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

The Arbors at Stoughton

Stoughton, MA · ~55 workers · 7 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
12.5
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

The Arbors at Stoughton runs at 329% 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.

The Arbors at Stoughton: 12.5 TCR = 329% of Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities BLS 3.8 · 7y Form 300A (see methodology below)

The Arbors at Stoughton safety composite

The Arbors at Stoughton scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% 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

21/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 12.49 per 100 workers

Safer than 19% of industry peers

DART rate
F 25.18 per 100 workers

Safer than 3% 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%).

Rising injury rate

The Arbors at Stoughton: 5.2 → 25.2 TCR

Peak year 2020 @ 60.9 TCR · DART/TCR 2.02× in 2022

The Arbors at Stoughton's TCR rose 19.9 from 5.2 in 2016 to 25.2 in 2022. Peak filing year was 2020 at 60.9 TCR. In 2022, DART was 2.02× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623311 · Stoughton, MA ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 12.5 · 329% of ind

  • DART 25.2 DART
  • RANK #62/80
  • PHOTO REDDING LIFE CARE, LLC
  • BOOK 7y book
  • INJ 15 inj
  • SIZE ~55 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: REDDING LIFE CARE, LLC (0.0 TCR gap)

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

The Arbors at Stoughton in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows The Arbors at Stoughton averages 12.5 TCR (329% 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

The Arbors at Stoughton TCR series: 2016=5.2 · 2017=7.6 · 2018=2.6 · 2019=11.3 · 2020=60.9 · 2021=23.1 · 2022=25.2 · BLS 3.8

Where The Arbors at Stoughton falls in its industry

4,127 Assisted-living facilities wit establishments

Safer than 19% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 6.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Massachusetts alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #62 safest of 80 Assisted-living facilities wit employers in Massachusetts.

The Arbors at Stoughton (55 employees, TCR 12.5) 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 The Arbors at Stoughton
The Arbors at Stoughton (55 employees, TCR 12.5) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 employees and a TCR of 6.9

The Arbors at Stoughton has fewer 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
2022 25.2 25.2 0 11 0
2021 23.1 20.5 3 6 0
2020 60.9 58.3 1 22 0
2019 11.3 2.3 5 0 0
2018 2.6 0.0 1 0 0
2017 7.6 2.5 3 0 0
2016 5.2 5.2 2 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623311 · MA · Stoughton

4,127 Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 10,108 rated employers in Massachusetts with headcount on file · 65 employers in Stoughton, MA · 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 REDDING LIFE CARE, LLC 12.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Arbor Terrace Sudley Manor 12.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Heritage Woods of Dwight 12.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Pacific Retirement Services 12.5 TCR
STATE-SIZE Hollistion, MA 55 FTE
STATE-SIZE COLANTONIO INC 55 FTE
STATE-SIZE Liberty West Construction Services, LLC 55 FTE
STATE-SIZE Boston - #42 55 FTE
CITY-NEAR Amazon Transportation Services : BOS5 1,370 FTE
CITY-NEAR Amazon.com Services LLC - BOS5 1,076 FTE
CITY-NEAR Rentals Unlimited 743 FTE
CITY-NEAR New England Sinai Hospital 433 FTE
NAT-TCR 394743-Law-Sheridan Sta 12.5 TCR
NAT-TCR 162016-Deerfield Po 12.5 TCR
NAT-TCR 5472-NAI-0034-0034-02830 12.5 TCR
NAT-TCR 411564-Columbia Po 12.5 TCR
NAT-SIZE Board of Education - Facilities 55 FTE
NAT-SIZE Riverside Cancer Infusion Center-Newport News 55 FTE
NAT-SIZE HomePlace Special Care at Burlington 55 FTE
NAT-SIZE Weisburg Landscape Maintenance - Office 55 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: 2022, 2021, 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.