Physical therapy offices (e.g., centers, clinics) · South Carolina

Progressive Physical Therapy

Columbia, SC · ~62 workers · 4 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

B
Good Safety Record
2.3
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Progressive Physical Therapy runs at 59% of its industry's injury rate - safer than the typical Physical therapy offices (e.g., centers, clinics) workplace, earning a grade B.

Progressive Physical Therapy: 2.3 TCR = 59% of Physical therapy offices (e.g., centers, clinics) BLS 3.8 · 4y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Progressive Physical Therapy safety composite

Progressive Physical Therapy scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 76% 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

67/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
C 2.25 per 100 workers

Safer than 69% 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

−1.9

2018→2021

Progressive Physical Therapy injury rate improved

Progressive Physical Therapy's TCR fell 1.9 from 1.9 in 2018 to 0.0 in 2021. Peak filing year was 2020 at 5.0 TCR. In 2021, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2018=1.9 · 2019=2.1 · 2020=5.0 · 2021=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 621340 · Columbia, SC AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade B · TCR 2.3 · 59% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #1/6
  • PHOTO Rehabilitation
  • BOOK 4y book
  • INJ 4 inj
  • SIZE ~62 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Rehabilitation (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Progressive Physical Therapy in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Progressive Physical Therapy averages 2.3 TCR (59% of the Physical therapy offices (e.g., centers, clinics) BLS benchmark).

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

Progressive Physical Therapy TCR series: 2018=1.9 · 2019=2.1 · 2020=5 · 2021=0 · BLS 3.8

Where Progressive Physical Therapy falls in its industry

220 Physical therapy offices (e.g. establishments

Safer than 69% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.7.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to South Carolina alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #1 safest of 6 Physical therapy offices (e.g. employers in South Carolina.

Progressive Physical Therapy (62 employees, TCR 2.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 61 employees and a TCR of 3.7 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 05001,0001,500 0102030 Average employees Total Case Rate Progressive Physical Therapy
Progressive Physical Therapy (62 employees, TCR 2.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 61 employees and a TCR of 3.7

Progressive Physical Therapy has more employees than the Physical therapy offices (e.g., centers, median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.7. 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
2021 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2020 5.0 2.5 2 0 0
2019 2.1 0.0 1 0 0
2018 1.9 1.9 1 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

621340 · SC · Columbia

220 Physical therapy offices (e.g., centers, clinics) employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 7,610 rated employers in South Carolina with headcount on file · 542 employers in Columbia, 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 Rehabilitation 2.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR 2253-A748B 2.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Northfield Hospital + Clinics- Rehabilitation Services Northfield 2.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR FV JN Opt Rehab - Maplewood 2.2 TCR
STATE-SIZE Contract Construction inc. 62 FTE
STATE-SIZE Three Oaks Contractors Inc. 62 FTE
STATE-SIZE Chandler Construction Services, Inc. 62 FTE
STATE-SIZE Mount Valley Greenville 62 FTE
CITY-NEAR Palmetto Health Richland 5,949 FTE
CITY-NEAR Prisma Health Richland 4,729 FTE
CITY-NEAR South Carolina Department of Transportation 4,400 FTE
CITY-NEAR SC Department of Transportation 3,864 FTE
NAT-TCR 7190-Enphg-Chatham University 2.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Saybrook Converting Center 2.3 TCR
NAT-TCR ADS Logistics Co, LLC - Portage 2.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Materion - Reading 2.3 TCR
NAT-SIZE Woodland Elementary 62 FTE
NAT-SIZE Ports America Boston 62 FTE
NAT-SIZE Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc. Sturtevant 62 FTE
NAT-SIZE R.D. Jones Excavating, Inc. 62 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: 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.