Desks, wood office-type, manufacturing · Indiana

Jasper Seating Company Plant 2

French Lick, IN · ~145 workers · 5 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
5.7
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Jasper Seating Company Plant 2 runs at 172% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Desks, wood office-type, manufacturing workplace, earning a grade D.

Jasper Seating Company Plant 2: 5.7 TCR = 172% of Desks, wood office-type, manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 5y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Jasper Seating Company Plant 2 safety composite

Jasper Seating Company Plant 2 scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 86% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 26%), 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

53/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 5.68 per 100 workers

Safer than 26% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 86% 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

−8.0

2016→2020

Jasper Seating Company Plant 2 injury rate improved

Jasper Seating Company Plant 2's TCR fell 8.0 from 8.8 in 2016 to 0.9 in 2020. Peak filing year was 2016 at 8.8 TCR. In 2020, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=8.8 · 2017=7.6 · 2018=4.1 · 2019=6.9 · 2020=0.9

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 337211 · French Lick, IN ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade D · TCR 5.7 · 172% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #18/23
  • PHOTO Jasper Seating Compa…
  • BOOK 5y book
  • INJ 45 inj
  • SIZE ~145 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Jasper Seating Company Plant 15 (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Jasper Seating Company Plant 2 in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Jasper Seating Company Plant 2 averages 5.7 TCR (172% of the Desks, wood office-type, manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

Jasper Seating Company Plant 2 TCR series: 2016=8.8 · 2017=7.6 · 2018=4.1 · 2019=6.9 · 2020=0.9 · BLS 3.3

Where Jasper Seating Company Plant 2 falls in its industry

137 Desks, wood office-type, manuf establishments

Safer than 26% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.7.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Indiana alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #18 safest of 23 Desks, wood office-type, manuf employers in Indiana.

Jasper Seating Company Plant 2 (145 employees, TCR 5.7) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 105 employees and a TCR of 3.7 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 05001,0001,5002,000 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Jasper Seating Company Plant 2
Jasper Seating Company Plant 2 (145 employees, TCR 5.7) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 105 employees and a TCR of 3.7

Jasper Seating Company Plant 2 has more employees than the Desks, wood office-type, manufacturing median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.7. 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
2020 0.9 0.0 1 0 0
2019 6.9 6.3 11 0 0
2018 4.1 4.1 7 0 0
2017 7.6 6.5 14 0 0
2016 8.8 7.0 12 2 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

337211 · IN · French Lick

137 Desks, wood office-type, manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 12,750 rated employers in Indiana with headcount on file · 8 employers in French Lick, IN · 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 Jasper Seating Company Plant 15 5.7 TCR
NAICS-TCR DeskMakers Inc 5.7 TCR
NAICS-TCR Dubois 5.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Laminated Products Plant 5.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE Consolidated Asset Management Services (Indiana), LLC 145 FTE
STATE-SIZE Mainstream Fiber Networks 145 FTE
STATE-SIZE Essentra HPC Indianapolis 145 FTE
STATE-SIZE Colwell, Inc 145 FTE
CITY-NEAR French Lick Resort 1,728 FTE
CITY-NEAR French Lick Hotel 934 FTE
CITY-NEAR French Lick Casino 340 FTE
CITY-NEAR West Baden Springs Hotel 159 FTE
NAT-TCR Metro Dentalcare-Burnsville Ridges 5.7 TCR
NAT-TCR The New IEM Power Systems, LLC 5.7 TCR
NAT-TCR 322 Orlando, Fl 5.7 TCR
NAT-TCR Pitney Bowes Presort Services - Dallas Fort Worth (TX44) 5.7 TCR
NAT-SIZE US119: Detroit 321 - SG 145 FTE
NAT-SIZE Beck Steel Inc. 145 FTE
NAT-SIZE Palmyra, PA - A435 145 FTE
NAT-SIZE Regency Hospital of Florence 145 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: 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.