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

Resthaven Maple Woods

Holland, MI · ~93 workers · 5 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
14.2
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Resthaven Maple Woods runs at 374% 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.

Resthaven Maple Woods: 14.2 TCR = 374% of Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities BLS 3.8 · 5y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Resthaven Maple Woods safety composite

Resthaven Maple Woods scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 50% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 10%), 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

22/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 14.21 per 100 workers

Safer than 14% of industry peers

DART rate
F 12.82 per 100 workers

Safer than 10% 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

−3.0

2016→2020

Resthaven Maple Woods injury rate improved

Resthaven Maple Woods's TCR fell 3.0 from 17.2 in 2016 to 14.3 in 2020. Peak filing year was 2018 at 18.3 TCR. In 2020, DART was 0.9× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=17.2 · 2017=9.2 · 2018=18.3 · 2019=12.1 · 2020=14.3

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623312 · Holland, MI ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 14.2 · 374% of ind

  • DART 12.8 DART
  • RANK #182/201
  • PHOTO Richland Woods by Ne…
  • BOOK 5y book
  • INJ 36 inj
  • SIZE ~93 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Richland Woods by New Perspective (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Resthaven Maple Woods in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Resthaven Maple Woods averages 14.2 TCR (374% 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

Resthaven Maple Woods TCR series: 2016=17.2 · 2017=9.2 · 2018=18.3 · 2019=12.1 · 2020=14.3 · BLS 3.8

Where Resthaven Maple Woods falls in its industry

6,510 Assisted-living facilities wit establishments

Safer than 14% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 7.2.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Michigan alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #182 safest of 201 Assisted-living facilities wit employers in Michigan.

Resthaven Maple Woods (93 employees, TCR 14.2) 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 Resthaven Maple Woods
Resthaven Maple Woods (93 employees, TCR 14.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 49 employees and a TCR of 7.2

Resthaven Maple Woods 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
2020 14.3 12.8 9 1 0
2019 12.1 9.1 8 0 0
2018 18.3 12.2 10 2 0
2017 9.2 3.7 4 1 0
2016 17.2 4.9 5 2 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623312 · MI · Holland

6,510 Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 16,393 rated employers in Michigan with headcount on file · 299 employers in Holland, MI · 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 Richland Woods by New Perspective 14.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR WM-HHH2-SPRING ARBOR WILLIAMSBURG 14.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Homeplace of New Bern 14.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Bonaventure of Vancouver LLC 14.2 TCR
STATE-SIZE Trenton Channel Power Point 93 FTE
STATE-SIZE Presque Isle Electric & Gas Coop 93 FTE
STATE-SIZE Michigan UCI 93 FTE
STATE-SIZE 13001 Merriman Rd., Livonia, MI 48150 93 FTE
CITY-NEAR LG Energy Solutions - Holland 1,263 FTE
CITY-NEAR Haworth HQ 1,165 FTE
CITY-NEAR Haworth Office 1,075 FTE
CITY-NEAR PADNOS 912 FTE
NAT-TCR Dialyze Direct OH, LLC 14.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Public Works 14.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Swn 05 14.2 TCR
NAT-TCR West Valley 14.2 TCR
NAT-SIZE Christus St Francis Cabrini Hospital 93 FTE
NAT-SIZE Growers Transplanting, Inc. - Nipomo Farm 93 FTE
NAT-SIZE ASI Durant 93 FTE
NAT-SIZE Pittsburg Tank & Tower Maintenance Co., Inc. 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: 2020, 2019, 2018, 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.