Blades (e.g., knife, saw) merchant wholesalers · Connecticut

Lindquist Security Technologies

Stratford, CT · ~21 workers · 4 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
4.6
Avg TCR
2.2
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Lindquist Security Technologies runs at 211% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Blades (e.g., knife, saw) merchant wholesalers workplace, earning a grade F.

Lindquist Security Technologies: 4.6 TCR = 211% of Blades (e.g., knife, saw) merchant wholesalers BLS 2.2 · 4y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Lindquist Security Technologies safety composite

Lindquist Security Technologies scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 82% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 30%), 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 4.64 per 100 workers

Safer than 30% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 82% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 50% 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

−4.4

2016→2020

Lindquist Security Technologies injury rate improved

Lindquist Security Technologies's TCR fell 4.4 from 4.4 in 2016 to 0.0 in 2020. Peak filing year was 2019 at 9.6 TCR. In 2020, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=4.4 · 2018=4.6 · 2019=9.6 · 2020=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 423710 · Stratford, CT ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 4.6 · 211% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #5/6
  • PHOTO Kimball Midwest - Ne…
  • BOOK 4y book
  • INJ 4 inj
  • SIZE ~21 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Kimball Midwest - Newtown DC (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Lindquist Security Technologies in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Lindquist Security Technologies averages 4.6 TCR (211% of the Blades (e.g., knife, saw) merchant wholesalers BLS benchmark).

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

Lindquist Security Technologies TCR series: 2016=4.4 · 2018=4.6 · 2019=9.6 · 2020=0 · BLS 2.2

Where Lindquist Security Technologies falls in its industry

449 Blades (e.g., knife, saw) merc establishments

Safer than 30% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 2.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Connecticut alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #5 safest of 6 Blades (e.g., knife, saw) merc employers in Connecticut.

Lindquist Security Technologies (21 employees, TCR 4.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 71 employees and a TCR of 2.9 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 02004006008001,000 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Lindquist Security Technologies
Lindquist Security Technologies (21 employees, TCR 4.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 71 employees and a TCR of 2.9

Lindquist Security Technologies has fewer employees than the Blades (e.g., knife, saw) merchant whole median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 2.9. 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
2020 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2019 9.6 9.6 2 0 0
2018 4.6 4.6 1 0 0
2016 4.4 4.4 1 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

423710 · CT · Stratford

449 Blades (e.g., knife, saw) merchant wholesalers employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 7,008 rated employers in Connecticut with headcount on file · 119 employers in Stratford, CT · 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 Kimball Midwest - Newtown DC 4.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR J. G. Edelen Company, Inc. 4.7 TCR
NAICS-TCR 4526 LOWE S MSH-ATLANTA GA 4.7 TCR
NAICS-TCR Reliable Equipment and Services Co. 4.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE Milford Power Company LLC 21 FTE
STATE-SIZE E&N Associates, LLC 21 FTE
STATE-SIZE Epifano Builders Inc. 21 FTE
STATE-SIZE NA-US-CT-East Granby-International Drive 21 FTE
CITY-NEAR Lockheed Martin Corporation US CT Stratford Main St (5225) 6,906 FTE
CITY-NEAR Lockheed Martin Corporation US CT Stratford 6900 Main St (5225) 6,665 FTE
CITY-NEAR Northeast Medical Group, Inc. 2,333 FTE
CITY-NEAR Northeast Medical Group - New Haven 1,612 FTE
NAT-TCR Midwest Medical Transport Company - Kansas City Station 4.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Joseph Companies (IQHC) 701 W Oakland Ave 4.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Pioneer Metal Finishing South Bend 4.6 TCR
NAT-TCR NORTH 4.6 TCR
NAT-SIZE 58 Salinas Northeast 21 FTE
NAT-SIZE Whit-Cor Masonry Inc. 21 FTE
NAT-SIZE Huser Construction 21 FTE
NAT-SIZE Smithfield Direct- Houston 21 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, 2016. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.

Read our methodology - how this data is sourced, computed, and verified.

Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.