In-vitro diagnostic substances manufacturing · Texas

Cedar Creek

Cedar Creek, TX · ~201 workers · 9 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

B
Good Safety Record
1.8
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Cedar Creek runs at 55% of its industry's injury rate - safer than the typical In-vitro diagnostic substances manufacturing workplace, earning a grade B.

Cedar Creek: 1.8 TCR = 55% of In-vitro diagnostic substances manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 9y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Cedar Creek safety composite

Cedar Creek scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 84% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 35%), 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

56/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 1.81 per 100 workers

Safer than 35% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 84% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 50% 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

−3.0

2016→2024

Cedar Creek injury rate improved

Cedar Creek's TCR fell 3.0 from 3.0 in 2016 to 0.0 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2021 at 4.7 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=3.0 · 2017=2.3 · 2018=1.1 · 2019=2.9 · 2020=1.3 · 2021=4.7 · 2022=0.3 · 2023=0.7 · 2024=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 325413 · Cedar Creek, TX AT/BELOW-IND · MID

Grade B · TCR 1.8 · 55% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #7/11
  • PHOTO Ortho Clinical Diagn…
  • BOOK 9y book
  • INJ 26 inj
  • SIZE ~201 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Ortho Clinical Diagnostics Raritan (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Cedar Creek in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Cedar Creek averages 1.8 TCR (55% of the In-vitro diagnostic substances manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

Cedar Creek TCR series: 2016=3 · 2017=2.3 · 2018=1.1 · 2019=2.9 · 2020=1.3 · 2021=4.7 · 2022=0.3 · 2023=0.7 · 2024=0 · BLS 3.3

Where Cedar Creek falls in its industry

201 In-vitro diagnostic substances establishments

Safer than 35% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 1.4.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Texas alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #7 safest of 11 In-vitro diagnostic substances employers in Texas.

Cedar Creek (201 employees, TCR 1.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 120 employees and a TCR of 1.4 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 02,0004,0006,000 01234 Average employees Total Case Rate Cedar Creek
Cedar Creek (201 employees, TCR 1.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 120 employees and a TCR of 1.4

Cedar Creek has more employees than the In-vitro diagnostic substances manufactu median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 1.4. 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 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2023 0.7 0.3 2 0 0
2022 0.3 0.3 1 0 0
2021 4.7 2.7 7 0 0
2020 1.3 1.3 2 0 0
2019 2.9 2.3 5 0 0
2018 1.1 1.1 2 0 0
2017 2.3 1.7 2 2 0
2016 3.0 1.2 5 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

325413 · TX · Cedar Creek

201 In-vitro diagnostic substances manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 38,394 rated employers in Texas with headcount on file · 6 employers in Cedar Creek, TX · 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 Ortho Clinical Diagnostics Raritan 1.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR TriLink Biotechnologies LLC 1.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR ID Westbrook 1.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Thermo Fisher Scientific MBD-US 1.8 TCR
STATE-SIZE USA Compression Partners - Permian 201 FTE
STATE-SIZE Longview Bridge and Road, Ltd 201 FTE
STATE-SIZE Dow Texas Operations Freeport TX 201 FTE
STATE-SIZE Arkema Clear Lake 201 FTE
CITY-NEAR 4MC Enterprises, LLC 58 FTE
CITY-NEAR Nobis Technology, LLC 48 FTE
CITY-NEAR TCS Mechanical, LLC 32 FTE
CITY-NEAR Bastrop Energy Center 25 FTE
NAT-TCR Goodwill Canton Office & Mission Services 1.8 TCR
NAT-TCR General Shale Corporate Office 1.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Economy Plumbing & Sheet Metal LLC dba Economy Plumbing & Air Conditioning 1.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Dart Container Quitman 1.8 TCR
NAT-SIZE Thermo Fisher Scientific - Bedford, MA Framingham, MA 201 FTE
NAT-SIZE Adult Detention 201 FTE
NAT-SIZE Nordon Inc. 201 FTE
NAT-SIZE Broward Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, LLC 201 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.