Assisted Living and Memory Care
Epiphany Assisted Living
10955 Hanson Boulevard Nw, Coon Rapids, MN 55433 · Map
Licensed for 75 residents · EPIPHANY ASSISTED LIVING LLC
Epiphany Assisted Living is a state-licensed assisted living, memory care community in Coon Rapids, Minnesota. It is licensed for 75 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, 75 residents
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 422338, current license dated Sep 1, 2025. Licensee EPIPHANY ASSISTED LIVING LLC.
Nearest emergency room
2.8 miles
Mercy Hospital, rated 3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Epiphany Assisted Living this community | 75 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated | |
| Select Sr Living Coon Rapids | 0.5 mi | 90 | Not published | Active | 3 substantiated |
| Rejoyce Health Care | 0.6 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Tr Homes | 0.6 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated |
| Boden Sr Living - Coon Rapids | 0.7 mi | 54 | Not published | Active | 2 substantiated |
State inspection record1 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- December 5, 2025
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 1 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 2 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 0 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (December 5, 2025, state report 0MCE11)
MDH: “On December 1, 2025, through December 5, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider and the following correction orders are issued.”
Survey completed December 5, 2025: 9 correction orders
- Tag 100: 144G.10 Subdivision 1 License required Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure there was at least a vertical two-hour fire barrier as defined by the National Fire Protection Association Standard 101, Life Safety Code, between the licensed assisted living facility areas and unlicensed entity areas of the building.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure there was at least a vertical two-hour fire barrier as defined by the National Fire Protection Association Standard 101, Life Safety Code, between the licensed assisted living facility areas and unlicensed entity areas of the building. The deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) (1) Beginning August 1, 2021, no assisted living facility may operate in Minnesota unless it is licensed under this chapter. [...]”
- 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:”
- 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. [...]”
- Tag 830: 144G.45 Subd. 3 Local laws apply Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · 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: “Assisted living facilities shall comply with all applicable state and local governing laws, regulations, standards, ordinances, and codes for fire safety, building, and zoning requirements, except a facility with a licensed resident capacity of six or fewer [...]”
- Tag 1060: 144G.52 Subd. 9 Emergency relocation Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide a written notice with all the required content to the resident, legal representative, and designated representative, for an emergency relocation and failed to notify the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care of the emergency relocation for two of two residents (R2, R3).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide a written notice with all the required content to the resident, legal representative, and designated representative, for an emergency relocation and failed to notify the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care of the emergency relocation for two of two residents (R2, R3). [...]”
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. [...]”
Show all 9
- 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 required training was completed for one of one employee (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-C).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure required training was completed for one of one employee (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-C). 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 or one [...]”
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 1730: 144G.71 Subd. 5 Individualized medication management plan Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop an individualized medication management record with the required content for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3, R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop an individualized medication management record with the required content for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3, R4). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) For each resident receiving medication management services, a registered nurse, advanced practice registered nurse, or qualified staff delegated the task by a registered nurse must prepare and include in the service plan a written statement of the [...]”
- Tag 1890: 144G.71 Subd. 20 Prescription drugs Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were maintained bearing the original prescription label with legible information and the licensee failed to ensure time sensitive medications included the open date and/or expiration date for four of four residents (R7, R8, R9, R10).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were maintained bearing the original prescription label with legible information and the licensee failed to ensure time sensitive medications included the open date and/or expiration date for four of four residents (R7, R8, R9, R10). [...]”
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 1940: 144G.72 Subd. 3 Individualized treatment or therapy managemen Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and implement a current individual treatment or therapy management plan (ITTMP) to include all required content for two of two residents (R1, R2) with blood glucose monitoring and TED stocking.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop and implement a current individual treatment or therapy management plan (ITTMP) to include all required content for two of two residents (R1, R2) with blood glucose monitoring and TED stocking. [...]”
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 [...]”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance.
Food and beverage inspection (included in this report): No orders were issued for this inspection report.
Fines assessed by MDH
- Tag 775 (144g.45 Subd. 2. (a) - Fire Protection And Physical Environment): $500.00
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $500.00.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- April 26, 2023: report QZNU11 · 19 correction orders
Details
Survey completed April 26, 2023: 19 correction orders
- 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 licensee failed to ensure employee records included all required content (annual performance review) for one of two employees, (registered nurse (RN)-C).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure employee records included all required content (annual performance review) for one of two employees, (registered nurse (RN)-C). [...]”
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 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) which included baseline testing and screening for two of three employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E, ULP-I).
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 baseline testing and screening for two of three employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E, ULP-I). [...]”
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 a written emergency preparedness (EP) plan with all the required content.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop a written emergency preparedness (EP) plan with all the required content. This had the potential to affect all residents, employees, and visitors to 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 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 maintain 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.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to maintain 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. This deficient condition had the potential to affect all staff, residents, and visitors. [...]”
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 develop a fire safety and evacuation plan with procedures for resident movement, evacuation, or relocation during a fire or similar emergency including the identification of unique or unusual resident needs for movement or evacuation.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on a record review and interview, the licensee failed to develop a fire safety and evacuation plan with procedures for resident movement, evacuation, or relocation during a fire or similar emergency including the identification of unique or unusual resident needs for movement or evacuation. This had the potential to affect all staff, residents, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
Show all 19
- Tag 950: 144G.50 Subd. 3 Designation of representative Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to complete documentation for the opportunity to identify a designated representative in writing by not requiring the contract section to be filled out, for one of five residents (R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to complete documentation for the opportunity to identify a designated representative in writing by not requiring the contract section to be filled out, for one of five residents (R4). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Before or at the time of execution of an assisted living contract, an assisted living facility must offer the resident the opportunity to identify a designated representative in writing in the contract and must provide the following verbatim notice on a [...]”
- Tag 970: 144G.50 Subd. 5 Waivers of liability prohibited Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living contract did not include language waiving the facility's liability for health, safety, or personal property of a resident.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living contract did not include language waiving the facility's liability for health, safety, or personal property of a resident. This had the potential to affect all 72 residents living within the assisted living facility. [...]”
Rule cited: “The contract must not include a waiver of facility liability for the health and safety or personal property of a resident. [...]”
- Tag 1060: 144G.52 Subd. 9 Emergency relocation Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide a written notice with the required content for an emergency relocation to the resident, legal representative, or designated representative, for two of two residents (R2, R3) and failed to provide the notification to the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care (OOLTC) of the emergency relocation greater than four days, for one of two residents (R2).
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 to the resident, legal representative, or designated representative, for two of two residents (R2, R3) and failed to provide the notification to the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care (OOLTC) of the emergency relocation greater than four days, for one of two residents (R2). [...]”
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 1440: 144G.62 Subd. 4 Supervision of staff providing delegated nurs 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) provided direct supervision of staff performing delegated tasks within 30 calendar days after tasks were delegated for two
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) provided direct supervision of staff performing delegated tasks within 30 calendar days after tasks were delegated for two of two unlicensed personnel ((ULP)-E, ULP-I). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Staff who perform delegated nursing or therapy tasks must be supervised by an appropriate licensed health professional or a registered nurse according to the assisted living facility's policy where the services are being provided to verify that the work [...]”
- Tag 1530: 144G.64 TRAINING IN DEMENTIA CARE REQUIRED Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure supervisors of direct care staff received the required amount of dementia care training in the required time frame for one of one employee (registered nurse (RN)-C).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure supervisors of direct care staff received the required amount of dementia care training in the required time frame for one of one employee (registered nurse (RN)-C). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) All assisted living facilities must meet the following training requirements: (1) supervisors of direct-care staff must have at least eight hours of initial training on topics specified under paragraph (b) within 120 working hours of the employment start [...]”
- Tag 1540: 144G.64 (a) TRAINING IN DEMENTIA CARE REQUIRED Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure direct-care staff completed at least eight hours of initial dementia care training within 80 working hours of the employment start date for one of one employee (unlicensed personnel (ULP-E)).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure direct-care staff completed at least eight hours of initial dementia care training within 80 working hours of the employment start date for one of one employee (unlicensed personnel (ULP-E)). [...]”
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
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the service plan was revised to include all services being provided for two of five residents (R3, R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the service plan was revised to include all services being provided for two of five residents (R3, R4). [...]”
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 1880: 144G.71 Subd. 19 Storage of medications Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to secure medications to be accessed by authorized individuals only for one of five residents (R3).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to secure medications to be accessed by authorized individuals only for one of five residents (R3). [...]”
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 1890: 144G.71 Subd. 20 Prescription drugs Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were maintained bearing the original prescription label, in addition, licensee failed to ensure expired medications were disposed properly.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were maintained bearing the original prescription label, in addition, licensee failed to ensure expired medications were disposed properly. This had the potential to affect all residents of the first-floor dementia unit. [...]”
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 2040: 144G.81 Subdivision 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 a hazard vulnerability assessment or safety risk assessment of the physical environment with mitigation factors on and around the property for the facility.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on record review and interview, the licensee failed to provide a hazard vulnerability assessment or safety risk assessment of the physical environment with mitigation factors on and around the property for the facility. This deficient practice had the ability to affect all staff, residents, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “An assisted living facility with dementia care that has a secured dementia care unit must meet the requirements of section 144G.45 and the following additional requirements: (1) a hazard vulnerability assessment or safety risk must be performed on and around [...]”
- Tag 2110: 144G.82 Subd. 3 Policies Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and implement the required policies and procedures for assisted living with dementia care (ALFDC), and ensure the policies were provided to residents or the resident's legal and /or designated representative at the time of move-in for five of five residents (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop and implement the required policies and procedures for assisted living with dementia care (ALFDC), and ensure the policies were provided to residents or the resident's legal and /or designated representative at the time of move-in for five of five residents (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) In addition to the policies and procedures required in the licensing of all facilities, the assisted living facility with dementia care licensee must develop and implement policies and procedures that address the: (1) philosophy of how services are [...]”
- Tag 2140: 144G.83 Subd. 3 Supervising staff training Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the designated person to oversee staff training in the care of individuals with dementia completed the required competency test.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the designated person to oversee staff training in the care of individuals with dementia completed the required competency test. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “Persons providing or overseeing staff training must have experience and knowledge in the care of individuals with dementia, including: (1) two years of work experience related to Alzheimer's disease or other dementias, or in health care, gerontology, or [...]”
- Tag 2260: 144G.90 Subd. 3 Notice of dementia training Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide in written or electronic form to residents, families, or other persons who request it, an accurate description of the dementia care training program with the required content.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide in written or electronic form to residents, families, or other persons who request it, an accurate description of the dementia care training program with the required content. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “An assisted living facility with dementia care shall make available in written or electronic form, to residents and families or other persons who request it, a description of the training program and related training it provides, including the categories of [...]”
- Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care standards, medical, or nursing standards for two
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care standards, medical, or nursing standards for two of two residents (R2, R7) who utilized oxygen. [...]”
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.”
From MDH’s letter: no immediate fines.
- Tag 650: 144G.42 Subd. 8 Employee records Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Substantiated investigations (state reports)
- November 26, 2025 · report HL306886202M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when the resident did not receive his coumadin (a medication that thins the blood), for multiple weeks resulting in a hospitalization and death.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated.”
“The facility was responsible for the maltreatment.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect substantiated (facility responsibility).
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated. The facility was responsible for the maltreatment. Facility staff entered the resident's coumadin on the resident's electronic medication administration record (EMAR), then discontinued the coumadin order. The coumadin was sent to the facility by the pharmacy but was discontinued by facility staff and not administered to the resident. The resident missed three weeks of coumadin then had a change in condition, was hospitalized and died.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility completed a facility investigation of the incident. The facility sent the resident to the hospital after a change in condition was reported. The facility educated nursing staff on Coumadin orders and INR facility processes.”
Action taken by MDH: “The responsible party will be notified of their right to appeal the maltreatment finding. The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”
Survey completed November 4, 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 the facility was responsible for the maltreatment, in connection with incidents which occurred at the facility. Please refer to the public maltreatment report for details. No plan of correction is required for this tag.”
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 (2)
- June 24, 2024 · report HL306883422M · MDH finding: Inconclusive
Details
Allegation, as written: “The resident was abused when the alleged perpetrator (AP), facility staff, was demanding and rough with the resident. The resident screamed, "Oww, she slapped me," and pleaded with staff not to leave her alone with the AP.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was inconclusive.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: abuse inconclusive.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was inconclusive. The resident and AP were in the resident's room with the door closed. The resident stated the AP hit her, however, the AP denied hitting the resident. There were no witnesses to the incident and when the resident was assessed for injury's the following day none were noted. The resident was unable to recall the incident. It could not be determined if abuse occurred.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility removed the AP from providing care to the resident and other residents in the facility. The facility investigated the incident and reported the concern to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC). The AP is no longer employed by the facility.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed May 22, 2024: no correction orders issued.
- June 4, 2023 · report HL306881701M
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 75 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 EPIPHANY ASSISTED LIVING LLC
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
- License number
- 422338
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2025-09-01
- Licensed capacity
- 75
- Licensee
- EPIPHANY ASSISTED LIVING LLC
- County
- Anoka County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Crystal Kurowski
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 2.8 mi, nursing home 1.7 mi, pharmacy 0.7 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- Mercy Hospital, Coon Rapids. 2.8 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 3 of 5 stars.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- Park River Estates Care Center, Coon Rapids. 1.7 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Mary T Home Health, Coon Rapids. 1.2 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Cub Pharmacy. 0.7 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 55433 as metropolitan (metropolitan core).
- Dialysis within 15 miles
- Fmc - Coon Rapids, Coon Rapids, 2.3 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars)
Davita Mississippi Gateway Dialysis, Coon Rapids, 2.6 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars)
Fmc Dialysis - North Suburban, Coon Rapids, 3.1 miles away, straight line (has a shift starting after 5 pm; CMS rating 4 of 5 stars) - Hospice
- 23 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 55433.
Mary T Hospice, office in Coon Rapids, 1.3 miles away, straight line
Olive Grove Hospice LLC, office in Blaine, 6.5 miles away, straight line
North Memorial Home Hlth Hospc, office in Robbinsdale, 10.5 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars) - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Group Health Inc, Coon Rapids. 0.7 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 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 moderate, 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 2025. 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 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.
| 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 very 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 |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Epiphany Assisted Living provide?
Epiphany Assisted Living is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living, memory care in Coon Rapids, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 75 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Epiphany Assisted Living?
No. We publish state licensing details for Epiphany Assisted Living 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 Epiphany Assisted Living 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. Epiphany Assisted Living does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Epiphany Assisted Living?
Visit Epiphany Assisted Living at 10955 Hanson Boulevard Nw, Coon Rapids, MN 55433.
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