreatment by: (1) posting the 911 emergency number in common areas and near telephones provided [...]”

    Show all 15
    • Tag 660: 144G.42 Subd. 9 Tuberculosis prevention and control Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to establish and maintain a tuberculosis (TB) prevention program, based on the most current guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) including documentation of completion of a two-step TST (tuberculin skin test) or other evidence of TB screening such as a blood test for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-D).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to establish and maintain a tuberculosis (TB) prevention program, based on the most current guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) including documentation of completion of a two-step TST (tuberculin skin test) or other evidence of TB screening such as a blood test for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-D). This has the potential to affect all residents and staff of the facility. [...]”

      Rule cited: “(a) The facility must establish and maintain a comprehensive tuberculosis infection control program according to the most current tuberculosis infection control guidelines issued by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division [...]”

    • Tag 680: 144G.42 Subd. 10 Disaster planning and emergency preparedness Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop an all-hazards risk assessment emergency preparedness program and plan to include Appendix Z required elements.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop an all-hazards risk assessment emergency preparedness program and plan to include Appendix Z required elements. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”

      Rule cited: “(a) The facility must meet the following requirements: (1) have a written emergency disaster plan that contains a plan for evacuation, addresses elements of sheltering in place, identifies temporary relocation sites, and details staff assignments in the event [...]”

    • Tag 730: 144G.43 Subd. 3 Contents of resident record Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the resident record included the required documentation of all provided services and documentation related to

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the resident record included the required documentation of all provided services and documentation related to hospitalization for one of one resident (R1). In addition, the licensee failed to ensure the resident record included a discharge summary with the required content for one of one discharged resident (R2). [...]”

      Rule cited: “Contents of a resident record include the following for each resident: (1) identifying information, including the resident's name, date of birth, address, and telephone number; (2) the name, address, and telephone number of the resident's emergency contact, [...]”

    • Tag 790: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (2)-(3) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide the required annual or monthly maintenance on fire extinguishers.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “The licensee failed to provide the required annual or monthly maintenance on fire extinguishers. This had the potential to affect all current residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”

      Rule cited: “(2) install and maintain portable fire extinguishers in accordance with the State Fire Code; (3) install portable fire extinguishers having a minimum 2-A:10-B:C rating within Group R-3 occupancies, as defined by the State Fire Code, located so that the travel [...]”

    • Tag 1060: 144G.52 Subd. 9 Emergency relocation Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide a written notice with the required content for an emergency relocation and failed to notify the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care of the emergency relocation for one of one resident (R1).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide a written notice with the required content for an emergency relocation and failed to notify the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care of the emergency relocation for one of one resident (R1). [...]”

      Rule cited: “(a) A facility may remove a resident from the facility in an emergency if necessary due to a resident's urgent medical needs or an imminent risk the resident poses to the health or safety of another facility resident or facility staff member. [...]”

    • Tag 1370: 144G.61 Subd. 2 (a) Training and evaluation of unlicensed personn Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure training and competency was completed for one of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-D) to include all required content.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure training and competency was completed for one of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-D) to include all required content. [...]”

      Rule cited: “(a) Training and competency evaluations for all unlicensed personnel must include the following: (1) documentation requirements for all services provided; (2) reports of changes in the resident's condition to the supervisor designated by the facility; (3) [...]”

    • Tag 1380: 144G.61 Subd. 2 (b) Training and evaluation of unlicensed personn Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure training and competency was completed for one of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-D) to include all required content.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure training and competency was completed for one of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-D) to include all required content. [...]”

      Rule cited: “(b) In addition to paragraph (a), training and competency evaluation for unlicensed personnel providing assisted living services must include: (1) observing, reporting, and documenting resident status; (2) basic knowledge of body functioning and changes in [...]”

    • Tag 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) failed to conduct ongoing nursing assessments not to exceed 90 days for one of one resident (R1).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) failed to conduct ongoing nursing assessments not to exceed 90 days for one of one resident (R1). The licensee further failed to ensure the RN had completed and/or documented a comprehensive reassessment to include required areas of assessment per Assisted Living Facilities: Minnesota Rules Chapter 4659, for one of one resident (R1). [...]”

      Rule cited: “(c) Resident reassessment and monitoring must be conducted no more than 14 calendar days after initiation of services. [...]”

    • Tag 1880: 144G.71 Subd. 19 Storage of medications Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure one of one resident (R1) insulin was stored securely and according to the manufacturer's recommendations.

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure one of one resident (R1) insulin was stored securely and according to the manufacturer's recommendations. [...]”

      Rule cited: “An assisted living facility must store all prescription medications in securely locked and substantially constructed compartments according to the manufacturer's directions and permit only authorized personnel to have access.”

    • Tag 1910: 144G.71 Subd. 22 Disposition of medications Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
      Details

      Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to document in the resident's record the disposition of the medication including the medication's prescription number as applicable, for one of one discharged resident (R2).

      MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to document in the resident's record the disposition of the medication including the medication's prescription number as applicable, for one of one discharged resident (R2). [...]”

      Rule cited: “(a) Any current medications being managed by the assisted living facility must be provided to the resident when the resident's service plan ends or medication management services are no longer part of the service plan. [...]”

    From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance; no immediate fines.

What the levels and scopes mean (MDH’s words)

Level 1: “a violation that has no potential to cause more than a minimal impact on the resident and does not affect health or safety”

Level 2: “a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death”

Isolated scope: “when one or a limited number of residents are affected or one or a limited number of staff are involved, or the situation has occurred only occasionally”

Pattern scope: “when more than a limited number of residents are affected, more than a limited number of staff are involved, or the situation has occurred repeatedly; but is not found to be pervasive”

Widespread scope: “when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has affected or has the potential to affect a large portion or all of the residents”

Summaries are ours and are marked “Summary”; quoted text is MDH’s own, shortened where marked [...]. Read the full reports at the links above or search every report on MDH’s site.

What these terms mean

MDH: “An evaluation is a process regulated by the division to ensure licensees comply with the laws, rules, and certifications for the type of care and services authorized under their license/certification.”

“An investigation may occur when the division is notified that care and services are not being provided by licensees as required by law. This may include allegations of abuse, neglect, or financial misuse.”

For maltreatment, Minnesota law defines substantiated as “a preponderance of the evidence shows that an act that meets the definition of maltreatment occurred” and inconclusive as “less than a preponderance of evidence to show that maltreatment did or did not occur” (Minn. Stat. 626.5572).

Correction orders, as MDH explains on each state form: “Tag numbers have been assigned to Minnesota State Statutes for Assisted Living Facilities.” “The letter in the left column is used for tracking purposes and reflects the scope and level issued pursuant to 144G.31 subd. 1, 2, and 3.” MDH adds that there is no requirement to submit a plan of correction for violations of Minnesota state statutes.

MDH keeps investigation results for seven years when allegations are substantiated, four years when inconclusive, and three years when unsubstantiated, so the counts cover different periods. This community is licensed for 5 residents; larger communities are evaluated and reported on more often, so read counts with size in mind. Source: Minnesota Department of Health, Health Regulation Division, data as of September 28, 2026. Always visit in person and ask the community about anything listed here.

License and ownershipActive license, licensee BAYVIEW CASE MANAGEMENT LLC
License type
Assisted Living Facility
License number
426041
License status
Active
Current license dated
2026-08-01
Licensed capacity
5
Licensee
BAYVIEW CASE MANAGEMENT LLC
Administrator/Authorized Agent
Farah Hersi

Source: Minnesota state licensing records (agency listing), retrieved 2026-09-09. Licensing status is a matter of public record; it is not a quality rating.

Administrator/Authorized Agent name from the Minnesota licensing record, as of Sep 9, 2026.

Paying with Medicaid and other programsHow Medicaid pays for care in Minnesota, and other programs

How Medicaid pays for care in Minnesota

  • Elderly Waiver (EW), customized living services. Minnesota's Elderly Waiver, part of Medical Assistance (Minnesota Medicaid), can pay for "customized living" services, and a provider of those services must hold an assisted living license (or meet certain exceptions). You must qualify for Medical Assistance and need a nursing-home level of care. (state page)

Ask the community whether it accepts Medicaid.

Location and nearby careNearest hospital 3.1 mi, nursing home 0.5 mi, pharmacy 0.5 mi
Nearest hospital with an emergency room
M Health Fairview Ridges Hospital, Burnsville. 3.1 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 4 of 5 stars.
Nearest Medicare nursing home
Apple Valley Village Health Care Center, Apple Valley. 0.5 miles away, straight line.
Nearest home health agency office
Omega Home Healthcare LLC, Eagan. 3.1 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
Nearest pharmacy
Allina Health Apple Valley Pharmacy. 0.5 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
Area
USDA classes ZIP code 55124 as metropolitan (metropolitan core).
Dialysis within 15 miles
Davita East Valley Dialysis, Apple Valley, 1.7 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 4 of 5 stars)
Davita Burnsville Dialysis Unit, Burnsville, 2.9 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 4 of 5 stars)
Fresenius Medical Care - Lakeville, Lakeville, 3.4 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 5 of 5 stars)
Hospice
25 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 55124.
Minnesota Hospice LLC, office in Lakeville, 5.1 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 5 of 5 stars)
Healthpartners Hospice And Palliatice Care, office in Bloomington, 7.8 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 3 of 5 stars)
Caretenders Hospice, office in Minneapolis, 11.0 miles away, straight line
Nearest geriatric medicine practice
Fairview Health Services, Burnsville. 3.1 miles away, straight line. 1 geriatric medicine doctor listed there.

Distances are straight lines from the community, not driving distance. Hospitals, home health, dialysis, hospice and doctors come from CMS provider data (CMS, hospital list updated Jul 22, 2026). Star ratings are CMS’s own.

Emergency and natural hazard riskFEMA overall risk relatively low; outside FEMA's high-risk flood areas

Public hazard maps for this location. Ask the community about its emergency plan, its generator and where residents would go in an evacuation.

Flood zone
Outside the high and moderate risk flood areas on FEMA's flood map (Zone X, minimal flood hazard, or not studied). (FEMA flood map)
FEMA National Risk Index
Overall: relatively low. By hazard: inland flooding relatively low, wildfire very low, tornado relatively high, heat wave relatively low, earthquake very low. These are FEMA’s ratings for the census tract, compared with tracts nationwide. (FEMA, December 2025)

A flood zone describes the map at this point, not the building's elevation. In an emergency, follow the local emergency management agency.

Questions to ask on a tour10 questions picked for this community from its record

Picked for this community from its record. Ask them in person and write down the answers.

  1. The current license dates from 2026. Has the owner or operator changed recently?
  2. What does the base rate include, and when did rates last go up?
  3. Who is here at night? Are they awake, or asleep and on call?
  4. Who covers when the owner is sick, on vacation, or away for the day? Can we meet them?
  5. Is it one flat rate, or does it rise with care needs?
  6. Can you help someone who needs two people to move, or a mechanical lift?
  7. How many caregivers are on duty during the day and at night?
  8. What happens if care needs increase? When would someone need to move?
  9. What fees are charged at move-in?
  10. How do you tell families about falls, illness or changes?
What we checked11 public sources we searched, with dates

Every public source we searched for this community. “Nothing on record” means we found no record that matched it. A record can be missed when a name or address differs.

SourceData as ofWhat we found
Minnesota Department of Health, Health Regulation Division inspection recordsSep 28, 2026See above
U.S. Department of Labor wage and hour casesOct 15, 2026Nothing on record
OSHA workplace safety inspections since 2016Oct 15, 2026Nothing on record
FEMA flood mapSee above
USDA wildfire riskApr 15, 2026Not shown: FEMA rates wildfire risk here very low
FEMA National Risk IndexSee above
CMS hospitals, home health, dialysis, hospice and doctors; OpenStreetMap pharmaciesSee above
HUD Multifamily Properties - AssistedJul 6, 2026Nothing on record
State Veterans Homes (NASVH directory)Sep 20, 2026Nothing on record
CMS Hospice - General InformationAug 19, 2026Nothing on record
CMS Home Health Care AgenciesMay 27, 2026Nothing on record
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Bayview Case Management provide?

Bayview Case Management is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living in Apple Valley, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 5 residents.

Does Lilisity rate Bayview Case Management?

No. We publish state licensing details for Bayview Case Management but no score, rating, or ranking. Only communities on the Top Communities list or with a Senior Living Alliance Excellence Award, both based on phone-verified resident and family interviews, are ranked.

How much does Bayview Case Management cost?

Assisted Living in Minnesota typically starts at $2,200 to $4,800 a month. Based on 74 communities that publish prices. These are area figures, not this community's price. Bayview Case Management does not publish its prices.

How do I contact Bayview Case Management?

Visit Bayview Case Management at 14199 Garrett Avenue, Apple Valley, MN 55124.

Choosing a small care homeOur care guide: what to look for, what it costs, how families pay, and more questions to ask (PDF)

Report a wrong fact

How Lilisity works. The only scores or rankings Lilisity publishes are the Top Communities list and the Excellence Awards, both built from phone-verified resident and family interviews. Communities can pay Lilisity a flat monthly fee to manage their own listing: photos, prices, contact details, and receiving the inquiries families choose to send them. The fee is the same no matter how many families contact them or move in. Senior Living Alliance, which runs Lilisity, offers the same listing to its member communities as part of their membership; members pay SLA for its resident and family interview program. No community pays Lilisity per inquiry, per referral or per move-in. Payment never changes a testimonial, a rating, or the order of search results. The "Nearby Senior Living Alliance communities" box shows member communities only. How we verify testimonials · How we are paid