Motor freight carrier, general, local · Pennsylvania

John Brown Portersville

Portersville, PA · ~38 workers · 6 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
5.8
Avg TCR
4.5
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

John Brown Portersville runs at 128% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Motor freight carrier, general, local workplace, earning a grade D.

John Brown Portersville: 5.8 TCR = 128% of Motor freight carrier, general, local BLS 4.5 · 6y Form 300A (see methodology below)

John Brown Portersville safety composite

John Brown Portersville scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 12%), 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

32/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 5.75 per 100 workers

Safer than 38% of industry peers

DART rate
F 9.09 per 100 workers

Safer than 12% 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

John Brown Portersville: 4.4 → 10.9 TCR

Peak year 2021 @ 10.9 TCR · DART/TCR 1.58× in 2021

John Brown Portersville's TCR rose 6.5 from 4.4 in 2016 to 10.9 in 2021. In 2021, DART was 1.58× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 484110 · Portersville, PA ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade D · TCR 5.8 · 128% of ind

  • DART 9.1 DART
  • RANK #111/194
  • PHOTO ORD - Chicago
  • BOOK 6y book
  • INJ 22 inj
  • SIZE ~38 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: ORD - Chicago (0.0 TCR gap)

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

John Brown Portersville in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows John Brown Portersville averages 5.8 TCR (128% of the Motor freight carrier, general, local BLS benchmark).

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

John Brown Portersville TCR series: 2016=4.4 · 2017=8.4 · 2018=5.6 · 2019=1.7 · 2020=3.4 · 2021=10.9 · BLS 4.5

Where John Brown Portersville falls in its industry

2,784 Motor freight carrier, general establishments

Safer than 38% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.7.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Pennsylvania alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #111 safest of 194 Motor freight carrier, general employers in Pennsylvania.

John Brown Portersville (38 employees, TCR 5.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 47 employees and a TCR of 4.7 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 0200400600800 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate John Brown Portersville
John Brown Portersville (38 employees, TCR 5.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 47 employees and a TCR of 4.7

John Brown Portersville has fewer employees than the Motor freight carrier, general, local median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.7. 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
2021 10.9 9.1 6 0 0
2020 3.4 1.7 2 0 0
2019 1.7 1.7 1 0 0
2018 5.6 1.4 4 0 0
2017 8.4 5.6 6 0 0
2016 4.4 1.5 3 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

484110 · PA · Portersville

2,784 Motor freight carrier, general, local employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 22,692 rated employers in Pennsylvania with headcount on file · 5 employers in Portersville, PA · 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 ORD - Chicago 5.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR LOS ANGELES (CACMR) 5.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR HOUSTON SOUTH (TXCLL) 5.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Kwik Trip Yard Operations 868 5.7 TCR
STATE-SIZE Kaolin Mushroom Farms - M&J Facility 38 FTE
STATE-SIZE Dairy 38 FTE
STATE-SIZE Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc - Elizabethtown 38 FTE
STATE-SIZE Risser's Poultry Handling Services, LLC 38 FTE
CITY-NEAR Adams Mfg 158 FTE
CITY-NEAR 483013-Prospect | PA | HOL-500 61 FTE
CITY-NEAR STA - Prospect 59 FTE
CITY-NEAR John Brown Trucking Portersville Terminal 31 FTE
NAT-TCR Sutter Medical Center Sacramento (110-2301) 5.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Guggenheimer Health & Rehabilitation Center 5.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Amerhart Ltd. - West Salem 5.8 TCR
NAT-TCR San Antonio Specialty Beverages 5.8 TCR
NAT-SIZE Palo Alto Medical Foundation (378-30311) 38 FTE
NAT-SIZE Palo Alto Medical Foundation (378-30312) 38 FTE
NAT-SIZE California Pacific Medical Center (274-CC-STR) 38 FTE
NAT-SIZE Elizabeth Residence Inn 38 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, 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.