Sunlight Senior Living

Last evaluation

April 7, 2025

Evaluations on record

2

Investigations substantiated

6 kept 7 years

Inconclusive

3 kept 4 years

Unsubstantiated

8 kept 3 years

Most recent evaluation (April 7, 2025, state report 20FQ11)

MDH: “On March 24, 2025, through April 7, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider, and the following orders are issued.”

Survey completed April 7, 2025: 14 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 550: 144G.41 Subd. 7 Resident grievances; reporting maltreatment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
  Details

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

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

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

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

  Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to support protection and safety by not posting information and phone numbers for reporting to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC).

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to support protection and safety by not posting information and phone numbers for reporting to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC). This had the potential to affect all 37 residents receiving assisted living services. [...]”

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

• 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 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 780: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (1) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Two (2) days
  Details

  Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide smoke alarms inside all sleeping rooms throughout the facility.

  MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to provide smoke alarms inside all sleeping rooms throughout the facility. This had the potential to directly affect residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”

  Rule cited: “for dwellings or sleeping units, as defined in the State Fire Code: (i) provide smoke alarms in each room used for sleeping purposes; (ii) provide smoke alarms outside each separate sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of bedrooms; (iii) provide smoke [...]”

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

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.

Substantiated investigations (state reports)

• June 16, 2026 · report HL306721640C
  Details

  Survey completed May 21, 2026: 2 correction orders

  • Tag 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication Level 3, widespread scope, scope/level letter I · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to document the reason medication administration was not completed as prescribed and failed to indicate any follow up procedures provided when medication was not administered, as required for 2 of 2 residents (R1 and R4) reviewed.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and document review, the licensee failed to document the reason medication administration was not completed as prescribed and failed to indicate any follow up procedures provided when medication was not administered, as required for 2 of 2 residents (R1 and R4) reviewed. Additionally, the licensee failed to correctly transcribe a medication order, as required for 1 of 1 residents (R1) reviewed. [...]”

    Rule cited: “Each medication administered by the assisted living facility staff must be documented in the resident's record. The documentation must include the signature and title of the person who administered the medication. [...]”

  • Tag 2320: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (b) Appropriate care and services Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide appropriate bathing services, as required for 1 of 1 residents (R2) reviewed.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and observation, the licensee failed to provide appropriate bathing services, as required for 1 of 1 residents (R2) reviewed. 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 [...]”

    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 [...]”

• October 30, 2025 · report HL306722243M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
  Details

  Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected a resident when the resident did not receive pain medication when experiencing severe pain. Additionally, the resident was neglected when staff did not perform hygiene cares, resulting in skin concerns.”

  “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. Regarding the pain medication, the facility failed to order the resident's narcotic prescription pain medication after an emergency room (ER) visit. Additionally, the facility failed to reconciling medication orders with the resident's physician. An equal opportunity employer. After seven weeks, the physician ordered a different, but similar narcotic pain medication and the pharmacy delivered the medication the same day. The facility staff failed to administer the medication, after supply was received consistently and the resident went several days without at a time. The resident stated his current medications were not effective and needed a stronger pain medication. [...]”

  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 June 17, 2025: 3 correction orders

  • Tag 450: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to services in a person-centered manner for one of one resident (R1) record reviewed when staff did not provide showers and only provided incomplete bed baths due to not obtaining a required and appropriately sized shower chair.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to services in a person-centered manner for one of one resident (R1) record reviewed when staff did not provide showers and only provided incomplete bed baths due to not obtaining a required and appropriately sized shower chair. [...]”

    Rule cited: “All assisted living facilities shall: (1) distribute to residents the assisted living bill of rights; (2) provide services in a manner that complies with the Nurse Practice Act in sections 148.171 to 148.285; (3) utilize a person-centered planning and service [...]”

  • Tag 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Twenty-one (21) Days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered as prescribed for one of one resident (R1) when staff failed to ensure R1 received pain medication and glucose monitoring.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered as prescribed for one of one resident (R1) when staff failed to ensure R1 received pain medication and glucose monitoring. [...]”

    Rule cited: “Each medication administered by the assisted living facility staff must be documented in the resident's record. The documentation must include the signature and title of the person who administered the medication. [...]”

  • Tag 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.”

    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.”

• May 6, 2025 · report HL306729002M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
  Details

  Allegation, as written: “The resident was neglected by the facility when the resident was missing from the facility for two days and hospitalized for malnourishment. In addition, the resident was financially exploited by a facility staff member, an alleged perpetrator when unapproved charges were made with the resident's debit card.”

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

  “The Minnesota Department of Health determined financial exploitation was not substantiated.”

  “The facility was responsible for the maltreatment.”

  Summary: MDH looked into 2 allegations and found: neglect substantiated; financial exploitation not substantiated (facility responsibility).

  MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated. The facility was responsible for the maltreatment. Following concerns about the resident's mental health, the resident left the facility unsupervised and was missing for two nights. The facility failed to ensure the resident's safety by searching for the resident, notifying law enforcement, and/or the resident's primary care provider. Although the facility provided an incident report indicating law enforcement was notified the day the resident left, law enforcement stated there was no call or report in the time frame the resident was missing from the facility. The Minnesota Department of Health determined financial exploitation was not substantiated. During the investigation, there was no evidence that the resident was financially exploited by an AP.”

  Action taken by facility: “When the resident returned to the facility, facility staff arranged for the resident to be evaluated at a hospital.”

  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 16, 2025: 2 correction orders

  • Tag 590: 144G.42 Subd. 3 Facility restrictions Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to not act as the resident's financial designee/representative payee (rep payee) for 16 of 39 residents (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12, R13, R14, R15 and R16) reviewed.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to not act as the resident's financial designee/representative payee (rep payee) for 16 of 39 residents (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12, R13, R14, R15 and R16) reviewed. The licensee acted as the residents representative payee and controlled their finances. [...]”

    Rule cited: “(a) This subdivision does not apply to licensees that are Minnesota counties or other units of government. [...]”

  • 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.”

• October 15, 2024 · report HL306723361M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
  Details

  Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected a resident when the facility staff failed to reposition and assist the resident with toileting according to his plan of care. The resident's wounds on his coccyx worsened. The facility neglected a resident when he had a fall and was left on the ground for several hours with no assistance from the facility staff, leading to hospitalization.”

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

  “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was inconclusive due to conflicting information.”

  “The facility was responsible for the maltreatment.”

  Summary: MDH looked into 2 allegations and found: neglect substantiated; neglect inconclusive (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 had wounds to his coccyx (tailbone), right lateral malleolus (outside ankle bone), right medial malleolus (inside ankle bone), and right heel. The facility failed to document and ensure the resident was repositioned and did not provide any An equal opportunity employer. orders for staff to provide wound care or interventions to prevent skin breakdown, which contributed to the deterioration of the resident's wounds. The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was inconclusive due to conflicting information. The resident had a fall at the facility and was transferred to the hospital. The resident told hospital staff he had been on the floor for four hours before calling emergency services on his own. [...]”

  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 June 12, 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(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.”

• December 19, 2023 · report HL306728045M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
  Details

  Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the residents when the facility did not ensure enough staff were available to provide assistance with services and supervision according to the resident's care plans.”

  “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 was licensed as an assisted living with dementia care and provided services to all 41 residents. Of the 41 residents, 33 resided in assisted living and eight resided in the secured memory care unit. On several dates, there was only one staff working in the facility. The facility failed to evaluate resident scheduled and anticipated unscheduled cares and services to develop a staffing plan that provided appropriate levels of An equal opportunity employer. staffing in the facility. In addition, the facility failed to ensure there was at a minimum two staff on the overnight shift as required by the staff schedule that were trained and competent to provide required resident services, such as medication administration. [...]”

  Action taken by facility: “The facility recently hired new management staff who are implementing new processes surrounding resident care, staffing, and medication administration.”

  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 October 17, 2023: 4 correction orders

  • Tag 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 3, widespread scope, scope/level letter I · correction period: Two (2) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and implement a staffing plan to determine staffing levels required to meet the schedule services and unexpected needs of all residents.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop and implement a staffing plan to determine staffing levels required to meet the schedule services and unexpected needs of all residents. This affected all 41 residents. As a result, only staff member was repeatedly scheduled on night shift and the memory care unit was left unattended for periods of time. [...]”

    Rule cited: “(11) develop and implement a staffing plan for determining its staffing level that: (i) includes an evaluation, to be conducted at least twice a year, of the appropriateness of staffing levels in the facility; (ii) ensures sufficient staffing at all times to [...]”

  • Tag 590: 144G.42 Subd. 3 Facility restrictions Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure staff did not act as the resident's financial designee/representative payee (rep payee) for one of one resident (R6) reviewed.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure staff did not act as the resident's financial designee/representative payee (rep payee) for one of one resident (R6) reviewed. The facility acted as R6's rep payee and controlled R6's finances. [...]”

    Rule cited: “(a) This subdivision does not apply to licensees that are Minnesota counties or other units of government. [...]”

  • Tag 1750: 144G.71 Subd. 7 Delegation of medication administration Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: SEVEN (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) trained unlicensed personnel (ULP) on medication administration, ensure demonstrated competency and communicate indivudal medication needs of each resident prior to delegating the taks of medication administration services for one of one ULP (ULP-C).

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) trained unlicensed personnel (ULP) on medication administration, ensure demonstrated competency and communicate indivudal medication needs of each resident prior to delegating the taks of medication administration services for one of one ULP (ULP-C). ULP-C worked alone on the night shift and had responsibility to provided medications to all residents on medication services. [...]”

    Rule cited: “When administration of medications is delegated to unlicensed personnel, the assisted living facility must ensure that the registered nurse has: (1) instructed the unlicensed personnel in the proper methods to administer the medications, and the unlicensed [...]”

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

    Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure three of five residents reviewed (R1, R2, R3) were free from maltreatment.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure three of five residents reviewed (R1, R2, R3) were 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.”

• September 15, 2023 · report HL306724388C
  Details

  Survey completed September 15, 2023: 4 correction orders

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

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to establish and maintain an infection control program that complied with accepted health care, medical and nursing standards related to COVID-19.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to establish and maintain an infection control program that complied with accepted health care, medical and nursing standards related to COVID-19. This had the potential to affect all residents. [...]”

    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 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 complete background studies four of five employees.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to complete background studies four of five employees. This had the potential to affect all 45 residents. 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 [...]”

    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 1690: 144G.71 Subdivision 1 Medication management services Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the security and accountability of controlled substances were maintained for four of four residents (R4, R5, R6, R7).

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the security and accountability of controlled substances were maintained for four of four residents (R4, R5, R6, R7). [...]”

    Rule cited: “(a) This section applies only to assisted living facilities that provide medication management services. [...]”

  • Tag 2350: 144G.91 Subd. 7 Courteous treatment Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
    Details

    Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure one of one resident (R8) reviewed, was treated with dignity and respect when unlicensed personnel (ULP)-C completed cares with door open and exposed resident's naked body to people outside of R8's room.

    MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure one of one resident (R8) reviewed, was treated with dignity and respect when unlicensed personnel (ULP)-C completed cares with door open and exposed resident's naked body to people outside of R8's room. [...]”

    Rule cited: “Residents have the right to be treated with courtesy and respect, and to have the resident's property treated with respect”

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 69 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.