Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities · Indiana

Magnolia Springs at Bridgewater

Carmel, IN · ~65 workers · 3 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
12.3
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Magnolia Springs at Bridgewater runs at 324% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities workplace, earning a grade F.

Magnolia Springs at Bridgewater: 12.3 TCR = 324% of Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities BLS 3.8 · 3y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Magnolia Springs at Bridgewater safety composite

Magnolia Springs at Bridgewater scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 50% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 15%), 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

26/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 12.33 per 100 workers

Safer than 20% of industry peers

DART rate
F 10.29 per 100 workers

Safer than 15% 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

−7.7

2016→2018

Magnolia Springs at Bridgewater injury rate improved

Magnolia Springs at Bridgewater's TCR fell 7.7 from 18.0 in 2016 to 10.3 in 2018. Peak filing year was 2016 at 18.0 TCR. In 2018, DART was 0.83× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=18.0 · 2017=8.7 · 2018=10.3

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623312 · Carmel, IN ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 12.3 · 324% of ind

  • DART 10.3 DART
  • RANK #115/133
  • PHOTO Brookdale Garden Grove
  • BOOK 3y book
  • INJ 16 inj
  • SIZE ~65 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Brookdale Garden Grove (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Magnolia Springs at Bridgewater in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Magnolia Springs at Bridgewater averages 12.3 TCR (324% of the Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities BLS benchmark).

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

Magnolia Springs at Bridgewater TCR series: 2016=18 · 2017=8.7 · 2018=10.3 · BLS 3.8

Where Magnolia Springs at Bridgewater falls in its industry

6,510 Assisted-living facilities wit establishments

Safer than 20% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 7.2.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Indiana alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #115 safest of 133 Assisted-living facilities wit employers in Indiana.

Magnolia Springs at Bridgewater (65 employees, TCR 12.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 49 employees and a TCR of 7.2 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 0100200300 0510152025 Average employees Total Case Rate Magnolia Springs at Bridgewater
Magnolia Springs at Bridgewater (65 employees, TCR 12.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 49 employees and a TCR of 7.2

Magnolia Springs at Bridgewater has more employees than the Assisted-living facilities without on-si median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 7.2. 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
2018 10.3 10.3 5 0 0
2017 8.7 8.7 4 0 0
2016 18.0 15.7 7 1 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623312 · IN · Carmel

6,510 Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 12,750 rated employers in Indiana with headcount on file · 157 employers in Carmel, 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 Brookdale Garden Grove 12.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR The Residence at Summer Street 12.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Sunlit Gardens 12.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Quail Park of West Seattle 12.3 TCR
STATE-SIZE FTWN NE Svc Ctr 65 FTE
STATE-SIZE Runnebohm Construction Company Inc 65 FTE
STATE-SIZE TELECOM PLACEMENT INC 65 FTE
STATE-SIZE COMBDRIN-IndyEast 65 FTE
CITY-NEAR North Hospital 1,776 FTE
CITY-NEAR Indiana University Health North Hospital, Inc. 1,208 FTE
CITY-NEAR WW, RCI - Call Center, 9998 N. Michigan 1,135 FTE
CITY-NEAR AutoVIN 706 FTE
NAT-TCR Galleria at Roseville 12.3 TCR
NAT-TCR F/V Unimak 12.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Peapod S&S Agawam, Ma 12.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Public Works 12.3 TCR
NAT-SIZE KLC 65 FTE
NAT-SIZE RLS 65 FTE
NAT-SIZE Dazzle Up LLC Dba Simply Southern 65 FTE
NAT-SIZE Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc. - Willow Grove 65 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: 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.