Sorting, grading, cleaning, and packing of fruits and vegetables · California

Ripaul Sorting

Chowchilla, CA · ~40 workers · 8 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
10.1
Avg TCR
4.5
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Ripaul Sorting runs at 225% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Sorting, grading, cleaning, and packing of fruits and vegetables workplace, earning a grade F.

Ripaul Sorting: 10.1 TCR = 225% of Sorting, grading, cleaning, and packing of fruits and vegetables BLS 4.5 · 8y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Ripaul Sorting safety composite

Ripaul Sorting scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 81% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 7%), 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

44/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 10.12 per 100 workers

Safer than 7% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 81% 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

−6.3

2017→2024

Ripaul Sorting injury rate improved

Ripaul Sorting's TCR fell 6.3 from 18.6 in 2017 to 12.2 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2022 at 29.6 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2017=18.6 · 2018=0.0 · 2019=9.7 · 2020=10.9 · 2021=0.0 · 2022=29.6 · 2023=0.0 · 2024=12.2

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 115114 · Chowchilla, CA ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 10.1 · 225% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #205/236
  • PHOTO Parkdale
  • BOOK 8y book
  • INJ 6 inj
  • SIZE ~40 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Parkdale (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Ripaul Sorting in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Ripaul Sorting averages 10.1 TCR (225% of the Sorting, grading, cleaning, and packing of fruits and vegetables BLS benchmark).

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

Ripaul Sorting TCR series: 2017=18.6 · 2018=0 · 2019=9.7 · 2020=10.9 · 2021=0 · 2022=29.6 · 2023=0 · 2024=12.2 · BLS 4.5

Where Ripaul Sorting falls in its industry

666 Sorting, grading, cleaning, an establishments

Safer than 7% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.2.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to California alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #205 safest of 236 Sorting, grading, cleaning, an employers in California.

Ripaul Sorting (40 employees, TCR 10.1) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 72 employees and a TCR of 3.2 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 05001,0001,5002,000 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Ripaul Sorting
Ripaul Sorting (40 employees, TCR 10.1) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 72 employees and a TCR of 3.2

Ripaul Sorting has fewer employees than the Sorting, grading, cleaning, and packing median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.2. 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
2024 12.2 0.0 1 0 0
2023 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2022 29.6 14.8 1 1 0
2021 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2020 10.9 10.9 1 0 0
2019 9.7 9.7 1 0 0
2018 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2017 18.6 18.6 2 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

115114 · CA · Chowchilla

666 Sorting, grading, cleaning, and packing of fruits and vegetables employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 51,834 rated employers in California with headcount on file · 36 employers in Chowchilla, CA · 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 Parkdale 10.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Hughson Nut, Inc - Leedom Facility 10.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Champion 10.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Wysocki Produce Farm - Paramount Ag 9.9 TCR
STATE-SIZE Stackhouse Brothers 40 FTE
STATE-SIZE PISTACHIO HARVESTING, INC. 40 FTE
STATE-SIZE Watsonville/San Juan Bautista 40 FTE
STATE-SIZE Gomez Growers 40 FTE
CITY-NEAR Valley State Prision -- Inmates 1,438 FTE
CITY-NEAR Pacific Orchard Development Inc 679 FTE
CITY-NEAR AgriLand Farming Co. Inc. 275 FTE
CITY-NEAR Guerrero Labor Contractor 238 FTE
NAT-TCR Iljol - Joliet 10.1 TCR
NAT-TCR Lile International Companies Branch 236 10.1 TCR
NAT-TCR Edwardsville Care Center 10.1 TCR
NAT-TCR Mldeo-Mldiv-El Oro Cattle Co 10.1 TCR
NAT-SIZE Brookdale Union Hills 40 FTE
NAT-SIZE RECON Corporation, Inc. 40 FTE
NAT-SIZE Cargill Animal Nutrition 40 FTE
NAT-SIZE ABF Freight 220 40 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, 2017. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.