Courier services (i.e., intercity network) (except establishments operating under a universal service obligation) · Michigan

Impact Logistics

Hazel Park, MI · ~153 workers · 3 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

C
Average Safety Record
6.8
Avg TCR
6.5
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Impact Logistics runs at 105% of its industry's injury rate - about level with the typical Courier services (i.e., intercity network) (except establishments operating under a universal service obligation) workplace, earning a grade C.

Impact Logistics: 6.8 TCR = 105% of Courier services (i.e., intercity network) (except establishments operating under a universal service obligation) BLS 6.5 · 3y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Impact Logistics safety composite

Impact Logistics scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 61% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 48%), 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

54/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
C 6.8 per 100 workers

Safer than 61% of industry peers

DART rate
D 6.39 per 100 workers

Safer than 48% 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%).

Impact Logistics held a steady TCR band

Impact Logistics's TCR held near 0.1 from 6.5 in 2022 to 6.4 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2023 at 7.5 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.94× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2022=6.5 · 2023=7.5 · 2024=6.4

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 492110 · Hazel Park, MI ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade C · TCR 6.8 · 105% of ind

  • DART 6.4 DART
  • RANK #86/202
  • PHOTO NEKEA - KEARNEY
  • BOOK 3y book
  • INJ 32 inj
  • SIZE ~153 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: NEKEA - KEARNEY (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Impact Logistics in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Impact Logistics averages 6.8 TCR (105% of the Courier services (i.e., intercity network) (except establishments operating under a universal service obligation) BLS benchmark).

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

Impact Logistics TCR series: 2022=6.5 · 2023=7.5 · 2024=6.4 · BLS 6.5

Where Impact Logistics falls in its industry

6,679 Courier services (i.e., interc establishments

Safer than 61% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 8.0.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Michigan alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #86 safest of 202 Courier services (i.e., interc employers in Michigan.

Impact Logistics (153 employees, TCR 6.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 113 employees and a TCR of 8.0 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 01,0002,0003,0004,000 0102030 Average employees Total Case Rate Impact Logistics
Impact Logistics (153 employees, TCR 6.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 113 employees and a TCR of 8.0

Impact Logistics has more employees than the Courier services (i.e., intercity networ median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 8.0. 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 6.4 6.4 12 0 0
2023 7.5 7.5 15 0 0
2022 6.5 6.5 5 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

492110 · MI · Hazel Park

6,679 Courier services (i.e., intercity network) (except establishments operating under a universal service obligation) employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 16,393 rated employers in Michigan with headcount on file · 26 employers in Hazel Park, MI · 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 NEKEA - KEARNEY 6.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR NOGALES CENTER (AZNOG) 6.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR FREDERICKSBURG (VAFRE) 6.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR 372 6.8 TCR
STATE-SIZE E&L Construction Group 153 FTE
STATE-SIZE D&D Building, Inc 153 FTE
STATE-SIZE Twin City Foods - Lake Odessa 153 FTE
STATE-SIZE Backyard Products 153 FTE
CITY-NEAR AMZL : DDT1 1,632 FTE
CITY-NEAR Dakkota Integrated systems LLC 492 FTE
CITY-NEAR Amazon.com Services LLC - SMI1 431 FTE
CITY-NEAR Amazon.com Services LLC - DDT1 328 FTE
NAT-TCR Century Linen- Balzano 6.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Hilltop Companies-River Terminal 6.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Great Lakes Cheese 6.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Central Transport - 217 6.8 TCR
NAT-SIZE International Paper 153 FTE
NAT-SIZE Madico, Inc 153 FTE
NAT-SIZE Jackson County Government 153 FTE
NAT-SIZE FedEx Supply Chain Unilever Jacksonville 153 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.