Homes for the aged with nursing care · Michigan

Cedarbrook Senior Living of Northville

Plymouth, MI · ~107 workers · 5 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

C
Average Safety Record
5.8
Avg TCR
6.5
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Cedarbrook Senior Living of Northville runs at 90% of its industry's injury rate - about level with the typical Homes for the aged with nursing care workplace, earning a grade C.

Cedarbrook Senior Living of Northville: 5.8 TCR = 90% of Homes for the aged with nursing care BLS 6.5 · 5y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Cedarbrook Senior Living of Northville safety composite

Cedarbrook Senior Living of Northville scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 57% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 38%), 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).

D

49/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
C 5.84 per 100 workers

Safer than 57% of industry peers

DART rate
D 4.76 per 100 workers

Safer than 38% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 51% 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

Cedarbrook Senior Living of Northville: 3.1 → 11.9 TCR

Peak year 2022 @ 11.9 TCR · DART/TCR 0.82× in 2022

Cedarbrook Senior Living of Northville's TCR rose 8.8 from 3.1 in 2017 to 11.9 in 2022. In 2022, DART was 0.82× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623110 · Plymouth, MI AT/BELOW-IND · MID

Grade C · TCR 5.8 · 90% of ind

  • DART 4.8 DART
  • RANK #154/471
  • PHOTO El Paso Health and R…
  • BOOK 5y book
  • INJ 21 inj
  • SIZE ~107 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: El Paso Health and Rehabilitation (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Cedarbrook Senior Living of Northville in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Cedarbrook Senior Living of Northville averages 5.8 TCR (90% of the Homes for the aged with nursing care BLS benchmark).

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

Cedarbrook Senior Living of Northville TCR series: 2017=3.1 · 2018=4.7 · 2020=1.9 · 2021=7.5 · 2022=11.9 · BLS 6.5

Where Cedarbrook Senior Living of Northville falls in its industry

15,252 Homes for the aged with nursin establishments

Safer than 57% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 6.6.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Michigan alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #154 safest of 471 Homes for the aged with nursin employers in Michigan.

Cedarbrook Senior Living of Northville (107 employees, TCR 5.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 106 employees and a TCR of 6.6 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 0100200300400 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate Cedarbrook Senior Living of Northville
Cedarbrook Senior Living of Northville (107 employees, TCR 5.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 106 employees and a TCR of 6.6

Cedarbrook Senior Living of Northville has more employees than the Homes for the aged with nursing care median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 6.6. 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
2022 11.9 4.8 8 2 0
2021 7.5 1.1 7 0 0
2020 1.9 0.0 0 2 0
2018 4.7 2.8 5 0 0
2017 3.1 3.1 1 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623110 · MI · Plymouth

15,252 Homes for the aged with nursing care employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 16,393 rated employers in Michigan with headcount on file · 139 employers in Plymouth, MI · 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 El Paso Health and Rehabilitation 5.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Hattie Ide Chaffee Home 5.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR AdventHealth Care Center Apopka North 5.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR LP Lexington Park, LLC-- Chesapeake Shores 5.8 TCR
STATE-SIZE Shelbey Service Cemter 107 FTE
STATE-SIZE CB Asphalt Maintenance LLC 107 FTE
STATE-SIZE Bloom Roofing Systems Inc 107 FTE
STATE-SIZE Reliable Relamping 107 FTE
CITY-NEAR ADIENT LLC Headquarters 1,544 FTE
CITY-NEAR Webasto Roof Systems Inc. 861 FTE
CITY-NEAR Comprehensive Care Services, Inc. 825 FTE
CITY-NEAR 11021 648 FTE
NAT-TCR PSSI - 0413 Tyson Foods Inc.- South Hutchinson 5.8 TCR
NAT-TCR TraxFarms, Inc. 5.8 TCR
NAT-TCR American Control and Engineering Service, Inc. 5.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Suddath Relocation Systems of Northern California, Inc. 5.8 TCR
NAT-SIZE PSSI - 0518 Tyson - Broken Bow 107 FTE
NAT-SIZE 4795-PS-CAK-AKRON-CANTON-CAK-PSAA 107 FTE
NAT-SIZE PVD-ODFL 107 FTE
NAT-SIZE Clariant Midland 107 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: 2022, 2021, 2020, 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.