Agriculture production or harvesting crews · California

ANGEL AG CONTRACTING, Inc

Porterville, CA · ~99 workers · 8 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

B
Good Safety Record
2.3
Avg TCR
4.5
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

ANGEL AG CONTRACTING, Inc runs at 51% of its industry's injury rate - safer than the typical Agriculture production or harvesting crews workplace, earning a grade B.

ANGEL AG CONTRACTING, Inc: 2.3 TCR = 51% of Agriculture production or harvesting crews BLS 4.5 · 8y Form 300A (see methodology below)

ANGEL AG CONTRACTING, Inc safety composite

ANGEL AG CONTRACTING, Inc scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 75% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 53%), 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).

C

62/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
B 2.31 per 100 workers

Safer than 75% of industry peers

DART rate
D 1.93 per 100 workers

Safer than 54% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 53% 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

ANGEL AG CONTRACTING, Inc: 0.0 → 1.9 TCR

Peak year 2020 @ 4.6 TCR · DART/TCR 0.84× in 2024

ANGEL AG CONTRACTING, Inc's TCR rose 1.9 from 0.0 in 2017 to 1.9 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2020 at 4.6 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.84× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 115115 · Porterville, CA AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade B · TCR 2.3 · 51% of ind

  • DART 1.9 DART
  • RANK #158/620
  • PHOTO MB LABOR CONTRACTING…
  • BOOK 8y book
  • INJ 9 inj
  • SIZE ~99 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: MB LABOR CONTRACTING INC (0.0 TCR gap)

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

ANGEL AG CONTRACTING, Inc in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows ANGEL AG CONTRACTING, Inc averages 2.3 TCR (51% of the Agriculture production or harvesting crews BLS benchmark).

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

ANGEL AG CONTRACTING, Inc TCR series: 2017=0 · 2018=0 · 2019=4 · 2020=4.6 · 2021=2 · 2022=4.4 · 2023=1.7 · 2024=1.9 · BLS 4.5

Where ANGEL AG CONTRACTING, Inc falls in its industry

836 Agriculture production or harv establishments

Safer than 75% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.4.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to California alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #158 safest of 620 Agriculture production or harv employers in California.

ANGEL AG CONTRACTING, Inc (99 employees, TCR 2.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 107 employees and a TCR of 4.4 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 05001,0001,5002,0002,500 0510152025 Average employees Total Case Rate ANGEL AG CONTRACTING, Inc
ANGEL AG CONTRACTING, Inc (99 employees, TCR 2.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 107 employees and a TCR of 4.4

ANGEL AG CONTRACTING, Inc has fewer employees than the Agriculture production or harvesting cre median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.4. 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 1.9 1.9 1 0 0
2023 1.7 0.0 0 1 0
2022 4.4 2.9 3 0 0
2021 2.0 2.0 1 0 0
2020 4.6 4.6 2 0 0
2019 4.0 4.0 2 0 0
2018 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2017 0.0 0.0 0 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

115115 · CA · Porterville

836 Agriculture production or harvesting crews employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 51,834 rated employers in California with headcount on file · 147 employers in Porterville, 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 MB LABOR CONTRACTING INC 2.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Santos Montemayor FLC, Inc 2.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Bioline Agrosciences Camarillo 2.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR La Perla Verde Inc 2.3 TCR
STATE-SIZE MARIA ELENA RUIZ MORALES 99 FTE
STATE-SIZE La Verne Nursery, Inc. 99 FTE
STATE-SIZE California Sun Grower Services - North 99 FTE
STATE-SIZE Santa Paula Plant #3 99 FTE
CITY-NEAR California Department of Transportation Facility 173 1,485 FTE
CITY-NEAR AG 1,379 FTE
CITY-NEAR Ag Star Harvesting Inc 1 1,180 FTE
CITY-NEAR 6021 1,030 FTE
NAT-TCR E. & O. Mari, Inc. 2.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Dapco Industries 2.3 TCR
NAT-TCR CFIT 2.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Berks Ridge Company Enterprises, Inc. 2.3 TCR
NAT-SIZE The Piedmont at Buckhead 99 FTE
NAT-SIZE Corporate 99 FTE
NAT-SIZE Wallace Graphics, Inc. 99 FTE
NAT-SIZE US Gypsum Detroit 99 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.