South Gate Care Ctr

Pros

• The reviewer's experience at Greenfield was great.
• The whole staff is friendly and wonderful.
• Giselle is described as the most dedicated and friendly social worker, a blessing to the facility, patients, and families.
• The nurses and staff are wonderful.
• The staff - from nurses to therapists to doctors - are very professional.
• The food is magnificent.

Cons

• The facility allegedly stole the patient's clothes and radio after discharge.
• The social worker allegedly ignored discharge-planning emails for over a month and deflected responsibility.
• The administrator pressured for private pay by presenting an $11,100 bill as an "estimate" during active Medicare appeals.
• The staff allegedly pushed a false "plateau" narrative to end rehabilitation, despite a physician confirming no plateau.
• The facility allegedly told the patient they could not be released due to an "owed payment," which is not allowed during Medicare disputes.
• The social worker allegedly directed the patient to the wrong type of specialist after discharge, which was unsafe.
• Discharge planning and discharge delays are described as deceptive and obstructive tactics to coerce private pay.
• Some reviewers described the staff as disrespectful, with belongings stolen and dietary restrictions ignored.
• Night shift workers allegedly took up to two hours to respond to requests, compromising patient care.
• Overall, the staff are depicted as cruel, manipulative, and uncaring toward families and patients.

Review

The accounts about Greenfield Care Center, particularly from one family navigating a difficult Medicare appeal and discharge process, depict a troubling combination of safety concerns, contested billing practices, and a pattern of perceived obstruction. The central narrative centers on a family member whose father underwent what they describe as an unsafe discharge amid ongoing Medicare appeals. They claim that during active appeals, administrator Hilda Carrera tried to press for private pay and even presented a bill of $11,100 with a credit card form attached, only retreating from that stance after the family objected and the administrator labeled the amount an "estimate." This parenthetical financial pressure is described as part of a broader sequence of conduct the family characterizes as coercive and aimed at pushing private payment rather than ensuring a safe transition of care.

The reviewer states that the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) investigated Greenfield on three separate occasions during the patient's stay and even after discharge. Within this framework of scrutiny, they repeatedly point to the social worker, Vanessa, as a central figure in the alleged misconduct. The narrative accuses Vanessa of ignoring discharge-planning emails for more than a month, deflecting responsibility (including blaming Livanta, the Medicare complaints/appeals program), and failing to initiate a proper discharge plan at a time when Medicare coverage could be at risk as early as June. The reviewer also alleges that Vanessa steered the patient's post-discharge trajectory toward one type of specialist rather than another, a choice the reviewer says compromised safety. In their view, Vanessa's role was pivotal in shaping a discharge that did not align with best practices for coverage and safety.

Beyond internal staff behavior, the reviewer recounts external interventions that did not stop the alleged misconduct. They say they reached out to Adult Protective Services, the Ombudsman, and even the police, yet the issues persisted. A particularly troubling anecdote involves an officer who allegedly told the family that the patient could not be released because they "owed payment." The reviewer contends that Medicare-certified facilities are not allowed to detain patients over payment disputes during or after appeals, and they present this as evidence of improper conduct by the facility during a vulnerable time for the patient and family.

Even after a favorable outcome in the appeal, the account asserts that Greenfield deliberately stalled the discharge. The discharge process is described as being delayed through ignored emails and foot-dragging communications, with the facility allegedly pushing a false "plateau" narrative to justify ending rehab. The reviewer claims that a separate physician confirmed the patient had not plateaued, yet the facility refused to identify the physician who supposedly made the decision. This lack of transparency is presented as another example of how the facility allegedly manipulated information to support a private-pay outcome rather than focusing on clinical necessity or safety.

In the most explicit terms of the narrative, the reviewer asserts that Hilda and Vanessa worked together to employ deception, delay tactics, and obstruction of medical care to force private pay. They describe the two as cruel, retaliatory, and wholly indifferent to patient rights and safety. The account states that Vanessa's involvement appeared intermittent at best - contactful only when CDPH intervened - and that this lack of consistent engagement made the discharge planning process even more precarious for the patient. The author uses strong language to characterize their actions as fake and manipulative, painting a stark moral portrait of decision-making within the facility.

The reviewer closes this accusatory arc by noting that they did not seek a confrontation but rather a safe, legal discharge. They express that instead of safety and legality, they encountered "lies, manipulation, and, in my opinion, a discharge so unsafe it put my father's life at risk." The admonition to prospective families is clear: proceed with extreme caution when considering Greenfield, and speak up if you experience similar mistreatment. They encourage others to rely on oversight channels and to report concerns, underscoring the seriousness with which they view the discharge and billing disputes.

Interwoven with this highly critical account are a large number of positive reviews that present a very different experience of Greenfield Care Center. Several reviewers describe their experiences as exemplary, praising the facility for kindness, professionalism, and effective care. Phrases such as "the whole staff is friendly and wonderful," "nurses and staff are wonderful," and "the therapists were phenomenal" appear repeatedly, conveying a sense that many patients and families found the center to be a supportive, well-run environment. One commenter specifically lauds a social worker named Giselle as "the best social worker" and a blessing to patients and families, suggesting that some staff members make meaningful, positive impacts on patient experiences and discharge planning.

Other reviews emphasize the reliability and warmth of the personnel, noting clean facilities, professional conduct, and a sense of being treated with respect. Several patrons with ongoing stays or long-term experiences express comfort and satisfaction with the care they receive, and some say they would recommend the center to others seeking help with elderly relatives. A number of supporters highlight specific strengths - competent nurses, helpful therapists, and attentive doctors - as reasons to consider Greenfield for rehabilitation and convalescence. These messages convey a sense that, for many patients, the center delivers quality care, responsive staff, and a supportive environment.

However, not all feedback is uniformly glowing. A subset of reviewers recount troubling incidents that echo concerns raised in the troubled family account. One review mentions theft or misplacement of personal belongings, including clothes and a phone, and accuses the social worker of providing the runaround in addressing these losses. Another reviewer describes a pattern of slow responses from night shift staff and alleged noncompliance with dietary restrictions, along with reports of inappropriate or incorrect medications being prescribed. These comments contribute to a perception that, for some families, the experience at Greenfield can be inconsistent and occasionally distressing, with gaps in communication, accountability, and respect for patient property.

Taken together, the varied experiences at Greenfield Care Center illustrate a broad spectrum of patient and family perspectives. On one end of the spectrum, families recount professional, compassionate care, with many staff members earning trust and gratitude from those they serve. On the opposite end, there are serious allegations about discharge planning, billing practices, and staff conduct that suggest entirely different experiences - charges of coercive billing measures, obstructive discharge planning, and unsafe discharge narratives that provoke alarm about patient safety. The juxtaposition of these reviews points to a facility whose performance may differ markedly by location, staff, time, and particular circumstances surrounding each patient's care pathway. For families evaluating Greenfield, the takeaway appears to be that experiences can vary widely, and due diligence - seeking second opinions, verifying discharge plans, and consulting oversight bodies - appears essential to navigating care decisions and ensuring safety and transparency.

This part of South Gate, California offers a variety of amenities and services that cater to senior living needs. With several hospitals in close proximity such as Martin Luther King Jr / Drew Medical Center and Rancho Los Amigos National Rehabilitation Center, residents have access to quality healthcare facilities. There are also numerous parks nearby like Temple Park and Rivera Park for outdoor activities and relaxation. In terms of dining options, there are a range of restaurants including Bavel and Perch, as well as cafes like Starbucks for socializing or enjoying a meal. Additionally, pharmacies like CVS and Walgreens are conveniently located for prescription needs. For entertainment, seniors can visit theaters such as Alamo Drafthouse Downtown or Regal LA Live & 4DX. Transportation options are readily available with Union Station and Metro Rail stations nearby for easy travel around the area. Finally, places of worship like St Catherine Laboure Church provide spiritual support within the community. Overall, this part of South Gate offers a well-rounded environment for senior living with convenient access to essential services and recreational opportunities.

Hospitals

• Martin Luther King Jr / Drew Medical Center (2.9 miles)
• Rancho Los Amigos National Rehabilitation Center (3.7 miles)
• Kedren Community Health Center (4.6 miles)
• Del Rio Convalescent Center (4.6 miles)
• PIH Health Hospital (4.9 miles)
• Kaiser Permanente Hospital (5.5 miles)
• Prado Center (6.7 miles)

Parks

• Temple Park (3.2 miles)
• Rivera Park (6.6 miles)
• George E. Elder Memorial Park (7.5 miles)
• Barnes Memorial Park (8.4 miles)
• Granada Park (8.5 miles)
• Echo Park at the Lotus Festival (8.6 miles)
• Elysian Park (8.7 miles)

Restaurants

• Jack In The Box (3.9 miles)
• Girl & The Goat LA (5.7 miles)
• Bavel (5.8 miles)
• EightyTwo (6.1 miles)
• Perch (6.6 miles)
• Precinct (6.6 miles)
• Yard House (6.7 miles)

Pharmacies

• CVS Pharmacy (4.4 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (4.7 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (5.4 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (6.5 miles)
• Walgreens (6.5 miles)
• Walgreens (6.7 miles)
• Rite Aid (6.7 miles)

Cafes

• Starbucks (4.8 miles)
• Verve Coffee Roasters (5.8 miles)
• Starbucks (6 miles)
• Donut King 2 (7.1 miles)
• Lees Sandwiches - Gard (7.9 miles)
• Starbucks Reserve (8.7 miles)
• Starbucks (9.2 miles)

Physicians

• Paramount Physicians (5.9 miles)

Theaters

• Alamo Drafthouse Downtown (6.7 miles)
• Regal LA Live & 4DX (6.8 miles)
• AMC Norwalk 2 (8.7 miles)
• Harkins Theatres Cerritos 16 (9.5 miles)

Transportation

• Union Station (6.8 miles)
• Metro Rail - Hawthorne/Lennox (8.2 miles)
• National Car Rental (9.4 miles)
• Fox Rent A Car (9.5 miles)
• SIXT rent a car (9.6 miles)
• Aviation/LAX Metro Station (9.7 miles)

Places of Worship

• St Catherine Laboure Church (9.2 miles)