Retaining wall, masonry (i.e., block, brick, stone), construction · Pennsylvania

Structures Division

Douglassville, PA · ~102 workers · 4 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
10.9
Avg TCR
2.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Structures Division runs at 389% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Retaining wall, masonry (i.e., block, brick, stone), construction workplace, earning a grade F.

Structures Division: 10.9 TCR = 389% of Retaining wall, masonry (i.e., block, brick, stone), construction BLS 2.8 · 4y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Structures Division safety composite

Structures Division scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 9%), 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 10.89 per 100 workers

Safer than 9% of industry peers

DART rate
F 5.85 per 100 workers

Safer than 16% 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

−3.6

2021→2024

Structures Division injury rate improved

Structures Division's TCR fell 3.6 from 12.9 in 2021 to 9.4 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2021 at 12.9 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.54× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2021=12.9 · 2022=9.6 · 2023=11.7 · 2024=9.4

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 238140 · Douglassville, PA ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade F · TCR 10.9 · 389% of ind

  • DART 5.8 DART
  • RANK #44/47
  • PHOTO Clover Construction,…
  • BOOK 4y book
  • INJ 34 inj
  • SIZE ~102 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Clover Construction, Inc. (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Structures Division in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Structures Division averages 10.9 TCR (389% of the Retaining wall, masonry (i.e., block, brick, stone), construction BLS benchmark).

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

Structures Division TCR series: 2021=12.9 · 2022=9.6 · 2023=11.7 · 2024=9.4 · BLS 2.8

Where Structures Division falls in its industry

703 Retaining wall, masonry (i.e., establishments

Safer than 9% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Pennsylvania alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #44 safest of 47 Retaining wall, masonry (i.e., employers in Pennsylvania.

Structures Division (102 employees, TCR 10.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 52 employees and a TCR of 3.9 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 0200400600 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Structures Division
Structures Division (102 employees, TCR 10.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 52 employees and a TCR of 3.9

Structures Division has more employees than the Retaining wall, masonry (i.e., block, br median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.9. 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 9.4 5.8 8 0 0
2023 11.7 8.8 8 0 0
2022 9.6 8.4 8 0 0
2021 12.9 7.8 10 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

238140 · PA · Douglassville

703 Retaining wall, masonry (i.e., block, brick, stone), construction employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 22,692 rated employers in Pennsylvania with headcount on file · 17 employers in Douglassville, PA · 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 Clover Construction, Inc. 10.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Pioneer Masonry Restoration Company 10.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR MAIN OFFICE 11.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR Division 21 Basalt 10.7 TCR
STATE-SIZE Verano PA CPG - Agri-Kind 102 FTE
STATE-SIZE McKee Management Associates, Inc. 102 FTE
STATE-SIZE Bakers Pittsburgh 102 FTE
STATE-SIZE GSM Roofing (Total Company) 102 FTE
CITY-NEAR Redner's Warehouse Market Douglassville 144 FTE
CITY-NEAR Keystone Villa at Douglassville 102 FTE
CITY-NEAR American Crane & Equipment Corporation Plant 1 100 FTE
CITY-NEAR Terra Structures 66 FTE
NAT-TCR Horizon Services - NJ 10.9 TCR
NAT-TCR TXH080 10.9 TCR
NAT-TCR WAS008 10.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Faith Haven Senior Care Centre 10.9 TCR
NAT-SIZE Weatherby, Inc. 102 FTE
NAT-SIZE Central Pet - Algona (Seattle) 102 FTE
NAT-SIZE Hasse Contracting Company Inc 102 FTE
NAT-SIZE Murphy Bros. Trucking & Construction, LLC 102 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. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.