Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities · South Carolina

Myrtle Beach Estates

Myrtle Beach, SC · ~44 workers · 5 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
13.5
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Myrtle Beach Estates runs at 356% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities workplace, earning a grade F.

Myrtle Beach Estates: 13.5 TCR = 356% of Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities BLS 3.8 · 5y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Myrtle Beach Estates safety composite

Myrtle Beach Estates scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 87% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 16%), 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

50/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 13.51 per 100 workers

Safer than 16% 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%).

TCR Δ

−33.3

2016→2020

Myrtle Beach Estates injury rate improved

Myrtle Beach Estates's TCR fell 33.3 from 33.3 in 2016 to 0.0 in 2020. Peak filing year was 2016 at 33.3 TCR. In 2020, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=33.3 · 2017=16.4 · 2018=15.3 · 2019=2.6 · 2020=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623311 · Myrtle Beach, SC ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 13.5 · 356% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #66/76
  • PHOTO The Landing of North…
  • BOOK 5y book
  • INJ 24 inj
  • SIZE ~44 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: The Landing of North Haven (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Myrtle Beach Estates in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Myrtle Beach Estates averages 13.5 TCR (356% 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

Myrtle Beach Estates TCR series: 2016=33.3 · 2017=16.4 · 2018=15.3 · 2019=2.6 · 2020=0 · BLS 3.8

Where Myrtle Beach Estates falls in its industry

4,127 Assisted-living facilities wit establishments

Safer than 16% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 6.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to South Carolina alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #66 safest of 76 Assisted-living facilities wit employers in South Carolina.

Myrtle Beach Estates (44 employees, TCR 13.5) 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 Myrtle Beach Estates
Myrtle Beach Estates (44 employees, TCR 13.5) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 employees and a TCR of 6.9

Myrtle Beach Estates has fewer 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
2020 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2019 2.6 0.0 1 0 0
2018 15.3 10.2 5 1 0
2017 16.4 16.4 6 0 0
2016 33.3 12.8 12 1 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623311 · SC · Myrtle Beach

4,127 Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 7,610 rated employers in South Carolina with headcount on file · 244 employers in Myrtle Beach, SC · 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 Landing of North Haven 13.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Wesley Des Moines 13.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Primrose Retirement Community of Gillette 13.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR The Lutheran Church Home of Buffalo, Inc. DBA GreenField Terrace 13.5 TCR
STATE-SIZE 6728-00030023-26 44 FTE
STATE-SIZE Lee Steam Station 44 FTE
STATE-SIZE Lake Marion Maintenance 44 FTE
STATE-SIZE METRO COLUMBIA CREW QUARTERS 44 FTE
CITY-NEAR HCA - Grand Strand Medical Center 1,584 FTE
CITY-NEAR Grand Strand Health 1,257 FTE
CITY-NEAR Founders National Golf, LLC 829 FTE
CITY-NEAR Ocean Lakes Service Corp. 440 FTE
NAT-TCR Lighthouse at Lincoln 13.5 TCR
NAT-TCR AmeriCare Plus - Bedford 13.5 TCR
NAT-TCR The Ranch TN 13.5 TCR
NAT-TCR The Rehabilitation Hospital 13.5 TCR
NAT-SIZE jme of monticello,inc 44 FTE
NAT-SIZE Stephen K Denny, Inc 44 FTE
NAT-SIZE Club Glove 44 FTE
NAT-SIZE Heartland Pella 44 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, 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.