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

Spring Arbor of Frederick

Frederick, MD · ~68 workers · 3 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
7.2
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Spring Arbor of Frederick runs at 189% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities workplace, earning a grade D.

Spring Arbor of Frederick: 7.2 TCR = 189% of Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities BLS 3.8 · 3y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Spring Arbor of Frederick safety composite

Spring Arbor of Frederick scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 50% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 20%), 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

40/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 7.19 per 100 workers

Safer than 50% of industry peers

DART rate
F 8.32 per 100 workers

Safer than 20% 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

Spring Arbor of Frederick: 1.8 → 8.3 TCR

Peak year 2023 @ 11.4 TCR · DART/TCR 1.16× in 2024

Spring Arbor of Frederick's TCR rose 6.5 from 1.8 in 2022 to 8.3 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2023 at 11.4 TCR. In 2024, DART was 1.16× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623312 · Frederick, MD ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade D · TCR 7.2 · 189% of ind

  • DART 8.3 DART
  • RANK #47/79
  • PHOTO Artis Senior Living …
  • BOOK 3y book
  • INJ 16 inj
  • SIZE ~68 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Artis Senior Living of Lakeview (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Spring Arbor of Frederick in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Spring Arbor of Frederick averages 7.2 TCR (189% 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

Spring Arbor of Frederick TCR series: 2022=1.8 · 2023=11.4 · 2024=8.3 · BLS 3.8

Where Spring Arbor of Frederick falls in its industry

6,510 Assisted-living facilities wit establishments

Safer than 50% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 7.2.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Maryland alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #47 safest of 79 Assisted-living facilities wit employers in Maryland.

Spring Arbor of Frederick (68 employees, TCR 7.2) 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 Spring Arbor of Frederick
Spring Arbor of Frederick (68 employees, TCR 7.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 49 employees and a TCR of 7.2

Spring Arbor of Frederick 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 8.3 8.3 7 0 0
2023 11.4 10.0 8 0 0
2022 1.8 1.8 1 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623312 · MD · Frederick

6,510 Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 7,213 rated employers in Maryland with headcount on file · 267 employers in Frederick, MD · 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 Artis Senior Living of Lakeview 7.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR CrownPointe of Stevensville 7.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Brookdale Woodstock 7.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Farmington Assisted Living LLC 7.2 TCR
STATE-SIZE Pumphrey Training Center 68 FTE
STATE-SIZE Humphrey Rich Construction Group, Inc. 68 FTE
STATE-SIZE Gradeline Construction Company, Inc. 68 FTE
STATE-SIZE JES Baltimore 68 FTE
CITY-NEAR MD-03 4,250 FTE
CITY-NEAR AstraZeneca Frederick Manufacturing Center 775 FTE
CITY-NEAR AstraZeneca Frederick Manufacturing 711 FTE
CITY-NEAR Thermo Fisher Scientific Frederick, MD (BID - Executive Way) 568 FTE
NAT-TCR Accelerated-Logistics, LLC 7.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Hdc1 amazon 7.2 TCR
NAT-TCR IBS San Bernardino 7.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Wilmington, NC - SEC 7.2 TCR
NAT-SIZE Bham Direct Delivery LLC 68 FTE
NAT-SIZE Dunamis Coalition 68 FTE
NAT-SIZE Dale Commons 68 FTE
NAT-SIZE Total Package Delivery 68 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. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.