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

Hamilton House Senior Living

Cedarburg, WI · ~48 workers · 3 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
19.5
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Hamilton House Senior Living runs at 513% 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.

Hamilton House Senior Living: 19.5 TCR = 513% of Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities BLS 3.8 · 3y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Hamilton House Senior Living safety composite

Hamilton House Senior Living scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 60% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 5%), 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

36/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 19.51 per 100 workers

Safer than 5% of industry peers

DART rate
C 2.42 per 100 workers

Safer than 60% 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

−1328.5

2022→2024

Hamilton House Senior Living injury rate improved

Hamilton House Senior Living's TCR fell 1328.5 from 1333.3 in 2022 to 4.8 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2022 at 1333.3 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.12× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2022=1333.3 · 2023=34.2 · 2024=4.8

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623311 · Cedarburg, WI ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 19.5 · 513% of ind

  • DART 2.4 DART
  • RANK #166/171
  • PHOTO Bickford of Fort Dodge
  • BOOK 3y book
  • INJ 6 inj
  • SIZE ~48 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Bickford of Fort Dodge (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Hamilton House Senior Living in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Hamilton House Senior Living averages 19.5 TCR (513% 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

Hamilton House Senior Living TCR series: 2022=1333.3 · 2023=34.2 · 2024=4.8 · BLS 3.8

Where Hamilton House Senior Living falls in its industry

4,127 Assisted-living facilities wit establishments

Safer than 5% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 6.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Wisconsin alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #166 safest of 171 Assisted-living facilities wit employers in Wisconsin.

Hamilton House Senior Living (48 employees, TCR 19.5) 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 Hamilton House Senior Living
Hamilton House Senior Living (48 employees, TCR 19.5) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 employees and a TCR of 6.9

Hamilton House 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 4.8 2.4 2 0 0
2023 34.2 22.8 3 0 0
2022 1333.3 1333.3 1 11 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623311 · WI · Cedarburg

4,127 Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 12,834 rated employers in Wisconsin with headcount on file · 29 employers in Cedarburg, 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 Bickford of Fort Dodge 19.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Urbandale Bickford 19.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Park Gardens Senior Living 19.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Cambridge House of O'Fallon 19.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE Spring Green 48 FTE
STATE-SIZE Select Sires Inc Westby 48 FTE
STATE-SIZE Select Sires, Inc - Wisconsin 48 FTE
STATE-SIZE Custer 48 FTE
CITY-NEAR DFA-KMP - CEDARBURG WI 182 FTE
CITY-NEAR Kemps Cedarburg Plant 153 FTE
CITY-NEAR Carlson Tool & Manufacturing Corp 133 FTE
CITY-NEAR Cedarburg Office - 391 110 FTE
NAT-TCR Spiral Metals Corp of BR 19.5 TCR
NAT-TCR Chico Natural Foods Cooperative Inc 19.5 TCR
NAT-TCR Magnificent Mile Logistics LLC 19.5 TCR
NAT-TCR Porco Energy 19.5 TCR
NAT-SIZE Falcon Contracting 48 FTE
NAT-SIZE Professional Pavement Services 48 FTE
NAT-SIZE Radisson Hotel Nashville Airport 48 FTE
NAT-SIZE Phillips Plumbing and Mechanical 48 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. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.