Assisted Living and Memory Care
Woodbury Estates
2825 Woodlane Drive, Woodbury, MN 55125 · Map
Licensed for 68 residents · WOODBURY ESTATES
Woodbury Estates is a state-licensed assisted living, memory care community in Woodbury, Minnesota. It is licensed for 68 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, 68 residents
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 423313, current license dated Jan 1, 2026. Licensee WOODBURY ESTATES.
Nearest emergency room
1.1 miles
M Health Fairview Woodwinds Hospital, rated 4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Woodbury Estates this community | 68 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated | |
| Woodbury Villa | 0.1 mi | 83 | Not published | Active | 2 substantiated |
| Blossom Hill | 0.3 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Greatercare Facilities, Robinwood Trail | 0.3 mi | 4 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Golden Frontier Home Care | 0.4 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
State inspection record1 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- December 4, 2024
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 1 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 0 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 2 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (December 4, 2024, state report TCO811)
MDH: “On December 2, 2024, through December 4, 2024, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a survey at the above provider, and the following correction orders are issued.”
Survey completed December 4, 2024: 11 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) 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: “(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 licensee's grievance procedure along with the required contact information.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to post the licensee's grievance procedure along with the required contact information. This had the potential to affect all the licensee's current residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “All facilities must post in a conspicuous place information about the facilities' grievance procedure, and the name, telephone number, and email contact information for the individuals who are responsible for handling resident grievances. [...]”
- Tag 660: 144G.42 Subd. 9 Tuberculosis prevention and control Level 2, 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 and control program based on the most current guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) including completing a facility TB risk assessment annually.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to establish and maintain a tuberculosis (TB) prevention and control program based on the most current guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) including completing a facility TB risk assessment annually. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
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 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 in the facility.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to provide smoke alarms inside all sleeping rooms in the facility. This had the potential to affect a limited number of residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Each assisted living facility must comply with the State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511, and: (1) for dwellings or sleeping units, as defined in the State Fire Code: (i) provide smoke alarms in each room used for sleeping purposes; (ii) [...]”
- Tag 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
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 [...]”
Show all 11
- 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 the fire safety and evacuation plan (FSEP) with the required content, failed to provide the required
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop the fire safety and evacuation plan (FSEP) with the required content, failed to provide the required training, and failed to conduct the required evacuation drills. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
- Tag 900: 144G.50 Subdivision 1 Contract required Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to execute a written contract containing a signature or other authentication by the facility and by the resident prior to providing assisted living services for one of three residents (R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to execute a written contract containing a signature or other authentication by the facility and by the resident prior to providing assisted living services for one of three residents (R4). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) An assisted living facility may not offer or provide housing or assisted living services to any individual unless it has executed a written contract with the resident. [...]”
- Tag 980: 144G.51 ARBITRATION Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living contract's arbitration agreement did not preclude, limit, or delay the ability of a resident from taking civil action.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living contract's arbitration agreement did not preclude, limit, or delay the ability of a resident from taking civil action. The licensee further failed to ensure the agreement did not include a choice of venue provision for three of three residents (R2, R3, R4). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) An assisted living facility must clearly and conspicuously disclose, in writing in an assisted living contract, any arbitration provision in the contract that precludes, limits, or delays the ability of a resident from taking a civil action. [...]”
- 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 four of six employees were affiliated with the assisted living license as required (licensed assisted living director/clinical nurse supervisor (LALD/CNS)-A, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-G, ULP-H, ULP-I).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure four of six employees were affiliated with the assisted living license as required (licensed assisted living director/clinical nurse supervisor (LALD/CNS)-A, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-G, ULP-H, ULP-I). [...]”
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 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the steps of the medication administration process were followed for one of three residents (R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the steps of the medication administration process were followed for one of three residents (R4). [...]”
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 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 discard time sensitive medication for two of three residents (R2, R3).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to discard time sensitive medication for two of three residents (R2, R3). 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 a pattern scope (when more than a limited number of residents are affected, more than a limited number of [...]”
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 [...]”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance; no immediate fines.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- October 22, 2021: report ASIF11 · 21 correction orders
Details
Survey completed October 22, 2021: 21 correction orders
- Tag 250: 144G.20 Subdivision 1. Conditions Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to show they had met the requirements of licensure, by attesting the managerial officials who oversaw the day-to-day operations, had developed and implemented current policies and procedures as required, with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to show they had met the requirements of licensure, by attesting the managerial officials who oversaw the day-to-day operations, had developed and implemented current policies and procedures as required, with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The commissioner may refuse to grant a provisional license, refuse to grant a license as a result of a change in ownership, refuse to renew a license, suspend or revoke a license, or impose a conditional license if the owner, controlling individual, or [...]”
- Tag 430: 144G.40 Subd. 2 Uniform checklist disclosure of services Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide a copy of the uniform checklist disclosure of services (UDALSA) with the required content for two of three residents (R1, R3) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide a copy of the uniform checklist disclosure of services (UDALSA) with the required content for two of three residents (R1, R3) with records reviewed. This had the potential to affect all sixty-one (61) residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) All assisted living facilities must provide to prospective residents: (1) a disclosure of the categories of assisted living licenses available and the category of license held by the facility; (2) a written checklist listing all services permitted under [...]”
- Tag 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the required staffing plan was developed as required, potentially affecting all of the licensee's current residents, staff and visitors.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the required staffing plan was developed as required, potentially affecting all of the licensee's current residents, staff and visitors. [...]”
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 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 had the potential to affect all sixty-one (61) clients in the Assisted Living facility. [...]”
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 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 an individual abuse prevention plan (IAPP) was developed to include statements of the specific measures to be taken to minimize the risk of abuse for 3 of 3 residents (R1, R2, R3) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure an individual abuse prevention plan (IAPP) was developed to include statements of the specific measures to be taken to minimize the risk of abuse for 3 of 3 residents (R1, R2, R3) with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) The facility must develop and implement an individual abuse prevention plan for each vulnerable adult. [...]”
Show all 21
- Tag 640: 144G.42 Subd. 7 Posting information for Level 2, widespread scope · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to post information and phone numbers for reporting to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) in
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to post information and phone numbers for reporting to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) in common areas and near telephones provided by the assisted living facility. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “reporting suspected c 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 [...]”
- 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 the employee record contained the required content for two of two employees (RN-A, ULP-E) with employee records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the employee record contained the required content for two of two employees (RN-A, ULP-E) with employee records reviewed. [...]”
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, 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 baseline testing and history/symptom screening for 1 of 2 employees (RN-A) with employee records reviewed.
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 history/symptom screening for 1 of 2 employees (RN-A) with employee records reviewed. [...]”
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 800: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (4) 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 maintain the physical environment in a continuous state of good repair and operation.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to maintain the physical environment in a continuous state of good repair and operation. This had the potential to directly affect all residents and staff. [...]”
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 documentation of policy, schedule, and log of staff training for fire safety and evacuation procedures.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide documentation of policy, schedule, and log of staff training for fire safety and evacuation procedures. This had the potential to affect all current residents, staff and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
- Tag 900: 144G.50 Subdivision 1 Contract required Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to execute and give a complete copy of any signed contract and any addendums and all supporting documents and attachments to the resident promptly after a contract and any addendum has been signed for one of three (R1, R2, R3) residents with record reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to execute and give a complete copy of any signed contract and any addendums and all supporting documents and attachments to the resident promptly after a contract and any addendum has been signed for one of three (R1, R2, R3) residents with record reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) An assisted living facility may not offer or provide housing or assisted living services to any individual unless it has executed a written contract with the resident. [...]”
- Tag 950: 144.50 Subd. 3 Designation of representative Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to offer the opportunity to identify a designated representative for two of three residents (R1, R3) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to offer the opportunity to identify a designated representative for two of three residents (R1, 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 1540: 144G.64 (a) TRAINING IN DEMENTIA CARE REQUIRED Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Fourteen (14) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure direct-care staff completed the required amount of dementia care training in the required time frame for two of two employees (registered nurse (RN)-A and unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure direct-care staff completed the required amount of dementia care training in the required time frame for two of two employees (registered nurse (RN)-A and unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E) with records reviewed. [...]”
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 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 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 timely comprehensive reassessment using the uniform assessment tool for two of three residents (R1, R3) as required with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) completed a timely comprehensive reassessment using the uniform assessment tool for two of three residents (R1, R3) as required with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(c) Resident reassessment and monitoring must be conducted no more than 14 calendar days after initiation of services. [...]”
- Tag 1650: 144G.70 Subd. 4 Service plan, implementation, and revisions t Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure service plans included all the required content for three of three residents (R1, R2, R3) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure service plans included all the required content for three of three residents (R1, R2, R3) with records reviewed. [...]”
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, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop an individualized medication management record with the required content for one of three residents (R1) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop an individualized medication management record with the required content for one of three residents (R1) with records reviewed. [...]”
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 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 provide documentation in the resident's record regarding the disposition of medication to include quantity and names of staff and other individuals involved in the disposition of medications for one of one discharged resident (R4) with record reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide documentation in the resident's record regarding the disposition of medication to include quantity and names of staff and other individuals involved in the disposition of medications for one of one discharged resident (R4) with record reviewed. [...]”
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: Twenty-One (21) 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 (R2) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop and implement a treatment or therapy management plan to include all required content for one of three residents (R2) with records reviewed. [...]”
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 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 the proper documentation that a hazard vulnerability or safety risk assessment was performed on and around the property.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide the proper documentation that a hazard vulnerability or safety risk assessment was performed on and around the property. This has the potential to affect all dementia care residents. [...]”
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 2240: 144G.90 Subdivision 1 Assisted living bill of rights; notification Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the current "Minnesota Bill of Rights for Assisted Living Residents" was provided to the resident and a written acknowledgement received for one of three residents (R3) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the current "Minnesota Bill of Rights for Assisted Living Residents" was provided to the resident and a written acknowledgement received for one of three residents (R3) with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) An assisted living facility must provide the resident a written notice of the rights under section 144G.91 before the initiation of services to that resident. [...]”
- Tag 3090: 144.6502, Subd. 8 Notice to Visitors Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the required notice was posted at the main entry way of the establishment to display statutory language to disclose electronic monitoring activity.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the required notice was posted at the main entry way of the establishment to display statutory language to disclose electronic monitoring activity. This had the potential to affect all sixty-one (61) residents residing in the Assisted Living facility, staff, and any visitors of the licensee. [...]”
Rule cited: “Subd. 8.Notice to visitors. (a) A facility must post a sign at each facility entrance accessible to visitors that states: "Electronic monitoring devices, including security cameras and audio devices, may be present to record persons and activities." (b) The [...]”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance; no immediate fines.
- Tag 250: 144G.20 Subdivision 1. Conditions Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Substantiated investigations (state reports)
- October 18, 2022 · report HL20551001M
Unsubstantiated investigations (2)
- May 5, 2026 · report HL205519842M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when wound care was not provided.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was not substantiated.”
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 received orders for treatments, which the facility did not provide and arranged for a home healthcare agency (HHA) to provide those cares. However, a delay occurred in the HHA initiating cares and, when discovered by the facility, appropriate action was taken.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility relayed the original order to the home care agency, followed up, then re-initiated the order for lymphedema treatment.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed March 3, 2026: no correction orders issued.
- February 7, 2025 · report HL205516382M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when the resident's wishes for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was changed.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was not substantiated.”
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. While it was true the resident's code status (a clear communication for whether a person wants CPR or not) was changed upon discussion with the resident. Later the code status was updated again with input from the resident and the resident's family.”
Action taken by facility: “No action required”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed January 15, 2025: no correction orders issued.
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 68 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 WOODBURY ESTATES
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
- License number
- 423313
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2026-01-01
- Licensed capacity
- 68
- Licensee
- WOODBURY ESTATES
- County
- Washington County
- Executive Director
- Anna Decorsey
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.
Executive Director name from public records we reviewed, as of Oct 12, 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 1.1 mi, nursing home 0.1 mi, pharmacy 1.2 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- M Health Fairview Woodwinds Hospital, Woodbury. 1.1 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 4 of 5 stars.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- Woodbury Health Care Center, Woodbury. 0.1 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Careaparent, Woodbury. 0.9 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Walgreens. 1.2 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 55125 as metropolitan (metropolitan core).
- Dialysis within 15 miles
- Davita Woodbury Dialysis, Woodbury, 1.2 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars)
Fresenius Kidney Care Woodbury, Woodbury, 1.3 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars)
Davita Sun Ray Dialysis Unit, Saint Paul, 4.3 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 4 of 5 stars) - Hospice
- 22 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 55125.
Hospice Of The Midwest, office in Woodbury, 1.2 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 3 of 5 stars)
St Croix Hospice, office in Oakdale, 3.2 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 3 of 5 stars)
Beyond Hospice, office in Oakdale, 6.4 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 5 of 5 stars) - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Fairview Health Services, Saint Paul. 10.3 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 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 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?
- How long have the executive director and the head of care been here?
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 Woodbury Estates provide?
Woodbury Estates is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living, memory care in Woodbury, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 68 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Woodbury Estates?
No. We publish state licensing details for Woodbury Estates 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 Woodbury Estates 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. Woodbury Estates does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Woodbury Estates?
Use Woodbury Estates's website, woodburyseniorliving.com, or visit at 2825 Woodlane Drive, Woodbury, MN 55125.
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