PET (positron emission tomography) scanners manufacturing · Tennessee

Molecular Imaging - Crystal Growth Facility

Rockford, TN · ~54 workers · 9 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

C
Average Safety Record
3.0
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Molecular Imaging - Crystal Growth Facility runs at 91% of its industry's injury rate - about level with the typical PET (positron emission tomography) scanners manufacturing workplace, earning a grade C.

Molecular Imaging - Crystal Growth Facility: 3.0 TCR = 91% of PET (positron emission tomography) scanners manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 9y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Molecular Imaging - Crystal Growth Facility safety composite

Molecular Imaging - Crystal Growth Facility scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 50% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (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

24/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 3 per 100 workers

Safer than 15% of industry peers

DART rate
F 2.22 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%).

Rising injury rate

Molecular Imaging - Crystal Growth Facility: 0.0 → 4.4 TCR

Peak year 2018 @ 7.1 TCR · DART/TCR 0.74× in 2024

Molecular Imaging - Crystal Growth Facility's TCR rose 4.4 from 0.0 in 2016 to 4.4 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2018 at 7.1 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.74× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 334510 · Rockford, TN AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade C · TCR 3.0 · 91% of ind

  • DART 2.2 DART
  • RANK P15
  • PHOTO Sumitomo (SHI) Cryog…
  • BOOK 9y book
  • INJ 13 inj
  • SIZE ~54 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Sumitomo (SHI) Cryogenics of America, Inc. (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Molecular Imaging - Crystal Growth Facility in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Molecular Imaging - Crystal Growth Facility averages 3.0 TCR (91% of the PET (positron emission tomography) scanners manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

Molecular Imaging - Crystal Growth Facility TCR series: 2016=0 · 2017=0 · 2018=7.1 · 2019=2.9 · 2020=4.9 · 2021=1.8 · 2022=4.8 · 2023=1.1 · 2024=4.4 · BLS 3.3

Where Molecular Imaging - Crystal Growth Facility falls in its industry

242 PET (positron emission tomogra establishments

Safer than 15% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 1.1.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers
Molecular Imaging - Crystal Growth Facility (54 employees, TCR 3.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 186 employees and a TCR of 1.1 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 05001,0001,5002,0002,500 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Molecular Imaging - Crystal Growth Facility
Molecular Imaging - Crystal Growth Facility (54 employees, TCR 3.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 186 employees and a TCR of 1.1

Molecular Imaging - Crystal Growth Facility has fewer employees than the PET (positron emission tomography) scann median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 1.1. 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 4.4 2.2 3 1 0
2023 1.1 0.0 1 0 0
2022 4.8 1.6 3 0 0
2021 1.8 0.0 0 1 0
2020 4.9 1.6 3 0 0
2019 2.9 2.9 1 0 0
2018 7.1 7.1 2 0 0
2017 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2016 0.0 0.0 0 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

334510 · TN · Rockford

242 PET (positron emission tomography) scanners manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 10,743 rated employers in Tennessee with headcount on file · 11 employers in Rockford, TN · 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 Sumitomo (SHI) Cryogenics of America, Inc. 3.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR Bio-Detek 3.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR DeVilbiss Healthcare 2.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR CRM Minnetonka MN 3.2 TCR
STATE-SIZE Sweetwater Utilities Board 54 FTE
STATE-SIZE CEMC-Clarksville Annex 54 FTE
STATE-SIZE McIntosh 54 FTE
STATE-SIZE ROBERTSON CO - CNR274 54 FTE
CITY-NEAR Flex-N-Gate 437 FTE
CITY-NEAR Flex-N-Gate Rockford Inc 268 FTE
CITY-NEAR 207 - KNOXVILLE 147 FTE
CITY-NEAR AESSEAL 127 FTE
NAT-TCR Stonecrest Store #1709 3.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Crown Lift Trucks Joliet 3.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Billings Clinic Downtown Campus 3.0 TCR
NAT-TCR J & M Manufacturing Co., Inc. 3.0 TCR
NAT-SIZE Casa Verde 54 FTE
NAT-SIZE Palco Connector 54 FTE
NAT-SIZE GRB 54 FTE
NAT-SIZE Universal Climate Control Inc. 54 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, 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.