General warehousing and storage · Massachusetts

Maple Leaf Distribution Services

Palmer, MA · ~22 workers · 7 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

B
Good Safety Record
4.3
Avg TCR
5.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Maple Leaf Distribution Services runs at 74% of its industry's injury rate - safer than the typical General warehousing and storage workplace, earning a grade B.

Maple Leaf Distribution Services: 4.3 TCR = 74% of General warehousing and storage BLS 5.8 · 7y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Maple Leaf Distribution Services safety composite

Maple Leaf Distribution Services scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 86% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 39%), 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).

C

58/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 4.32 per 100 workers

Safer than 39% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 86% 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%).

Maple Leaf Distribution Services held a steady TCR band

Maple Leaf Distribution Services's TCR held near 0.0 from 0.0 in 2016 to 0.0 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2021 at 18.3 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=0.0 · 2018=5.3 · 2020=0.0 · 2021=18.3 · 2022=6.6 · 2023=0.0 · 2024=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 493110 · Palmer, MA AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade B · TCR 4.3 · 74% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #61/121
  • PHOTO Fulton DC
  • BOOK 7y book
  • INJ 5 inj
  • SIZE ~22 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Fulton DC (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Maple Leaf Distribution Services in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Maple Leaf Distribution Services averages 4.3 TCR (74% of the General warehousing and storage BLS benchmark).

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

Maple Leaf Distribution Services TCR series: 2016=0 · 2018=5.3 · 2020=0 · 2021=18.3 · 2022=6.6 · 2023=0 · 2024=0 · BLS 5.8

Where Maple Leaf Distribution Services falls in its industry

9,477 General warehousing and storag establishments

Safer than 39% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.5.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Massachusetts alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #61 safest of 121 General warehousing and storag employers in Massachusetts.

Maple Leaf Distribution Services (22 employees, TCR 4.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 92 employees and a TCR of 3.5 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 01,0002,0003,0004,0005,000 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Maple Leaf Distribution Services
Maple Leaf Distribution Services (22 employees, TCR 4.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 92 employees and a TCR of 3.5

Maple Leaf Distribution Services has fewer employees than the General warehousing and storage median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.5. 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 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2023 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2022 6.6 6.6 1 0 0
2021 18.3 18.3 3 0 0
2020 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2018 5.3 5.3 1 0 0
2016 0.0 0.0 0 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

493110 · MA · Palmer

9,477 General warehousing and storage employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 10,108 rated employers in Massachusetts with headcount on file · 27 employers in Palmer, MA · 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 Fulton DC 4.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Janesville, DC 4.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR 30438 - CAPSTONE MCLANE SO. CALIFORNIA 4.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR 871 - Pleasant Prairie Dry Str 4.3 TCR
STATE-SIZE Great Falls Aquaculture 22 FTE
STATE-SIZE ANP Bellingham Energy Company LLC 22 FTE
STATE-SIZE 65 Essex Road 22 FTE
STATE-SIZE Ryan Construction, Inc. 22 FTE
CITY-NEAR WMH - Wing Memorial Hospital 676 FTE
CITY-NEAR BWH - Baystate Wing Hospital 668 FTE
CITY-NEAR Northern Tree Service, LLC 189 FTE
CITY-NEAR Northern General Contractors Inc 168 FTE
NAT-TCR Kenosha 4.3 TCR
NAT-TCR U of M Masonic Children's Hosp 4.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Bread Loaf Corporation 4.3 TCR
NAT-TCR The United Methodist Village Retirement Communities Inc. 4.3 TCR
NAT-SIZE Ryerson 22 FTE
NAT-SIZE Adult Day Center 22 FTE
NAT-SIZE HENRIETTA 22 FTE
NAT-SIZE Kazmira 22 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, 2021, 2020, 2018, 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.