Friendship Haven Healthcare: Discharge Violation - TX
The inspection, triggered by a complaint, focused on a single resident identified in records as Complainant Resident 2. What inspectors found was a discharge that bypassed the facility's own process for handling appeals, a physician who declined to be interviewed, and a policy that had not been updated since 2016 and offered no guidance on what to do after an appeal was filed.
The deficiency was cited under F0627, which covers the right of residents to a fair discharge process. Inspectors rated the level of harm as minimal or potential harm, with few residents affected.
The facility's position, as documented by inspectors, was that staff had gone above and beyond to accommodate the resident's representative, and that nothing could have been done differently because the situation was deteriorating.
That account could not be tested. When inspectors attempted to interview the physician who had overseen the resident's care at the time of discharge, he declined. He would not speak without his attorney present and would not comment on the resident's case. His reason: the matter was already in litigation.
A court case already underway. A doctor who won't talk. Those are not the usual features of a routine discharge.
Inspectors also attempted to reach the hospital social worker involved in the case. There was no answer, and no way to leave a message.
What inspectors could review was the facility's written discharge policy, titled "Discharging the Resident," dated 2001 and last revised in 2016. That document contained no guidance on how to handle a discharge that followed an appeal. The policy simply did not address the scenario that had just played out.
A discharge appeal process exists so that residents and their families have a meaningful opportunity to contest a decision before it is carried out, not after. When a facility discharges a resident while an appeal is pending, or without a process to account for one, the appeal becomes a formality with no practical weight.
The facility did not dispute that the discharge occurred. Its argument was that the circumstances left staff with no better option, that the resident's condition was worsening, and that the family's representative had been given every accommodation the facility could offer. Inspectors documented that account without endorsing it.
The inspection report does not describe what happened to Complainant Resident 2 after discharge, where the resident went, or what their condition was. It does not name the resident, the representative, or the physician. It records only what inspectors could verify: the discharge happened, the appeal process was not reflected in the facility's policy, the doctor would not speak, and the social worker could not be reached.
Friendship Haven Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center operates at 1500 Sunset Dr in Friendswood, a suburb southeast of Houston. The September complaint inspection was one page of findings. The deficiency was not rated at the level of immediate jeopardy. No fine amount is listed in the inspection documents reviewed.
But the physician's refusal to speak without legal counsel, offered as a reason a case involving a nursing home discharge was already before a court, is not a detail that appears in most inspection reports. It suggests that whatever happened to Complainant Resident 2 did not end when the discharge paperwork was signed.
The facility's plan of correction was not included in the documents reviewed. For information on that plan, CMS directs the public to contact the nursing home or the state survey agency directly.
What the record shows is a policy written in 2001, revised once in 2016, that did not anticipate the situation it was supposed to govern, a resident who was discharged, and a doctor who, when asked what happened, said to talk to his lawyer.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Friendship Haven Healthcare and Rehabilitation Cen from 2025-09-04 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.
Additional Resources
Data source: This article is based on inspection data downloaded directly from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) via Medicare.gov. CMS releases inspection reports in bulk; we publish the findings as documented by state surveyors in the official Form CMS-2567 Statement of Deficiencies.
Plan of correction: The CMS report we receive does not include the facility's plan of correction. Facilities submit plans of correction separately to state survey agencies and those responses may not be reflected in CMS data at the time of publication. The absence of a plan of correction in our data does not mean one was not filed. Readers who want information about corrective steps taken are encouraged to contact the facility directly or their state survey agency.
Corrections may have occurred: Inspection reports reflect conditions observed on the date of the survey. Facilities may have implemented corrections, staffing changes, additional training, or other remediation since the report was issued. We report what CMS provides and encourage readers to seek current information from the facility.
Editorial process: Inspection findings are extracted from CMS source documents and synthesized using AI, reviewed for factual accuracy against the original report by our editorial team.
Professional review: All content reviewed by Christopher F. Nesbitt, Sr., NH EMT & BU-trained Paralegal.
Last verified: September 25, 2026 · Our methodology
FRIENDSHIP HAVEN HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CEN in FRIENDSWOOD, TX was cited for violations during a health inspection on September 4, 2025.
The inspection, triggered by a complaint, focused on a single resident identified in records as Complainant Resident 2.
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.