Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities · California

Aegis of Dana Point

Dana Point, CA · ~57 workers · 9 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
17.0
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
1
Fatality
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Aegis of Dana Point runs at 448% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities workplace, earning a grade F.

Aegis of Dana Point: 17.0 TCR = 448% of Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities BLS 3.8 · 9y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Aegis of Dana Point safety composite

Aegis of Dana Point scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 8% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 0%), blended into one 0-100 breakdown against same-industry peers. A missing measure drops out and redistributes its weight rather than deflating the score. This is a per-dimension breakdown, distinct from the single letter grade above it (which weights TCR alone against the BLS industry benchmark).

F

6/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 17.02 per 100 workers

Safer than 8% of industry peers

DART rate
F 15.29 per 100 workers

Safer than 7% of industry peers

Fatalities
F 1

Safer than 0% of industry peers

Benchmarked live against every credibly-rated employer in the same NAICS industry code in the current OSHA extract (a segment must have at least 8 rated peers to benchmark). Not a legal or compliance determination; PlainSafetyScore's own weighting (TCR 40%, DART 35%, fatalities 25%).

Rising injury rate

Aegis of Dana Point: 13.2 → 17.2 TCR

Peak year 2022 @ 73.1 TCR · DART/TCR 0.9× in 2024

Aegis of Dana Point's TCR rose 4.0 from 13.2 in 2016 to 17.2 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2022 at 73.1 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.9× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623312 · Dana Point, CA ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 17.0 · 448% of ind

  • DART 15.3 DART
  • RANK #541/635
  • PHOTO Atria Glen Ellyn
  • BOOK 9y book
  • INJ 31 inj
  • SIZE ~57 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Atria Glen Ellyn (0.0 TCR gap)

Read with this employer → · Industry book → · California employers → · Look up another →

Aegis of Dana Point in the TCR neighbourhood

Average Total Case Rate among this establishment and nearest same-industry peers

TCR

What this shows Aegis of Dana Point averages 17.0 TCR (448% of the Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities BLS benchmark).

Source U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Injury Tracking Application (Form 300A) As of 2026-08-25

Aegis of Dana Point TCR series: 2016=13.2 · 2017=3.6 · 2018=7.1 · 2019=1.9 · 2020=45.6 · 2021=17.9 · 2022=73.1 · 2023=29.7 · 2024=17.2 · BLS 3.8

Where Aegis of Dana Point falls in its industry

6,510 Assisted-living facilities wit establishments

Safer than 8% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 7.2.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to California alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #541 safest of 635 Assisted-living facilities wit employers in California.

Aegis of Dana Point (57 employees, TCR 17.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 49 employees and a TCR of 7.2 2×2 strategic matrix plotting 30 entities by Average employees (X) and Total Case Rate (Y), with a crosshair dividing the plot into four quadrants. Larger & higher-riskSmaller & higher-riskLarger & saferSmaller & safer than peers 0100200300 0510152025 Average employees Total Case Rate Aegis of Dana Point
Aegis of Dana Point (57 employees, TCR 17.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 49 employees and a TCR of 7.2

Aegis of Dana Point has more employees than the Assisted-living facilities without on-si median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 7.2. Workforce size and injury rate do not always move together within the same industry -- some of its smaller peers run higher rates than its larger ones, and vice versa.

Year-by-Year Safety Data

Year TCR DART Injuries Illnesses Fatalities
2024 17.2 15.3 2 7 0
2023 29.7 29.7 2 14 0
2022 73.1 71.1 5 32 0
2021 17.9 15.9 2 7 1
2020 45.6 43.8 7 19 0
2019 1.9 1.9 1 0 0
2018 7.1 7.1 4 0 0
2017 3.6 3.6 2 0 0
2016 13.2 11.0 6 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623312 · CA · Dana Point

6,510 Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 51,834 rated employers in California with headcount on file · 26 employers in Dana Point, CA · 4 cross-state NAT-TCR peers · 4 cross-state NAT-SIZE peers. Closest matches by relationship code are listed below.

Rel Establishment Metric
NAICS-TCR Atria Glen Ellyn 17.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR Altus Assisted Living, LLC dba The Courtyards at Magnolia Creek 17.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR The Landings of Canton Hills 17.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR TGH-CHINO LP 17.0 TCR
STATE-SIZE Bowles Farming Company 57 FTE
STATE-SIZE Blanc Vineyards, LLC 57 FTE
STATE-SIZE MI RANCHITO FARMING INC 57 FTE
STATE-SIZE Farmland Management Services 57 FTE
CITY-NEAR KSL MBR Management II LLC 672 FTE
CITY-NEAR 45248 WALDORF ASTORIA MONARCH BEACH RESORT C 661 FTE
CITY-NEAR 4263-45248 537 FTE
CITY-NEAR The Ritz Carlton Laguna Niguel 486 FTE
NAT-TCR INI006 17.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Washington Elementary 17.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Independent Recycling Services Inc 17.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Minnesota Correctional Facility - Shakopee 17.0 TCR
NAT-SIZE Aegis of Las Vegas 57 FTE
NAT-SIZE CoolSeal USA 57 FTE
NAT-SIZE Dennis Steel, Inc. 57 FTE
NAT-SIZE Yavapai Mechanical 57 FTE

Rel codes: NAICS-TCR · STATE-SIZE · CITY-NEAR · NAT-TCR/NAT-SIZE cross-state. Read with this employer →

Data Source: OSHA Injury Tracking Application (ITA), mandatory establishment-level injury/illness reports. Grades compare employer Total Case Rate (TCR) to BLS IIF industry benchmarks. Data covers years reported by this establishment: 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.