Endoscopic equipment, electromedical (e.g., bronchoscopes, colonoscopes, cystoscopes), manufacturing · Minnesota

Olympus Surgical Technologies America

North Brooklyn Park, MN · ~353 workers · 4 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

A
Excellent Safety Record
0.8
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Olympus Surgical Technologies America runs at 24% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical Endoscopic equipment, electromedical (e.g., bronchoscopes, colonoscopes, cystoscopes), manufacturing workplace, earning a grade A.

Olympus Surgical Technologies America: 0.8 TCR = 24% of Endoscopic equipment, electromedical (e.g., bronchoscopes, colonoscopes, cystoscopes), manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 4y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Olympus Surgical Technologies America safety composite

Olympus Surgical Technologies America scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 62% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 31%), 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

48/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
C 0.79 per 100 workers

Safer than 62% of industry peers

DART rate
F 0.81 per 100 workers

Safer than 31% 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

−0.5

2020→2024

Olympus Surgical Technologies America injury rate improved

Olympus Surgical Technologies America's TCR fell 0.5 from 1.3 in 2020 to 0.8 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2020 at 1.3 TCR. In 2024, DART was 1.03× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2020=1.3 · 2022=0.4 · 2023=0.6 · 2024=0.8

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 334510 · North Brooklyn Park, MN AT/BELOW-IND · MID

Grade A · TCR 0.8 · 24% of ind

  • DART 0.8 DART
  • RANK #22/44
  • PHOTO HF Atlanta GA
  • BOOK 4y book
  • INJ 10 inj
  • SIZE ~353 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: HF Atlanta GA (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Olympus Surgical Technologies America in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Olympus Surgical Technologies America averages 0.8 TCR (24% of the Endoscopic equipment, electromedical (e.g., bronchoscopes, colonoscopes, cystoscopes), manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

Olympus Surgical Technologies America TCR series: 2020=1.3 · 2022=0.4 · 2023=0.6 · 2024=0.8 · BLS 3.3

Where Olympus Surgical Technologies America falls in its industry

242 Endoscopic equipment, electrom establishments

Safer than 62% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 1.1.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Minnesota alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #22 safest of 44 Endoscopic equipment, electrom employers in Minnesota.

Olympus Surgical Technologies America (353 employees, TCR 0.8) 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 Olympus Surgical Technologies America
Olympus Surgical Technologies America (353 employees, TCR 0.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 186 employees and a TCR of 1.1

Olympus Surgical Technologies America has more employees than the Endoscopic equipment, electromedical (e. median and a lower 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 0.8 0.8 3 0 0
2023 0.6 0.6 2 0 0
2022 0.4 0.4 1 0 0
2020 1.3 1.0 4 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

334510 · MN · North Brooklyn Park

242 Endoscopic equipment, electromedical (e.g., bronchoscopes, colonoscopes, cystoscopes), manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 15,828 rated employers in Minnesota with headcount on file · 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 HF Atlanta GA 0.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR GEHC : State College PA, HCS 0.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Codonics Inc 0.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR CRM Scottsdale AZ 0.8 TCR
STATE-SIZE 1448 - Lino Lakes 353 FTE
STATE-SIZE Maple Grove 354 FTE
STATE-SIZE J-Berd Mechanical 352 FTE
STATE-SIZE Trident Seafoods-Motley 352 FTE
NAT-TCR Tazewell Grants 0.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Tarjac H20 LLC 0.8 TCR
NAT-TCR 8515, 8568, 8440 KAO Exeter 0.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Town of East Windsor - East Windsor Ambulance Association 0.8 TCR
NAT-SIZE 27 - Dallas 353 FTE
NAT-SIZE Bronson LakeView Hospital 353 FTE
NAT-SIZE 1 Diamond Jo Casino 353 FTE
NAT-SIZE 1473 - Lafayette 353 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, 2020. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.