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

San Dimas Retirement Center

San Dimas, CA · ~165 workers · 8 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
13.8
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

San Dimas Retirement Center runs at 363% 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.

San Dimas Retirement Center: 13.8 TCR = 363% of Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities BLS 3.8 · 8y Form 300A (see methodology below)

San Dimas Retirement Center safety composite

San Dimas Retirement Center scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 50% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 3%), 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

20/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 13.8 per 100 workers

Safer than 15% of industry peers

DART rate
F 22.43 per 100 workers

Safer than 3% 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%).

Rising injury rate

San Dimas Retirement Center: 7.8 → 25.1 TCR

Peak year 2024 @ 25.1 TCR · DART/TCR 1.63× in 2024

San Dimas Retirement Center's TCR rose 17.2 from 7.8 in 2017 to 25.1 in 2024. In 2024, DART was 1.63× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623312 · San Dimas, CA ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade F · TCR 13.8 · 363% of ind

  • DART 22.4 DART
  • RANK #484/635
  • PHOTO Aegis of Napa
  • BOOK 8y book
  • INJ 81 inj
  • SIZE ~165 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Aegis of Napa (0.0 TCR gap)

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

San Dimas Retirement Center in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows San Dimas Retirement Center averages 13.8 TCR (363% 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

San Dimas Retirement Center TCR series: 2017=7.8 · 2018=11.3 · 2019=12.7 · 2020=18.5 · 2021=19.9 · 2022=4.4 · 2023=10.6 · 2024=25.1 · BLS 3.8

Where San Dimas Retirement Center falls in its industry

6,510 Assisted-living facilities wit establishments

Safer than 15% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 7.2.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to California alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #484 safest of 635 Assisted-living facilities wit employers in California.

San Dimas Retirement Center (165 employees, TCR 13.8) 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 San Dimas Retirement Center
San Dimas Retirement Center (165 employees, TCR 13.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 49 employees and a TCR of 7.2

San Dimas Retirement Center 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
2024 25.1 22.4 12 7 0
2023 10.6 9.3 8 0 0
2022 4.4 4.4 3 0 0
2021 19.9 19.9 8 10 0
2020 18.5 15.9 15 7 0
2019 12.7 7.6 14 1 0
2018 11.3 9.6 12 1 0
2017 7.8 6.1 9 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623312 · CA · San Dimas

6,510 Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 51,834 rated employers in California with headcount on file · 73 employers in San Dimas, 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 Aegis of Napa 13.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Morningside of Cookeville 13.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Brookdale Senior Living 13.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Waltonwood at Ashburn AL 13.8 TCR
STATE-SIZE Golden State Harvesting, Inc. 165 FTE
STATE-SIZE Kay Dix, Inc. 165 FTE
STATE-SIZE Valley Labor Services Inc 165 FTE
STATE-SIZE ANTIOCH SERVICE CENTER 165 FTE
CITY-NEAR ROCKWELL DRYWALL, INC. 1,302 FTE
CITY-NEAR LOCATION 15008 796 FTE
CITY-NEAR Gilead Sciences, Inc. 686 FTE
CITY-NEAR Raging Waters Los Angeles 473 FTE
NAT-TCR FLJ007 13.8 TCR
NAT-TCR St Joseph Rehab and Nursing Center 13.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Trader Joe's 0509 West Newton 13.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Hallmark Tool & Gage Co., Inc. 13.8 TCR
NAT-SIZE Naval Aviation Museum Foundation, Inc. 165 FTE
NAT-SIZE Fairview Haven, Inc. 165 FTE
NAT-SIZE CTUSA-MP 165 FTE
NAT-SIZE Louis Marson Jr Inc DBA/ Greenwood Mushrooms 165 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.