Assisted Living and Memory Care
Oak Terrace Senior Housing of
811 South 4th Street, Le Sueur, MN 56058 · Map
Licensed for 65 residents · OAK TERRACE SENIOR HOUSING OF LE SUEUR, LLC
Oak Terrace Senior Housing of is a state-licensed assisted living, memory care community in Le Sueur, Minnesota. It is licensed for 65 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, 65 residents
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 426162, current license dated Jul 1, 2026. Licensee OAK TERRACE SENIOR HOUSING OF LE SUEUR, LLC.
Nearest emergency room
0.2 miles
Minnesota Valley Health Center Inc.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oak Terrace Senior Housing of this community | 65 | Not published | Active | 2 substantiated | |
| Waverly Senior Living | 0.9 mi | 37 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Benedictine Court | 7.4 mi | 55 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Ecumen Prairie Hill | 7.5 mi | 75 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Oak Terrace Senior Housing of | 7.7 mi | 29 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
State inspection record2 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- July 24, 2025
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 2 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 0 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 0 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (July 24, 2025, state report 987E11)
MDH: “On July 21, 2025, through July 24, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider and the following correction orders are issued.”
Survey completed July 24, 2025: 13 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 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, [...]”
- Tag 775: 144G.45 Subd. 2. (a) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Two (2) day · fine: $500.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to comply with the current State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to comply with the current State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “Each assisted living facility must comply with the State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511, and:”
- Tag 1290: 144G.60 Subdivision 1 Background studies required Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Two (2) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a background study was submitted and received in affiliation with the assisted living license for two of two employees (clinical nurse supervisor (CNS)-B, director of maintenance (DM)-D).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a background study was submitted and received in affiliation with the assisted living license for two of two employees (clinical nurse supervisor (CNS)-B, director of maintenance (DM)-D). This had the potential to affect all residents residing within the facility. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Employees, contractors, and regularly scheduled volunteers of the facility are subject to the background study required by section 144.057 and may be disqualified under chapter 245C. [...]”
- Tag 1440: 144G.62 Subd. 4 Supervision of staff providing delegated nurs Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure direct
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure direct supervision of staff performing delegated tasks was provided within 30 calendar days after the date in which the individual begins working for the licensee for one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP-E). [...]”
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 [...]”
Show all 13
- Tag 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) completed a comprehensive reassessment not to exceed 90 calendar days from the last assessment, for one of three residents (R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) completed a comprehensive reassessment not to exceed 90 calendar days from the last assessment, for one of three residents (R4). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Residents who are not receiving any assisted living services shall not be required to undergo an initial nursing assessment. [...]”
- 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 revised to reflect the current services provided for one of three residents (R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a written service plan was revised to reflect the current services provided for one of three residents (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 1710: 144G.71 Subd. 3 Individualized medication monitoring and reas Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) conducted a face-to-face medication management reassessment annually for two of three residents (R3, R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) conducted a face-to-face medication management reassessment annually for two of three residents (R3, R4). [...]”
Rule cited: “A registered nurse, advanced practice registered nurse, or qualified staff delegated the task by a registered nurse must monitor and reassess the resident's medication management services as needed under subdivision 2 when the resident presents with symptoms [...]”
- 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 (R5) with insulin.
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 (R5) with insulin. [...]”
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
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to document in the resident's record the disposition of the medication including the medication's prescription number as applicable, for one of one discharged resident (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 three residents
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on 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 three residents (R2). [...]”
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 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 two staff (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E) observed during insulin administration.
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 two staff (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E) observed during insulin administration. [...]”
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 [...]”
- Tag 2410: 144G.91 Subd. 13 Personal and treatment privacy Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide privacy for R5 during medication administration.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to provide privacy for R5 during medication administration. 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 or a limited number of [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Residents have the right to consideration of their privacy, individuality, and cultural identity as related to their social, religious, and psychological well-being. [...]”
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 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)
- December 27, 2022: report YD3211 · 10 correction orders
Details
Survey completed December 27, 2022: 10 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: (i) at least three nutritious meals daily with snacks available seven days per week, according to the recommended dietary allowances in the United States Department of [...]”
- Tag 630: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (b) Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure development of an individual abuse prevention plan with the required content for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3, R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure development of an individual abuse prevention plan with the required content for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3, R4). [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) The facility must develop and implement an individual abuse prevention plan for each vulnerable adult. [...]”
- Tag 650: 144G.42 Subd. 8 Employee records Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure employee records included required content of annual performance reviews for two of four employees
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure employee records included required content of annual performance reviews for two of four employees (licensed practical nurse (LPN)-D) and unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E). [...]”
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 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, 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, 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 provide required employee and resident training on fire safety and evacuation and failed to conduct the required evacuation drills.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on a record review and interview, the licensee failed to provide required employee and resident training on fire safety and evacuation and failed to conduct the required evacuation drills. 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 10
- Tag 940: 144G.50 Subd. 2 (e; 5-7) Contract information Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to execute a written assisted living contract 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 execute a written assisted living contract with the required content for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3, R4). This had potential to affect residents of the facility. [...]”
Rule cited: “(5) a description of the facility's policies related to medical assistance waivers under chapter 256S and section 256B.49 and the housing support program under chapter 256I, including: (i) whether the facility is enrolled with the commissioner of human [...]”
- Tag 950: 144.50 Subd. 3 Designation of representative Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to document on the assisted living contract that a resident named or declined to name a designated representative for two of three residents (R2, R3) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to document on the assisted living contract that a resident named or declined to name a designated representative for two of three residents (R2, R3) with records reviewed. [...]”
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 1650: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (f) Service plan, implementation and revisions to Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the service plan included all required content for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3, R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the service plan included all required content for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3, R4). This had the potential to affect all 53 residents who received assisted living services from the licensee. [...]”
Rule cited: “(f) The service plan must include: (1) a description of the services to be provided, the fees for services, and the frequency of each service, according to the resident's current assessment and resident preferences; (2) the identification of staff or [...]”
- 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 all 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 all required content for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3, R4). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) For each resident receiving medication management services, the assisted living facility must prepare and include in the service plan a written statement of the medication management services that will be provided to the resident. [...]”
- Tag 1940: 144G.72 Subd. 3 Individualized treatment or therapy managemen Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop an individualized treatment management record with the required content for two of four residents (R1, R2) who received ordered treatments.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop an individualized treatment management record with the required content for two of four residents (R1, R2) who received ordered treatments. [...]”
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: 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 8, 2024 · report HL324375681M · MDH finding: Substantiated, individual responsibility, AP1. Inconclusive, individual responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrators (AP #1 and AP #2) abused the resident when AP #1 and AP #2 were in the bathroom to assist the resident after he used the toilet. AP #2 saw AP #1 begin recording a video of the resident while his pants were down and swinging his T-shirt at them. AP #2 asked AP #1 To send her the video since it was funny.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was substantiated.”
“AP#1 was found and AP#2 were responsible for the maltreatment.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: abuse substantiated (individual responsibility, AP1. Inconclusive, individual responsibility).
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was substantiated. AP#1 was found and AP#2 were responsible for the maltreatment. AP#1 recorded the resident and shared the video with AP#2 via Snapchat.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility reported to the police department, started the investigation. AP#1 and AP#2 are no longer employed by the facility.”
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 8, 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 two indviduals were 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
- August 25, 2024 · report HL324372180M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when the resident was admitted to the hospital with an unstageable coccyx (tailbone) wound.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was not substantiated.”
“The facility was responsible for the maltreatment.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect not substantiated.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was not substantiated. The facility was responsible for the maltreatment. The resident was admitted to the hospital with an unstageable pressure ulcer on her coccyx. The facility denied having any prior knowledge of the pressure injury before the resident's hospitalization.”
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 July 16, 2024: 2 correction orders
- Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide appropriate care and services for one of one resident (R1) reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and document review, the licensee failed to provide appropriate care and services for one of one resident (R1) reviewed. The licensee failed to implement an up-to-date individualized service plan following accepted health care standards for R1 who had a risk for skin breakdown. [...]”
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.”
- Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
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”
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 65 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 OAK TERRACE SENIOR HOUSING OF LE SUEUR, LLC
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
- License number
- 426162
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2026-07-01
- Licensed capacity
- 65
- Licensee
- OAK TERRACE SENIOR HOUSING OF LE SUEUR, LLC
- County
- Le Sueur County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Matt Hood
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 0.2 mi, nursing home 0.2 mi, pharmacy 14.5 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- Minnesota Valley Health Center Inc, Le Sueur. 0.2 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- Cura of Le Sueur, Le Sueur. 0.2 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Good Samaritan Society Home Care St Peter, Saint Peter. 9.1 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Coborn's. 14.5 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 56058 as rural (rural area).
- Hospice
- 11 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 56058.
Stch South Central Mn Opco LLC, office in Mankato, 19.9 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 3 of 5 stars)
Moments Hospice, office in Mankato, 20.1 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 3 of 5 stars) - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Southern Cities Clinic, Faribault. 33.5 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 moderate; 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 moderate. By hazard: inland flooding relatively high, wildfire very low, tornado relatively high, heat wave relatively moderate, 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 2024. 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 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 |
| The community’s own website | Could not read the site |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Oak Terrace Senior Housing of provide?
Oak Terrace Senior Housing of is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living, memory care in Le Sueur, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 65 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Oak Terrace Senior Housing of?
No. We publish state licensing details for Oak Terrace Senior Housing of 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 Oak Terrace Senior Housing of 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. Oak Terrace Senior Housing of does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Oak Terrace Senior Housing of?
Use Oak Terrace Senior Housing of's website, oakterraceliving.com, or visit at 811 South 4th Street, Le Sueur, MN 56058.
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