Emergency medical transportation services, air or ground · Tennessee

Overton County Ambulance Service

Livingston, TN · ~49 workers · 2 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
7.9
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Overton County Ambulance Service runs at 209% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Emergency medical transportation services, air or ground workplace, earning a grade F.

Overton County Ambulance Service: 7.9 TCR = 209% of Emergency medical transportation services, air or ground BLS 3.8 · 2y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Overton County Ambulance Service safety composite

Overton County Ambulance Service scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 89% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 51%), 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

65/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 7.94 per 100 workers

Safer than 53% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 89% 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

−5.5

2016→2017

Overton County Ambulance Service injury rate improved

Overton County Ambulance Service's TCR fell 5.5 from 10.7 in 2016 to 5.2 in 2017. Peak filing year was 2016 at 10.7 TCR. In 2017, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=10.7 · 2017=5.2

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 621910 · Livingston, TN ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 7.9 · 209% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #11/28
  • PHOTO ND,Fargo-Sanford Amb…
  • BOOK 2y book
  • INJ 4 inj
  • SIZE ~49 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: ND,Fargo-Sanford Ambulance-Ambulance Services (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Overton County Ambulance Service in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Overton County Ambulance Service averages 7.9 TCR (209% of the Emergency medical transportation services, air or ground BLS benchmark).

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

Overton County Ambulance Service TCR series: 2016=10.7 · 2017=5.2 · BLS 3.8

Where Overton County Ambulance Service falls in its industry

976 Emergency medical transportati establishments

Safer than 53% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 8.3.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Tennessee alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #11 safest of 28 Emergency medical transportati employers in Tennessee.

Overton County Ambulance Service (49 employees, TCR 7.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 72 employees and a TCR of 8.3 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 0200400600 0510152025 Average employees Total Case Rate Overton County Ambulance Service
Overton County Ambulance Service (49 employees, TCR 7.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 72 employees and a TCR of 8.3

Overton County Ambulance Service has fewer employees than the Emergency medical transportation service median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 8.3. 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
2017 5.2 0.0 2 0 0
2016 10.7 2.7 2 2 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

621910 · TN · Livingston

976 Emergency medical transportation services, air or ground employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 10,743 rated employers in Tennessee with headcount on file · 25 employers in Livingston, TN · 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 ND,Fargo-Sanford Ambulance-Ambulance Services 7.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Ambulance Transportation 8.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR Henry County Medical Center EMS 8.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR EMS Ambulance 8.0 TCR
STATE-SIZE Natural Gas Utility District of Hawkins County 49 FTE
STATE-SIZE THOMAS BUILDERS INC 49 FTE
STATE-SIZE Carter Group, LLC 49 FTE
STATE-SIZE Sain Construction Co. 49 FTE
CITY-NEAR Livingston Regional Hospital 296 FTE
CITY-NEAR S0358 LIVINGSTON REG. HOSP 263 FTE
CITY-NEAR Engineered Materials : Livingston 256 FTE
CITY-NEAR Parker Livingston TN 254 FTE
NAT-TCR 0168 - Glendale, Az 7.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Norwalk (Ctnlk) 7.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Quality Cabinets & Counters, Inc. 7.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Holiday Inn Taunton 7.9 TCR
NAT-SIZE AAA Worldwide Transportation 49 FTE
NAT-SIZE Village of Elk Rapids 49 FTE
NAT-SIZE AKA Tree Removal 49 FTE
NAT-SIZE N and R of Mansfield LLC 49 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: 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.