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

Oakmont of Chino Hills

Chino Hills, CA · ~93 workers · 7 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
13.6
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Oakmont of Chino Hills runs at 357% 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.

Oakmont of Chino Hills: 13.6 TCR = 357% of Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities BLS 3.8 · 7y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Oakmont of Chino Hills safety composite

Oakmont of Chino Hills scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 50% 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).

F

31/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 13.57 per 100 workers

Safer than 16% of industry peers

DART rate
D 5.29 per 100 workers

Safer than 35% 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

Oakmont of Chino Hills: 5.8 → 10.6 TCR

Peak year 2019 @ 27.1 TCR · DART/TCR 0.39× in 2024

Oakmont of Chino Hills's TCR rose 4.8 from 5.8 in 2017 to 10.6 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2019 at 27.1 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.39× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623312 · Chino Hills, CA ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 13.6 · 357% of ind

  • DART 5.3 DART
  • RANK #478/635
  • PHOTO Whispering Creek Sen…
  • BOOK 7y book
  • INJ 54 inj
  • SIZE ~93 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Whispering Creek Senior Creek (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Oakmont of Chino Hills in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Oakmont of Chino Hills averages 13.6 TCR (357% 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

Oakmont of Chino Hills TCR series: 2017=5.8 · 2018=10.2 · 2019=27.1 · 2021=20.9 · 2022=15.8 · 2023=4.6 · 2024=10.6 · BLS 3.8

Where Oakmont of Chino Hills falls in its industry

6,510 Assisted-living facilities wit establishments

Safer than 16% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 7.2.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to California alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #478 safest of 635 Assisted-living facilities wit employers in California.

Oakmont of Chino Hills (93 employees, TCR 13.6) 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 Oakmont of Chino Hills
Oakmont of Chino Hills (93 employees, TCR 13.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 49 employees and a TCR of 7.2

Oakmont of Chino Hills 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
2024 10.6 5.3 10 0 0
2023 4.6 1.1 4 0 0
2022 15.8 13.2 12 0 0
2021 20.9 20.9 8 1 0
2019 27.1 14.9 9 11 0
2018 10.2 8.8 7 0 0
2017 5.8 5.8 4 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623312 · CA · Chino Hills

6,510 Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 51,834 rated employers in California with headcount on file · 53 employers in Chino Hills, CA · 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 Whispering Creek Senior Creek 13.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Guilderland 13.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR KRE-BSL HUSKY ROBBINS BROOK OPERATION LLC 13.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Village Concepts of Bothell Riverside East 13.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE Mt. View Farming, Inc. 93 FTE
STATE-SIZE PAC-MAN 93 FTE
STATE-SIZE E A & T 93 FTE
STATE-SIZE Mountain Meadow Mushroom Farms, Inc. 93 FTE
CITY-NEAR People's Care 1,235 FTE
CITY-NEAR 0473 - CHINO HILLS CA WHSE 333 FTE
CITY-NEAR Port logistics Building 16 223 FTE
CITY-NEAR 0316 LOWE S OF CHINO HILLS CA 133 FTE
NAT-TCR Town of Wilmington 13.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Hagerstown MD Panel 13.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Washington Veterans Home 13.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Crescent Crown Distributing_Surprise 13.6 TCR
NAT-SIZE Trans-System Inc - Denver 93 FTE
NAT-SIZE LENSAR, Inc. 93 FTE
NAT-SIZE Coty Of Meriden Fire Department Engine #4 93 FTE
NAT-SIZE City Of Meriden Fire Department #5 93 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, 2019, 2018, 2017. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.