Dimension lumber, resawing purchased lumber · North Carolina

Idaho Timber of North Carolina

Henderson, NC · ~41 workers · 9 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
5.4
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Idaho Timber of North Carolina runs at 162% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Dimension lumber, resawing purchased lumber workplace, earning a grade D.

Idaho Timber of North Carolina: 5.4 TCR = 162% of Dimension lumber, resawing purchased lumber BLS 3.3 · 9y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Idaho Timber of North Carolina safety composite

Idaho Timber of North Carolina scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 84% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 47%), 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).

C

61/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 5.36 per 100 workers

Safer than 47% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 84% 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

−1.8

2016→2024

Idaho Timber of North Carolina injury rate improved

Idaho Timber of North Carolina's TCR fell 1.8 from 6.0 in 2016 to 4.2 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2020 at 19.6 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=6.0 · 2017=4.7 · 2018=4.7 · 2019=6.8 · 2020=19.6 · 2021=0.0 · 2022=2.3 · 2023=0.0 · 2024=4.2

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 321912 · Henderson, NC ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade D · TCR 5.4 · 162% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #14/18
  • PHOTO Holt and Bugbee Co.
  • BOOK 9y book
  • INJ 15 inj
  • SIZE ~41 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Holt and Bugbee Co. (0.1 TCR gap)

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

Idaho Timber of North Carolina in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Idaho Timber of North Carolina averages 5.4 TCR (162% of the Dimension lumber, resawing purchased lumber BLS benchmark).

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

Idaho Timber of North Carolina TCR series: 2016=6 · 2017=4.7 · 2018=4.7 · 2019=6.8 · 2020=19.6 · 2021=0 · 2022=2.3 · 2023=0 · 2024=4.2 · BLS 3.3

Where Idaho Timber of North Carolina falls in its industry

178 Dimension lumber, resawing pur establishments

Safer than 47% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 5.1.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to North Carolina alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #14 safest of 18 Dimension lumber, resawing pur employers in North Carolina.

Idaho Timber of North Carolina (41 employees, TCR 5.4) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 45 employees and a TCR of 5.1 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 050100150200 0510152025 Average employees Total Case Rate Idaho Timber of North Carolina
Idaho Timber of North Carolina (41 employees, TCR 5.4) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 45 employees and a TCR of 5.1

Idaho Timber of North Carolina has fewer employees than the Dimension lumber, resawing purchased lum median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 5.1. 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 4.2 0.0 2 0 0
2023 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2022 2.3 2.3 1 0 0
2021 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2020 19.6 15.7 2 8 0
2019 6.8 6.8 3 0 0
2018 4.7 4.7 2 0 0
2017 4.7 4.7 2 0 0
2016 6.0 0.0 3 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

321912 · NC · Henderson

178 Dimension lumber, resawing purchased lumber employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 16,981 rated employers in North Carolina with headcount on file · 69 employers in Henderson, NC · 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 Holt and Bugbee Co. 5.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Marvin Wood Products - Baker City 5.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Sparta WoodWorks LLC 5.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Northland Furntire Company 5.5 TCR
STATE-SIZE Jeff Barnes LLC 41 FTE
STATE-SIZE Sandhill Turf 41 FTE
STATE-SIZE Lewiston NC Operation 41 FTE
STATE-SIZE Hendersonville Operations Center 41 FTE
CITY-NEAR DLP Maria Parham Health LLC 732 FTE
CITY-NEAR Maria Parham Health 719 FTE
CITY-NEAR Distribution Center-91011 628 FTE
CITY-NEAR WM 6091 622 FTE
NAT-TCR Marco Group Inc. 5.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Woodstock Soapstone Company Inc. 5.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Ekstrom & Schmidt Nursery, LLC 5.4 TCR
NAT-TCR The Enclave 5.4 TCR
NAT-SIZE Store 002 41 FTE
NAT-SIZE Butler, Pa Branch 41 FTE
NAT-SIZE Mayor and Council 41 FTE
NAT-SIZE Jamestown, Ny Branch 41 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.