Tree services (e.g., bracing, planting, pruning, removal, spraying, surgery, trimming) · Minnesota

Afton

Afton, MN · ~65 workers · 8 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
10.6
Avg TCR
4.5
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Afton runs at 234% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Tree services (e.g., bracing, planting, pruning, removal, spraying, surgery, trimming) workplace, earning a grade F.

Afton: 10.6 TCR = 234% of Tree services (e.g., bracing, planting, pruning, removal, spraying, surgery, trimming) BLS 4.5 · 8y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Afton safety composite

Afton scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 52% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 14%), 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

24/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 10.55 per 100 workers

Safer than 14% of industry peers

DART rate
F 8.16 per 100 workers

Safer than 14% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 52% 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%).

TCR Δ

−2.6

2017→2024

Afton injury rate improved

Afton's TCR fell 2.6 from 14.0 in 2017 to 11.4 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2018 at 19.2 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.77× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2017=14.0 · 2018=19.2 · 2019=7.2 · 2020=1.5 · 2021=11.3 · 2022=9.8 · 2023=9.9 · 2024=11.4

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 561730 · Afton, MN ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 10.6 · 234% of ind

  • DART 8.2 DART
  • RANK #52/64
  • PHOTO Picture Perfect Cons…
  • BOOK 8y book
  • INJ 49 inj
  • SIZE ~65 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Picture Perfect Construction (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Afton in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Afton averages 10.6 TCR (234% of the Tree services (e.g., bracing, planting, pruning, removal, spraying, surgery, trimming) BLS benchmark).

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

Afton TCR series: 2017=14 · 2018=19.2 · 2019=7.2 · 2020=1.5 · 2021=11.3 · 2022=9.8 · 2023=9.9 · 2024=11.4 · BLS 4.5

Where Afton falls in its industry

2,875 Tree services (e.g., bracing, establishments

Safer than 14% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.7.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Minnesota alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #52 safest of 64 Tree services (e.g., bracing, employers in Minnesota.

Afton (65 employees, TCR 10.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 53 employees and a TCR of 4.7 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 0200400600800 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Afton
Afton (65 employees, TCR 10.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 53 employees and a TCR of 4.7

Afton has more employees than the Tree services (e.g., bracing, planting, median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.7. 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 11.4 8.2 7 0 0
2023 9.9 6.6 6 0 0
2022 9.8 6.5 6 0 0
2021 11.3 7.1 8 0 0
2020 1.5 1.5 1 0 0
2019 7.2 1.8 4 0 0
2018 19.2 11.5 10 0 0
2017 14.0 6.0 7 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

561730 · MN · Afton

2,875 Tree services (e.g., bracing, planting, pruning, removal, spraying, surgery, trimming) employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 15,828 rated employers in Minnesota with headcount on file · 5 employers in Afton, MN · 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 Picture Perfect Construction 10.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR RECREATION AND PARKS, SEPULVEDA BASIN 10.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Superior Lawns Inc.-Plainfield Branch 10.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Grounds (Fort Riley) 10.5 TCR
STATE-SIZE Lake Prairie 65 FTE
STATE-SIZE Hibbing Public Utilities 65 FTE
STATE-SIZE City of Virginia Public Utilities 65 FTE
STATE-SIZE Michels Utility Services Inc-MN-Lakeville 65 FTE
CITY-NEAR Chandler Exhibits, Inc 127 FTE
CITY-NEAR Chandler Exhibits, Inc. AFTON 75 FTE
CITY-NEAR Afton Terminal 35 FTE
CITY-NEAR Pioneer Tank Lines Inc 33 FTE
NAT-TCR Midnight Munchies, Inc. 10.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Carothers & Son, Ltd - Industrial Air Systems 10.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Seaboard Foods Lp Iowa Maint 10.6 TCR
NAT-TCR White Oak Mills 10.6 TCR
NAT-SIZE West Hazleton 65 FTE
NAT-SIZE Acworth TPL 65 FTE
NAT-SIZE KNF Flexpak Corporation 65 FTE
NAT-SIZE Acworth QCC 65 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. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.