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

Chaska Heights Senior Living

Chaska, MN · ~56 workers · 6 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
20.9
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Chaska Heights Senior Living runs at 550% 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.

Chaska Heights Senior Living: 20.9 TCR = 550% of Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities BLS 3.8 · 6y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Chaska Heights Senior Living safety composite

Chaska Heights Senior Living scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 66% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 4%), 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

37/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 20.9 per 100 workers

Safer than 4% of industry peers

DART rate
C 1.8 per 100 workers

Safer than 66% 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%).

TCR Δ

−33.9

2018→2024

Chaska Heights Senior Living injury rate improved

Chaska Heights Senior Living's TCR fell 33.9 from 39.3 in 2018 to 5.4 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2020 at 76.0 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.09× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2018=39.3 · 2019=18.0 · 2020=76.0 · 2021=55.7 · 2023=69.3 · 2024=5.4

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623311 · Chaska, MN ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 20.9 · 550% of ind

  • DART 1.8 DART
  • RANK #212/226
  • PHOTO Maplewood at Cuyahog…
  • BOOK 6y book
  • INJ 53 inj
  • SIZE ~56 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Maplewood at Cuyahoga Falls (0.1 TCR gap)

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

Chaska Heights Senior Living in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Chaska Heights Senior Living averages 20.9 TCR (550% 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

Chaska Heights Senior Living TCR series: 2018=39.3 · 2019=18 · 2020=76 · 2021=55.7 · 2023=69.3 · 2024=5.4 · BLS 3.8

Where Chaska Heights Senior Living falls in its industry

4,127 Assisted-living facilities wit establishments

Safer than 4% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 6.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Minnesota alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #212 safest of 226 Assisted-living facilities wit employers in Minnesota.

Chaska Heights Senior Living (56 employees, TCR 20.9) 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 0510152025 Average employees Total Case Rate Chaska Heights Senior Living
Chaska Heights Senior Living (56 employees, TCR 20.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 employees and a TCR of 6.9

Chaska Heights Senior Living 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 5.4 1.8 1 2 0
2023 69.3 42.9 11 10 0
2021 55.7 34.1 17 14 0
2020 76.0 55.0 9 20 0
2019 18.0 0.0 5 1 0
2018 39.3 13.1 10 2 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623311 · MN · Chaska

4,127 Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 15,828 rated employers in Minnesota with headcount on file · 87 employers in Chaska, 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 Maplewood at Cuyahoga Falls 20.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR MorningStar of Bear Creek 20.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Maplewood at Danbury LLC 21.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR Edgewood Healthcare 20.8 TCR
STATE-SIZE LDC.FAR 56 FTE
STATE-SIZE Public Utilities 56 FTE
STATE-SIZE Shakopee Public Utilities 56 FTE
STATE-SIZE CenterPoint Energy - Mankato 56 FTE
CITY-NEAR Diagnostics : Beckman Coulter - Chaska 917 FTE
CITY-NEAR Lake Region Medical 830 FTE
CITY-NEAR Entegris - Chaska 731 FTE
CITY-NEAR Administration 596 FTE
NAT-TCR The Wesleyan Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation 20.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Ucp- Wo 20.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Mary Health of the Sick Convalescent and Nursing Hospital Inc 20.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Hayward Convalescent Hospital 20.9 TCR
NAT-SIZE Schleicher County Medical Center 56 FTE
NAT-SIZE Inficon EDC, Inc. 56 FTE
NAT-SIZE SEW-EURODRIVE, Inc 56 FTE
NAT-SIZE Spanaway WA Truss 56 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, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.