Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities · Michigan

Sanctuary at the Oaks

Muskegon, MI · ~69 workers · 8 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
9.2
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Sanctuary at the Oaks runs at 241% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities workplace, earning a grade F.

Sanctuary at the Oaks: 9.2 TCR = 241% of Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities BLS 3.8 · 8y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Sanctuary at the Oaks safety composite

Sanctuary at the Oaks scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 61% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 35%), 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

48/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 9.16 per 100 workers

Safer than 35% of industry peers

DART rate
C 2.32 per 100 workers

Safer than 61% 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

−6.4

2016→2024

Sanctuary at the Oaks injury rate improved

Sanctuary at the Oaks's TCR fell 6.4 from 8.8 in 2016 to 2.3 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2017 at 13.4 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.25× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=8.8 · 2017=13.4 · 2018=8.8 · 2019=10.9 · 2020=12.2 · 2022=11.9 · 2023=4.9 · 2024=2.3

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623311 · Muskegon, MI ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 9.2 · 241% of ind

  • DART 2.3 DART
  • RANK #54/97
  • PHOTO Hearth at Glastonbury
  • BOOK 8y book
  • INJ 25 inj
  • SIZE ~69 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Hearth at Glastonbury (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Sanctuary at the Oaks in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Sanctuary at the Oaks averages 9.2 TCR (241% of the Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities BLS benchmark).

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

Sanctuary at the Oaks TCR series: 2016=8.8 · 2017=13.4 · 2018=8.8 · 2019=10.9 · 2020=12.2 · 2022=11.9 · 2023=4.9 · 2024=2.3 · BLS 3.8

Where Sanctuary at the Oaks falls in its industry

4,127 Assisted-living facilities wit establishments

Safer than 35% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 6.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Michigan alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #54 safest of 97 Assisted-living facilities wit employers in Michigan.

Sanctuary at the Oaks (69 employees, TCR 9.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 employees and a TCR of 6.9 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 050100150200250 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Sanctuary at the Oaks
Sanctuary at the Oaks (69 employees, TCR 9.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 employees and a TCR of 6.9

Sanctuary at the Oaks has more employees than the Assisted-living facilities with on-site median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 6.9. 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 2.3 2.3 1 0 0
2023 4.9 2.5 2 0 0
2022 11.9 11.9 2 3 0
2020 12.2 9.7 2 3 0
2019 10.9 10.9 5 0 0
2018 8.8 6.6 4 0 0
2017 13.4 6.7 5 1 0
2016 8.8 4.4 4 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623311 · MI · Muskegon

4,127 Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 16,393 rated employers in Michigan with headcount on file · 230 employers in Muskegon, 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 Hearth at Glastonbury 9.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR PHS - Woodland Hill 9.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Aventura at the Heights 9.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR EILER PLACE 9.2 TCR
STATE-SIZE 4605_10312 69 FTE
STATE-SIZE Masterpiece Flower Company LLC - Merchandising (OH) 69 FTE
STATE-SIZE Public Works City of Wyoming 69 FTE
STATE-SIZE The LaSalle Group Inc 69 FTE
CITY-NEAR Mercy Health Partners - Sherman Campus 3,461 FTE
CITY-NEAR Mercy Health Partners-1500 E Sherman BLVD-MH-MI 2,598 FTE
CITY-NEAR Mercy Health Partners - Hackley 1,329 FTE
CITY-NEAR Mercy Health Arena 861 FTE
NAT-TCR Far West Recycling - Hillsboro 9.2 TCR
NAT-TCR TXA012 9.2 TCR
NAT-TCR 166800 Sleepys Robbinsville Warehouse 9.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Proliant Dairy - Melrose 9.2 TCR
NAT-SIZE 1026 Capitola Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95062 69 FTE
NAT-SIZE Graham Research Inc. 69 FTE
NAT-SIZE Barboursville Winery, Inc. 69 FTE
NAT-SIZE Tower of Americas 69 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, 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.