Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities · Arizona

Mountain View Retirement village

Tucson, AZ · ~80 workers · 5 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
7.2
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Mountain View Retirement village runs at 188% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities workplace, earning a grade D.

Mountain View Retirement village: 7.2 TCR = 188% of Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities BLS 3.8 · 5y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Mountain View Retirement village safety composite

Mountain View Retirement village scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 87% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 48%), 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

62/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 7.16 per 100 workers

Safer than 48% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 87% 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

Mountain View Retirement village: 4.6 → 7.5 TCR

Peak year 2022 @ 20.3 TCR · DART/TCR 0× in 2024

Mountain View Retirement village's TCR rose 2.9 from 4.6 in 2016 to 7.5 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2022 at 20.3 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623311 · Tucson, AZ ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade D · TCR 7.2 · 188% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #58/109
  • PHOTO The Cottages at Lake…
  • BOOK 5y book
  • INJ 31 inj
  • SIZE ~80 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: The Cottages at Lake Park Senior Living (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Mountain View Retirement village in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Mountain View Retirement village averages 7.2 TCR (188% of the Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities BLS benchmark).

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

Mountain View Retirement village TCR series: 2016=4.6 · 2021=1.9 · 2022=20.3 · 2023=1.5 · 2024=7.5 · BLS 3.8

Where Mountain View Retirement village falls in its industry

4,127 Assisted-living facilities wit establishments

Safer than 48% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 6.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Arizona alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #58 safest of 109 Assisted-living facilities wit employers in Arizona.

Mountain View Retirement village (80 employees, TCR 7.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 employees and a TCR of 6.9 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 050100150200250 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Mountain View Retirement village
Mountain View Retirement village (80 employees, TCR 7.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 employees and a TCR of 6.9

Mountain View Retirement village has more employees than the Assisted-living facilities with on-site median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 6.9. 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
2024 7.5 0.0 5 0 0
2023 1.5 1.5 14 0 0
2022 20.3 7.4 8 3 0
2021 1.9 0.0 1 0 0
2016 4.6 4.6 3 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623311 · AZ · Tucson

4,127 Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 9,594 rated employers in Arizona with headcount on file · 1,150 employers in Tucson, AZ · 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 The Cottages at Lake Park Senior Living 7.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Bickford of Lafayette 7.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Morning Pointe of Lenoir City 7.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Silverado Hermann Park - 469 7.2 TCR
STATE-SIZE Ancala Country Club 80 FTE
STATE-SIZE Sundt Generating Station (TPP) 80 FTE
STATE-SIZE Bjerk Builders, LLC 80 FTE
STATE-SIZE OZ Directional Drilling 80 FTE
CITY-NEAR University of Arizona 18,951 FTE
CITY-NEAR Raytheon_Tucson_AZ_Airport Site 9,878 FTE
CITY-NEAR Tucson Medical Center 4,407 FTE
CITY-NEAR U.S. Border Patrol Sector - Tucson 3,989 FTE
NAT-TCR Bear Creek Mountain Resort 7.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Kirby Risk Precision Machining 7.2 TCR
NAT-TCR All Finish Concrete Inc 7.2 TCR
NAT-TCR ITC Services- Moses Lake 7.2 TCR
NAT-SIZE Braintree Facility 80 FTE
NAT-SIZE Randall Bearings, Inc 80 FTE
NAT-SIZE Woodland Elementary School 80 FTE
NAT-SIZE Priority Lexus Virginia Beach 80 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, 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.