Needles (except hypodermic, phonograph, styli) manufacturing · Connecticut

OGS Technologies, LLC

Cheshire, CT · ~38 workers · 7 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

A
Excellent Safety Record
1.3
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

OGS Technologies, LLC runs at 40% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical Needles (except hypodermic, phonograph, styli) manufacturing workplace, earning a grade A.

OGS Technologies, LLC: 1.3 TCR = 40% of Needles (except hypodermic, phonograph, styli) manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 7y Form 300A (see methodology below)

OGS Technologies, LLC safety composite

OGS Technologies, LLC scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 88% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 50%), 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

74/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
B 1.33 per 100 workers

Safer than 88% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 76% 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%).

TCR Δ

−4.6

2018→2024

OGS Technologies, LLC injury rate improved

OGS Technologies, LLC's TCR fell 4.6 from 4.6 in 2018 to 0.0 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2018 at 4.6 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2018=4.6 · 2019=2.3 · 2020=2.4 · 2021=0.0 · 2022=0.0 · 2023=0.0 · 2024=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 339993 · Cheshire, CT AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade A · TCR 1.3 · 40% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #1/5
  • PHOTO YKK USA Inc
  • BOOK 7y book
  • INJ 3 inj
  • SIZE ~38 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: YKK USA Inc (0.1 TCR gap)

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

OGS Technologies, LLC in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows OGS Technologies, LLC averages 1.3 TCR (40% of the Needles (except hypodermic, phonograph, styli) manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

OGS Technologies, LLC TCR series: 2018=4.6 · 2019=2.3 · 2020=2.4 · 2021=0 · 2022=0 · 2023=0 · 2024=0 · BLS 3.3

Where OGS Technologies, LLC falls in its industry

25 Needles (except hypodermic, ph establishments

Safer than 88% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.1.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Connecticut alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #1 safest of 5 Needles (except hypodermic, ph employers in Connecticut.

OGS Technologies, LLC (38 employees, TCR 1.3) among 17 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 72 employees and a TCR of 3.1 2×2 strategic matrix plotting 18 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 0200400600800 024681012 Average employees Total Case Rate OGS Technologies, LLC
OGS Technologies, LLC (38 employees, TCR 1.3) among 17 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 72 employees and a TCR of 3.1

OGS Technologies, LLC has fewer employees than the Needles (except hypodermic, phonograph, median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.1. 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 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2023 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2022 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2021 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2020 2.4 0.0 0 1 0
2019 2.3 2.3 1 0 0
2018 4.6 4.6 2 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

339993 · CT · Cheshire

25 Needles (except hypodermic, phonograph, styli) manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 7,008 rated employers in Connecticut with headcount on file · 68 employers in Cheshire, CT · 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 YKK USA Inc 1.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR YKK (USA) Inc. Snap and Button Products 1.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR YKK S & B 1.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR ITW Paslode Pocahontas, AR 0.8 TCR
STATE-SIZE Eversource - Massirio Dr 38 FTE
STATE-SIZE JP Maguire Associates, Inc. 38 FTE
STATE-SIZE LaRosa Construction Co., Inc. 38 FTE
STATE-SIZE 104839 - 66.7MW Quinebaug Solar 38 FTE
CITY-NEAR Bozzuto's Inc. 1,617 FTE
CITY-NEAR 88500 1,049 FTE
CITY-NEAR Cheshire Corectional Institution 440 FTE
CITY-NEAR Cheshire 385 FTE
NAT-TCR Bms Cat LLC 1.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Greenfields Turf, Inc. 1.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Hitachi Astemo Electric Motor Systems America, Inc. 1.3 TCR
NAT-TCR City of Chinook 1.3 TCR
NAT-SIZE Masonry Preservation Group, Inc. 38 FTE
NAT-SIZE Raymow Construction Co., Inc. 38 FTE
NAT-SIZE E.L. Shea, Inc. 38 FTE
NAT-SIZE Blackmon Mooring of Tulsa LLC 38 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. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.