Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities · Mississippi

Charleston Place

Fulton, MS · ~27 workers · 9 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
18.7
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Charleston Place runs at 493% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities workplace, earning a grade F.

Charleston Place: 18.7 TCR = 493% of Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities BLS 3.8 · 9y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Charleston Place safety composite

Charleston Place scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 6%), 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

30/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 18.74 per 100 workers

Safer than 6% of industry peers

DART rate
D 4.31 per 100 workers

Safer than 42% 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

Charleston Place: 0.0 → 4.3 TCR

Peak year 2022 @ 96.6 TCR · DART/TCR 0.23× in 2024

Charleston Place's TCR rose 4.3 from 0.0 in 2016 to 4.3 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2022 at 96.6 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.23× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623311 · Fulton, MS ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 18.7 · 493% of ind

  • DART 4.3 DART
  • RANK #15/15
  • PHOTO The Residence at Pen…
  • BOOK 9y book
  • INJ 17 inj
  • SIZE ~27 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: The Residence at Penniman Hill (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Charleston Place in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Charleston Place averages 18.7 TCR (493% of the Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities BLS benchmark).

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

Charleston Place TCR series: 2016=0 · 2017=0 · 2018=10.1 · 2019=21.3 · 2020=35.9 · 2021=29.3 · 2022=96.6 · 2023=49.1 · 2024=4.3 · BLS 3.8

Where Charleston Place falls in its industry

4,127 Assisted-living facilities wit establishments

Safer than 6% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 6.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Mississippi alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #15 safest of 15 Assisted-living facilities wit employers in Mississippi.

Charleston Place (27 employees, TCR 18.7) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 employees and a TCR of 6.9 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 050100150200250 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate Charleston Place
Charleston Place (27 employees, TCR 18.7) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 employees and a TCR of 6.9

Charleston Place has fewer employees than the Assisted-living facilities with on-site median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 6.9. 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 4.3 4.3 1 0 0
2023 49.1 49.1 3 7 0
2022 96.6 92.0 3 18 0
2021 29.3 29.3 1 4 0
2020 35.9 35.9 2 6 0
2019 21.3 8.5 5 0 0
2018 10.1 0.0 2 0 0
2017 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2016 0.0 0.0 0 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623311 · MS · Fulton

4,127 Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 4,083 rated employers in Mississippi with headcount on file · 21 employers in Fulton, MS · 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 The Residence at Penniman Hill 18.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Somerford Place of Roseville 18.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Parkview Estates 18.7 TCR
NAICS-TCR Akron Care Center 18.7 TCR
STATE-SIZE Purvis Forest Products, Inc. 27 FTE
STATE-SIZE Farmers Gin, Inc. 27 FTE
STATE-SIZE Grundfest and Klaus Gin, Inc. 27 FTE
STATE-SIZE Vicksburg Network 27 FTE
CITY-NEAR Mueller Copper Tube Company 501 FTE
CITY-NEAR Max Home, LLC 444 FTE
CITY-NEAR WM 273 201 FTE
CITY-NEAR 273 195 FTE
NAT-TCR Belair Care Center 18.7 TCR
NAT-TCR Accurate Elastomer Products, Inc 18.7 TCR
NAT-TCR #21 Hayesville Roth'S 18.7 TCR
NAT-TCR Terrace View Gardens 18.7 TCR
NAT-SIZE DOL008 27 FTE
NAT-SIZE Austin Powder Appalachia LLC - Norton 27 FTE
NAT-SIZE Anderson Electric, Inc. / Mattoon Branch 27 FTE
NAT-SIZE Ronnie Zahn Paving, Inc. 27 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.