New Perspective Mankato

Last evaluation

February 26, 2026

Evaluations on record

2

Investigations substantiated

4 kept 7 years

Inconclusive

0 kept 4 years

Unsubstantiated

3 kept 3 years

Most recent evaluation (February 26, 2026, state report 084L11)

MDH: “On February 23, 2026, through February 26, 2026, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider and the following correction orders are issued.”

Survey completed February 26, 2026: 17 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 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, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death), and is issued at a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has [...]”

  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 infection control program that complies with accepted health care, medical and nursing standards for infection control for three of four unlicensed personnel (ULP-H, ULP-D, ULP-I).

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to establish and maintain an infection control program that complies with accepted health care, medical and nursing standards for infection control for three of four unlicensed personnel (ULP-H, ULP-D, ULP-I). [...]”

  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 (a) Staff 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 for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-I).

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure employee records included all required content for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-I). [...]”

  Rule cited: “(a) The facility must maintain current records of each paid staff member, each regularly scheduled volunteer providing services, and each individual contractor providing services. [...]”

• 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 completion of a two-step TST (tuberculin skin test) or other evidence of TB screening such as a blood test, prior to providing direct care services, 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) which included completion of a two-step TST (tuberculin skin test) or other evidence of TB screening such as a blood test, prior to providing direct care services, for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-D). [...]”

  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 have a written emergency preparedness plan (EPP) with all the required content and failed to prominently post the EPP.

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to have a written emergency preparedness plan (EPP) with all the required content and failed to prominently post the EPP. 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 [...]”

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 1290 (144g.60 Subdivision 1 - Background Studies Required): $1,000.00

Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $2,000.00.

Substantiated investigations (state reports)

• April 11, 2025 · report HL247188622M · MDH finding: Substantiated, individual responsibility
  Details

  Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when the resident fell while being assisted in the bathroom.”

  “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated.”

  “Two alleged perpetrator (AP #1 and AP #2) were responsible for the maltreatment.”

  Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect substantiated (individual responsibility).

  MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated. Two alleged perpetrator (AP #1 and AP #2) were responsible for the maltreatment. Both AP#1 and AP#2, who were unlicensed caregivers, were in the room and failed to follow the care plan by not using the required equipment to assist the resident to the bathroom, resulting in the resident falling on her knee and sustaining a tibial plateau fracture. A video recorded showed inconsistencies between what AP #1 and AP #2 stated occurred.”

  Action taken by facility: “The facility assessed the resident and transferred her to the hospital for further evaluation. An internal investigation was initiated, and AP#1 and AP#2 's employment was terminated.”

  Action taken by MDH: “The facility was issued a correction order regarding the vulnerable adult's right to be free from maltreatment.”

  Survey completed March 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 reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure one of one resident reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred, and two individuals were responsilbe 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.”

• June 12, 2024 · report HL247183182M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
  Details

  Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when the resident had a fall resulting in a laceration. The resident was seen on camera by a family member yelling for help for 40 minutes before a staff member came to assist.”

  “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. The resident has multiple falls over the course of approximately seven weeks during which the facility did not put interventions in place to prevent future falls. Additionally, on one occasion the facility did not perform safety checks per the service agreement and the resident fell on the floor yelling for help. The resident sustained a laceration and a broken finger.”

  Action taken by facility: “No action taken.”

  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 April 30, 2024: 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 reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure one of one resident 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.”

    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.”

• June 11, 2024 · report HL247183183M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
  Details

  Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when the resident had numerous falls but the facility did not put interventions in place to address the risk of falls.”

  “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. During the course of approximately nine weeks, the resident fell on multiple occasions, but the facility did not implement interventions to reduce the risk of increased falls.”

  Action taken by facility: “Care conference was held to increase the level of care.”

  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 April 30, 2024: 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 reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure one of one resident 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.”

    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.”

• June 10, 2024 · report HL247189888M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
  Details

  Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when the facility did not call emergency medical services (EMS) after finding the resident fallen on the floor with a television set on top of her. Instead, the facility contacted the family and offered the family a choice of 911 or family-provided transport to urgent care.”

  “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. The facility found the resident on the floor with a television set on top of her. The facility contacted the family and offered them a choice of 911 or family-transport to an urgent care. When family arrived, the resident was alone in her room and lethargic. The family took her to urgent care but was redirected to the emergency room where she was diagnosed with an intracranial hemorrhage (bleeding that occurs within the skull or brain). The resident died ten days later due to the injuries from the fall.”

  Action taken by facility: “The facility did an assessment after the fall and notified family.”

  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 April 30, 2024: 3 correction orders

  • Tag 620: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (a) / 626.557, Subd. 3 Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) Days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to immediately report to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) an unwitnessed fall with injury for one of three residents (R1) reviewed.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to immediately report to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) an unwitnessed fall with injury for one of three residents (R1) reviewed. [...]”

    Rule cited: “(a) The assisted living facility must comply with the requirements for the reporting of maltreatment of vulnerable adults in section 626.557. [...]”

  • Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 3, pattern scope, scope/level letter H · correction period: Seven (7) Days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide appropriate services based on the resident's needs and accepted health care standards for three of three (R1, R2, and R3) resident reviewed.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on the interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide appropriate services based on the resident's needs and accepted health care standards for three of three (R1, R2, and R3) resident reviewed. After discovering R1 on the floor with a television on top of her, the facility failed to update R1's medical provider nor did the facility monitor her after the fall as she had a change in her level of consciousness. [...]”

    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 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure one of one resident reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure one of one resident 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.”

    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.”

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.

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 140 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.