Faith Haven Senior Care: Nurse Abuse Violations - MI
That is what federal inspectors found when they visited Faith Haven Senior Care Centre at 6531 W Michigan Avenue in Jackson on August 21, 2025. The inspection was complaint-driven. The harm it documented was rated actual, not potential.
The resident at the center of the complaint, identified in inspection records as R1, filed grievances on July 5, 2025. By that point, she had already experienced what inspectors and her own facility's administrator would later characterize as abuse. She reported significant psychological distress, humiliation, and fear for her safety. She said she had been made to feel targeted and insignificant.
She was not alone in what she observed. Multiple staff corroborated her account.
The nurse identified in the inspection report as RN C threatened to withhold R1's pain medications. RN C told R1, directly, "you're going to die" because of her prescriptions. RN C coerced R1 into transferring to the hospital. And when R1 was crying in pain, RN C ridiculed her.
These are not allegations drawn from a single resident's complaint. They are findings that inspectors documented after speaking with staff who confirmed them.
The medication piece requires its own accounting. At some point during the events surrounding R1's care, RN C contacted a physician assistant identified as PA T and received a verbal order to hold all of R1's narcotic medications. RN C did not document that order. When inspectors asked her why, she said she did not document it and that it was not best standards of practice to do so. That explanation is worth sitting with: a nurse received a verbal order affecting a resident's pain management, did not write it down, and then told inspectors that failing to document it was consistent with proper practice.
RN C also told inspectors she did not enter the verbal order in a timely way because she felt it required clarification from the provider. She did not call PA T back. After R1's symptoms resolved, RN C did not contact PA T to report the change or to ask whether the hold on the medications was still necessary. The order to withhold the narcotics, undocumented and never revisited, simply remained in place.
The inspection report does not describe what R1 was being treated for, or what her underlying conditions required. What it does describe is a resident in enough pain that she was crying, a nurse who mocked her for it, and a medication hold that was never formally entered, never followed up on, and never lifted through any documented clinical process.
R1's grievances were dated July 5. They described what had happened to her. The facility did not file a Facility Reported Incident with the State Agency until July 25, twenty days later.
The covering nursing home administrator, identified as NHA E, told inspectors on the morning of August 21 that after reviewing those grievances, it was clear the concerns were allegations of abuse and should have been reported to the State Agency within a two-hour window. NHA E said this plainly, without qualification. The grievances described abuse. The two-hour reporting requirement existed. The facility missed it by nineteen days and twenty-two hours.
That gap is not a paperwork failure. A resident described being threatened, ridiculed, coerced, and told she was going to die. The people responsible for her care read those grievances and did not pick up the phone to notify the state for three weeks.
The inspection cited deficiency tag F0600, which covers abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property. The level of harm was classified as actual harm. The number of residents affected was listed as few, which in CMS inspection language means between one and two residents.
What the inspection report captures, in its clipped bureaucratic language, is something that takes a moment to fully absorb. A resident was in pain. A nurse stood over her while she cried and made fun of her. The same nurse told her she was going to die. The same nurse pressured her to leave the facility. Other staff saw it. The resident filed a formal grievance. And for twenty days, the facility did not tell the state that any of it had happened.
R1 told inspectors she felt targeted. She felt insignificant. She felt afraid.
Those words appear in the inspection record without further elaboration, which is how inspection reports work. They capture what was said and move on. But they are the words of a person who went to a care facility because she needed help, encountered a nurse who threatened her pain medication and told her she was going to die, cried in pain while that nurse laughed at her, and then waited to find out whether anyone was going to do anything about it.
She waited twenty days just to find out whether the state had been told.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Faith Haven Senior Care Centre from 2025-08-21 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.
Additional Resources
Data source: Official federal inspection data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
Editorial process: AI-synthesized regulatory data, reviewed for accuracy by our editorial team.
Professional review: All content reviewed by Christopher F. Nesbitt, Sr., NH EMT & BU-trained Paralegal.
Last verified: July 3, 2026 · Our methodology
Faith Haven Senior Care Centre in Jackson, MI was cited for abuse-related violations during a health inspection on August 21, 2025.
That is what federal inspectors found when they visited Faith Haven Senior Care Centre at 6531 W Michigan Avenue in Jackson on August 21, 2025.
Health inspections identify deficiencies that facilities must correct. Violations range from minor documentation issues to serious safety concerns. Review the full report below for specific details and facility response.