Homes for the aged with nursing care · Wisconsin

Eagle Point Senior Living

Appleton, WI · ~44 workers · 4 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
19.2
Avg TCR
6.5
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Eagle Point Senior Living runs at 296% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Homes for the aged with nursing care workplace, earning a grade F.

Eagle Point Senior Living: 19.2 TCR = 296% of Homes for the aged with nursing care BLS 6.5 · 4y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Eagle Point Senior Living safety composite

Eagle Point Senior Living 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

25/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 19.23 per 100 workers

Safer than 6% of industry peers

DART rate
F 6.48 per 100 workers

Safer than 27% 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

Eagle Point Senior Living: 13.0 → 29.1 TCR

Peak year 2020 @ 33.9 TCR · DART/TCR 0.34× in 2021

Eagle Point Senior Living's TCR rose 16.1 from 13.0 in 2018 to 29.1 in 2021. Peak filing year was 2020 at 33.9 TCR. In 2021, DART was 0.34× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623110 · Appleton, WI ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 19.2 · 296% of ind

  • DART 6.5 DART
  • RANK #348/355
  • PHOTO Amsterdam Nursing Ho…
  • BOOK 4y book
  • INJ 18 inj
  • SIZE ~44 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Amsterdam Nursing Home Corp. (1992) (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Eagle Point Senior Living in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Eagle Point Senior Living averages 19.2 TCR (296% 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

Eagle Point Senior Living TCR series: 2018=13 · 2019=0.9 · 2020=33.9 · 2021=29.1 · BLS 6.5

Where Eagle Point Senior Living falls in its industry

15,252 Homes for the aged with nursin establishments

Safer than 6% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 6.6.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Wisconsin alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #348 safest of 355 Homes for the aged with nursin employers in Wisconsin.

Eagle Point Senior Living (44 employees, TCR 19.2) 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 0510152025 Average employees Total Case Rate Eagle Point Senior Living
Eagle Point Senior Living (44 employees, TCR 19.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 106 employees and a TCR of 6.6

Eagle Point Senior Living has fewer employees than the Homes for the aged with nursing care median and a higher 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
2021 29.1 6.5 8 1 0
2020 33.9 20.3 5 5 0
2019 0.9 0.0 4 0 0
2018 13.0 0.0 1 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623110 · WI · Appleton

15,252 Homes for the aged with nursing care employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 12,834 rated employers in Wisconsin with headcount on file · 356 employers in Appleton, WI · 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 Amsterdam Nursing Home Corp. (1992) 19.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Morgan Memorial Foundation., dba Gil-Mor Manor and Gil-Mor Haven 19.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Brunswick Pointe Transitional Care 19.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Sapphire Nursing at Wappingers 19.2 TCR
STATE-SIZE Crave Brothers Farm 44 FTE
STATE-SIZE Holsum Elm Dairy 44 FTE
STATE-SIZE Milwaukee South Shore 44 FTE
STATE-SIZE ARC Contracting of Wisconsin Inc 44 FTE
CITY-NEAR ThedaCare Regional Medical Center Appleton 1,649 FTE
CITY-NEAR ThedaCare Regional Medical Center-Appleton 1,563 FTE
CITY-NEAR Northern Operations 1,321 FTE
CITY-NEAR Fox Valley Technical College (WI) 1,279 FTE
NAT-TCR DHS-Glenwood Resource Center 19.2 TCR
NAT-TCR PalletSource, Inc. 19.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Pueblo Truss Co., Inc. 19.2 TCR
NAT-TCR LA Hydrojet and Rooter Service, Inc. 19.2 TCR
NAT-SIZE Kansas City MO M4HMRX 90-41-45-46 44 FTE
NAT-SIZE NMC Group Lincoln West 44 FTE
NAT-SIZE Bear Materials - Walther Road 44 FTE
NAT-SIZE Morsco Supply Co. 44 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: 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.