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

Summerfield Senior Living

Yuba City, CA · ~46 workers · 8 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
18.8
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Summerfield Senior Living runs at 494% 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.

Summerfield Senior Living: 18.8 TCR = 494% of Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities BLS 3.8 · 8y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Summerfield Senior Living safety composite

Summerfield Senior Living scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 50% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 6%), 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

19/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 18.77 per 100 workers

Safer than 6% of industry peers

DART rate
F 11.43 per 100 workers

Safer than 12% 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

Summerfield Senior Living: 11.1 → 42.9 TCR

Peak year 2022 @ 87.8 TCR · DART/TCR 0.61× in 2024

Summerfield Senior Living's TCR rose 31.7 from 11.1 in 2017 to 42.9 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2022 at 87.8 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.61× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623312 · Yuba City, CA ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 18.8 · 494% of ind

  • DART 11.4 DART
  • RANK #561/635
  • PHOTO The Kensington
  • BOOK 8y book
  • INJ 50 inj
  • SIZE ~46 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: The Kensington (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Summerfield Senior Living in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Summerfield Senior Living averages 18.8 TCR (494% 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

Summerfield Senior Living TCR series: 2017=11.1 · 2018=12.8 · 2019=11.1 · 2020=21.1 · 2021=55.8 · 2022=87.8 · 2023=13.5 · 2024=42.9 · BLS 3.8

Where Summerfield Senior Living falls in its industry

6,510 Assisted-living facilities wit establishments

Safer than 6% 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 #561 safest of 635 Assisted-living facilities wit employers in California.

Summerfield Senior Living (46 employees, TCR 18.8) 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 Summerfield Senior Living
Summerfield Senior Living (46 employees, TCR 18.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 49 employees and a TCR of 7.2

Summerfield Senior Living has fewer 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 42.9 11.4 15 0 0
2023 13.5 13.5 5 0 0
2022 87.8 63.1 9 23 0
2021 55.8 41.8 6 14 0
2020 21.1 21.1 5 3 0
2019 11.1 0.0 3 0 0
2018 12.8 0.0 4 0 0
2017 11.1 3.7 3 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623312 · CA · Yuba City

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 · 123 employers in Yuba City, 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 The Kensington 18.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Avamere Sherwood 18.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR The Pearl at Dallas 18.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Carolina Reserve of Durham 18.8 TCR
STATE-SIZE Matteoli Brothers 46 FTE
STATE-SIZE IMR Farms-San Miguel 46 FTE
STATE-SIZE G&G Berry Farms 46 FTE
STATE-SIZE Pitigliano Farm Services, Inc. 46 FTE
CITY-NEAR Yuba City Unified School District 2,348 FTE
CITY-NEAR Sunsweet Growers 660 FTE
CITY-NEAR RMZ Farm Labor Services 609 FTE
CITY-NEAR 1903 462 FTE
NAT-TCR Trader Joe's 0757 Fort Wayne 18.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Crossroads Galvanizing 18.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Molly Maid of Greater Clear Lake 18.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Hospital For Special Care Hartford Satellite 18.8 TCR
NAT-SIZE Branch 3446 - Englewood 46 FTE
NAT-SIZE McDonald's of Chatham 46 FTE
NAT-SIZE Carlie C's IGA #740 46 FTE
NAT-SIZE Potters Industries 46 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.