2901 West 37th Avenue, Hobart, IN 46342
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Overall Review of Miller's Merry Manor III
Pros
The facility is a beautiful home for loved ones.
The nurses treat residents as if they were their own.
The nurses are always willing to discuss and update families on care.
The administrator, the DON, and the social worker are highly involved.
The grandfather felt at home in this facility.
The staff at Miller's is appreciated for all they do.
Cons
The place is what nightmares are made of, with helpless people in urine-soaked beds.
Residents are naked and neglected, as if in a third-world country.
The building is in disrepair and there seems to be only one open bed for a reason.
The staff are extremely rude and unprofessional.
The ADON is unprofessional and racist, with the administrator described as equally bad.
A mother was dropped from her bed and died, with staff denying fault and pursuing money from Social Security.
A grandfather developed severe bedsores during rehabilitation, with inadequate care.
The reviewers urge others not to use this nursing home.
Review
Miller’s Merry Manor III in Hobart is best suited for families that need vigilant oversight and want a caregiver-centered environment where staff are described as deeply committed to treating residents like family. The most credible strengths lie in the hands-on involvement of the administration, the DON, and a social worker who consistently engage with families and provide care updates. This is a setting where communication lines are actively used, and residents who thrive on a sense of home and regular touchpoints with staff may feel seen and supported. That said, this facility is not the best choice for loved ones who require robust, high-intensity rehab, extensive wound care, or uncompromising adherence to safety protocols and reliability; those needs tend to expose troubling gaps in care that recur in multiple accounts.
On the positive side, reviewers repeatedly point to a clean, well-kept environment and a staff that appears friendly and approachable. The setting can feel welcoming, and when care planning is collaborative, families report feeling looped in and confident that questions will be answered. The administrator and care leadership are frequently described as involved far more than is typical, which can translate into quicker responsiveness and a more personalized care approach for residents who can benefit from that level of attention. For families who prize transparency and ongoing dialogue, these are meaningful positives that can help bridge the inevitable uncertainties of long-term care.
However, the darker portraits in the feedback cannot be ignored. Several reviews describe serious safety and quality failures, including incidents of neglect, bedsores requiring surgical intervention, and extended hospitalizations during rehabilitation stays. One account portrays the facility as failing to provide basic wound and oral care, while another warns of building disrepair and an environment that feels unsafe. A number of comments target staff behavior as rude or unprofessional, with specific allegations about the ADON and administrator. Compounding these concerns are claims about mismanagement of personal and financial issues after a resident’s death, and in one case a suggestion of racial insensitivity. Taken together, these accounts paint a pattern of risk that cannot be dismissed.
The key pros, intense leadership involvement, open communication, and a home-like atmosphere, do offset some risk for residents who are stable, relatively independent in daily tasks, and under steady observation by attentive families. For a resident who does not need aggressive rehabilitation or complex wound care, the combination of accessible administration and responsive frontline staff can translate into reliable daily attention and a sense of dignity. Yet the main cons, documented safety lapses, inconsistent rehab performance, and reports of unprofessional or biased behavior, tilt the balance away from suitability for many families. In practical terms, the facility may offer a tolerable or even good experience for some, but the probability of serious issues remains a defining risk.
Consider alternatives for any family prioritizing consistent safety, predictable rehab outcomes, and a track record of evidence-based care. If a loved one requires frequent physical therapy, specialized wound management, or strong infection control, explore facilities with verifiable outcomes and cleaner incident histories. Families should also weigh the value of staff professionalism and cultural respect, not just warmth and responsiveness. If concerns about staff conduct or supervisory stability persist, or if state inspection history raises red flags, those are strong signals to keep searching.
To make a well-grounded decision, conduct a thorough, in-person assessment. Schedule with the administrator, the DON, and a social worker to gauge accessibility, communication style, and care-planning rigor. Request recent state survey results, incident reports, and the staffing plan for three shifts, plus any recent quality improvement initiatives. Tour with a critical eye for cleanliness, safety features, and the condition of resident rooms and common areas. Speak privately with current residents or family members about the consistency of care, and consider a trial residency if offered. Miller’s Merry Manor III demands careful scrutiny: it can deliver a caring, involved environment, but only for families prepared to demand, verify, and vigilantly monitor care every step of the way.









Understanding the True Cost of Assisted Living in 2025: A Comprehensive Guide
Understanding Medicaid Coverage for Assisted Living: A Comprehensive Guide
How and When Medicaid May Cover Assisted Living Costs