Assisted Living and Memory Care
Cedar Court
810 West Main Street, Adams, MN 55909 · Map
Licensed for 55 residents · CEDAR COURT
Cedar Court is a state-licensed assisted living, memory care community in Adams, Minnesota. It is licensed for 55 residents. Lilisity publishes no score or ranking for this community; the details below come from the state licensing record.
Prices
This community does not publish its prices.
Area costs
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.
License
Active, 55 residents
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 423730, current license dated Feb 1, 2026. Licensee CEDAR COURT.
Nearest emergency room
32.9 miles
Mayo Clinic Health System - Albert Lea And Austin, rated 5 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.
| Community | Distance | Licensed capacity | Published starting price | License | Inspection citations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cedar Court this community | 55 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated | |
| Wildwood Grove | 11.5 mi | 43 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| The Meadows of Grand Meadow | 12.4 mi | 25 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| St Mark's Heritage Community | 13.9 mi | 54 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Cedars of Austin | 14.5 mi | 140 | Not published | Active | 2 substantiated |
State inspection record1 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- February 19, 2026
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 1 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 1 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 2 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (February 19, 2026, state report TZOM11)
MDH: “On February 17, 2026, through February 19, 2026, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider and the following correction orders are issued.”
Survey completed February 19, 2026: 7 correction orders
- 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
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review the licensee failed to post in a conspicuous place, information about the licensee's grievance procedure with the required content 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 660: 144G.42 Subd. 9 Tuberculosis prevention and control Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · 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) which included documentation of a two-step TST (tuberculin skin test) result in millimeters (mm) of induration for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-G).
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) which included documentation of a two-step TST (tuberculin skin test) result in millimeters (mm) of induration for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-G). [...]”
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 730: 144G.43 Subd. 3 Contents of 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 the resident record included a discharge summary with the required content for one of one discharged resident (R3).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the resident record included a discharge summary with the required content for one of one discharged resident (R3). [...]”
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 775: 144G.45 Subd. 2. (a) 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
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:”
- Tag 1640: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (a-e) Service plan, implementation and revisions to Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a written service plan was developed to include all services the licensee provided for one of two residents (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a written service plan was developed to include all services the licensee provided for one of two residents (R2). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) No later than 14 calendar days after the date that services are first provided, an assisted living facility shall finalize a current written service plan. [...]”
- Tag 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure one of three unlicensed personnel (ULP-F) administered medications as prescribed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure one of three unlicensed personnel (ULP-F) administered medications as prescribed. 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 affected [...]”
Rule cited: “Each medication administered by the assisted living facility staff must be documented in the resident's record. The documentation must include the signature and title of the person who administered the medication. [...]”
- Tag 2320: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (b) Appropriate care and services Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered according to policy and accepted standards of practice by one of three employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E) and failed to ensure one of three employees (ULP-E) administered medications as prescribed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered according to policy and accepted standards of practice by one of three employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E) and failed to ensure one of three employees (ULP-E) administered medications as prescribed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Residents have the right to receive health care and other assisted living services with continuity from people who are properly trained and competent to perform their duties and in sufficient numbers to adequately provide the services agreed to in the [...]”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance; no immediate fines.
Food and beverage inspection (included in this report): No orders were issued for this inspection report.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- April 26, 2023: report SMS611 · 14 correction orders
Details
Survey completed April 26, 2023: 14 correction orders
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
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 510: 144G.41 Subd. 3 Infection control program Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure infection control standards were followed for one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP-E) during personal cares for R3.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure infection control standards were followed for one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP-E) during personal cares for R3. [...]”
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 650: 144G.42 Subd. 8 Employee records Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure one of two employee records (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E) contained the required content.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of two employee records (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E) contained the required content. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The facility must maintain current records of each paid employee, each regularly scheduled volunteer providing services, and each individual contractor providing services. [...]”
- 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 practice and document testing of its emergency preparedness (EP) plan at least twice annually as required, post an emergency disaster plan prominently, and evaluate its missing person policy at least quarterly.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to practice and document testing of its emergency preparedness (EP) plan at least twice annually as required, post an emergency disaster plan prominently, and evaluate its missing person policy at least quarterly. 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 730: 144G.43 Subd. 3 Contents of resident record Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the resident record included a discharge summary with the required content for one of one discharged resident (R1).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the resident record included a discharge summary with the required content for one of one discharged resident (R1). [...]”
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, [...]”
Show all 14
- Tag 780: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (1) 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 provide smoke alarms that complied with fire protection requirements.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to provide smoke alarms that complied with fire protection requirements. This deficient condition had the potential to affect all staff, residents, and visitors. [...]”
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 1370: 144G.61 Subd. 2 (a) Training and evaluation of unlicensed personn Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure training and competency evaluations were completed as required prior to providing direct care for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-G).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure training and competency evaluations were completed as required prior to providing direct care for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-G). [...]”
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 1540: 144G.64 (a) TRAINING IN DEMENTIA CARE REQUIRED 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 two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-G) completed the required amount of dementia care training in the required time frame.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-G) completed the required amount of dementia care training in the required time frame. [...]”
Rule cited: “(3) for assisted living facilities with dementia care, direct-care employees must have completed at least eight hours of initial training on topics specified under paragraph (b) within 80 working hours of the employment start date. [...]”
- Tag 1640: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (a-e) Service plan, implementation and revisions to 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 two resident's (R3) service plans were revised to reflect the current services provided.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure one of two resident's (R3) service plans were revised to reflect the current services provided. In addition, the licensee failed to ensure the service plan included a signature or other authentication by the resident and the facility to document agreement on the services provided for one of two residents (R3). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) No later than 14 calendar days after the date that services are first provided, an assisted living facility shall finalize a current written service plan. [...]”
- Tag 1750: 144G.71 Subd. 7 Delegation of medication administration Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure insulin administration via a prefilled insulin pen was administered according to manufacturer instructions, for one of one resident (R3).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure insulin administration via a prefilled insulin pen was administered according to manufacturer instructions, for one of one resident (R3). [...]”
Rule cited: “When administration of medications is delegated to unlicensed personnel, the assisted living facility must ensure that the registered nurse has: (1) instructed the unlicensed personnel in the proper methods to administer the medications, and the unlicensed [...]”
- Tag 1890: 144G.71 Subd. 20 Prescription drugs Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure time sensitive medications were dated when opened for one of two residents (R4) and failed to discard a medication when it had exceeded its recommended period of safe use time once opened for one of one resident (R3).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure time sensitive medications were dated when opened for one of two residents (R4) and failed to discard a medication when it had exceeded its recommended period of safe use time once opened for one of one resident (R3). [...]”
Rule cited: “A prescription drug, prior to being set up for immediate or later administration, must be kept in the original container in which it was dispensed by the pharmacy bearing the original prescription label with legible information including the expiration or [...]”
- 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 strength, for one of one discharged resident (R1).
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 strength, for one of one discharged resident (R1). [...]”
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. [...]”
- Tag 1940: 144G.72 Subd. 3 Individualized treatment or therapy managemen Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and implement a treatment or therapy management plan to include all required content for one of two residents (R3).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop and implement a treatment or therapy management plan to include all required content for one of two residents (R3). [...]”
Rule cited: “For each resident receiving management of ordered or prescribed treatments or therapy services, the assisted living facility must prepare and include in the service plan a written statement of the treatment or therapy services that will be provided to the [...]”
- Tag 1960: 144G.72 Subd. 5 Documentation of administration of treatments Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure treatment or therapies were administered as prescribed for one of two residents (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure treatment or therapies were administered as prescribed for one of two residents (R2). 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: “Each treatment or therapy administered by an assisted living facility must be in the resident record. [...]”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance; no immediate fines.
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Substantiated investigations (state reports)
- November 3, 2025 · report HL302316163M · MDH finding: Substantiated, individual responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP) abused the resident when she rough handled the mechanical lift sling while she transferred him causing him to cry out in pain from pinching and causing the resident to use foul language. After she completed the transfer, the AP withheld the resident's oxygen and threw his personal items of his around his room. As a result, the resident suffered physical pain and emotional distress.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was substantiated.”
“The AP was responsible for the maltreatment.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: abuse substantiated (individual responsibility).
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was substantiated. The AP was responsible for the maltreatment. The AP failed to remove the resident's mechanical lift sling properly causing the sling to pinch the resident and he experienced scrotal pain. The AP refused to give the resident his oxygen and blanket after the transfer occurred; then pushed the resident's table which caused items to go onto the floor, and across the room. The AP then left the resident. Photo images of the resident's room also showed multiple items scattered around. The resident suffered physical pain and emotional distress as a result.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility provided re-education to staff regarding vulnerable adults.”
Action taken by MDH: “The facility was issued a correction order regarding the vulnerable adult's right to be free from maltreatment.”
Survey completed October 13, 2025: 1 correction order
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure one of one resident(s) reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure one of one resident(s) reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred, and an individual person was responsible for the maltreatment, in connection with incidents which occurred at the facility. Please refer to the public maltreatment report for details.”
Rule cited: “Residents have the right to be free from physical, sexual, and emotional abuse; neglect; financial exploitation; and all forms of maltreatment covered under the Vulnerable Adults Act.”
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Inconclusive investigations (1)
- July 8, 2025 · report HL302311545M · MDH finding: Inconclusive
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when the resident used a lighter to ignite a cigarette and caught his clothes on fire.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was inconclusive.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect inconclusive.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was inconclusive. Due to incomplete and conflicting accounts of the incident, it could not be determined if maltreatment occurred.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility updated the provider regarding the incident.”
Action taken by MDH: “The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”
Survey completed May 14, 2025: 1 correction order
- Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 3, pattern scope, scope/level letter H
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure appropriate care and services were provided for two of two residents (R1 and R2) who were reviewed for safe smoking.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and document review, the licensee failed to ensure appropriate care and services were provided for two of two residents (R1 and R2) who were reviewed for safe smoking. The licensee failed to assess and implement interventions following incidents of unsafe smoking. This had the potential to affect all the residents, staff, and visitors of the facility. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Residents have the right to care and assisted living services that are appropriate based on the resident's needs and according to an up-to-date service plan subject to accepted health care standards.”
- Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 3, pattern scope, scope/level letter H
Unsubstantiated investigations (2)
- March 11, 2024 · report HL302315064C
Details
Survey completed March 11, 2024: no correction orders issued.
- March 11, 2024 · report HL302316938C
Details
Survey completed March 11, 2024: no correction orders issued.
What the levels and scopes mean (MDH’s words)
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”
Level 3: “a violation that harmed a resident's health or safety, not including serious injury, impairment, or death, or a violation that has the potential to lead to 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 55 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 CEDAR COURT
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
- License number
- 423730
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2026-02-01
- Licensed capacity
- 55
- Licensee
- CEDAR COURT
- County
- Mower County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Eric Worke
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 32.9 mi, nursing home 9.6 mi, pharmacy 14.8 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- Mayo Clinic Health System - Albert Lea And Austin, Albert Lea. 32.9 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 5 of 5 stars.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- Stacyville Community Nursing Home, Stacyville. 9.6 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Mitchell County Home Health Care/ Public Health, Osage. 20.1 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Medicap Pharmacy. 14.8 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 55909 as rural (rural area).
- Hospice
- 3 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 55909.
- Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Mayo Clinic Health System-Southeast Minnesota Region, Austin. 14.7 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 high; 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 high. By hazard: inland flooding very high, wildfire relatively low, tornado very 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.
- The state recorded a finding in November 2025. What was it, and how was it fixed?
- The current license dates from 2026. Has the owner or operator changed recently?
- What does the base rate include, and when did rates last go up?
- How many caregivers work in memory care during the day, the evening and overnight, and for how many residents?
- What dementia training does each caregiver get before working alone, and every year after?
- How do staff respond when a resident is agitated, frightened or tries to leave?
- How many caregivers are on duty during the day and at night?
- What happens if care needs increase? When would someone need to move?
- What fees are charged at move-in?
- How do you tell families about falls, illness or changes?
What we checked12 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.
| Source | Data as of | What we found |
|---|---|---|
| Minnesota Department of Health, Health Regulation Division inspection records | Sep 28, 2026 | See above |
| U.S. Department of Labor wage and hour cases | Oct 15, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| OSHA workplace safety inspections since 2016 | Oct 15, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| FEMA flood map | See above | |
| USDA wildfire risk | Apr 15, 2026 | Not shown: FEMA rates wildfire risk here relatively low |
| FEMA National Risk Index | See above | |
| CMS hospitals, home health, dialysis, hospice and doctors; OpenStreetMap pharmacies | See above | |
| HUD Multifamily Properties - Assisted | Jul 6, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| State Veterans Homes (NASVH directory) | Sep 20, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| CMS Hospice - General Information | Aug 19, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| CMS Home Health Care Agencies | May 27, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| The community’s own website | Could not read the site |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Cedar Court provide?
Cedar Court is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living, memory care in Adams, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 55 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Cedar Court?
No. We publish state licensing details for Cedar Court 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 Cedar Court 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. Cedar Court does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Cedar Court?
Use Cedar Court's website, colonycourtmn.com, or visit at 810 West Main Street, Adams, MN 55909.
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