Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities · South Carolina

The Landings of Georgetown

Georgetown, SC · ~38 workers · 3 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
10.0
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

The Landings of Georgetown runs at 263% 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.

The Landings of Georgetown: 10.0 TCR = 263% of Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities BLS 3.8 · 3y Form 300A (see methodology below)

The Landings of Georgetown safety composite

The Landings of Georgetown scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 57% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 31%), 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

45/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 9.98 per 100 workers

Safer than 31% of industry peers

DART rate
C 2.46 per 100 workers

Safer than 57% 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

The Landings of Georgetown: 0.0 → 14.8 TCR

Peak year 2023 @ 15.2 TCR · DART/TCR 0.25× in 2024

The Landings of Georgetown's TCR rose 14.8 from 0.0 in 2022 to 14.8 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2023 at 15.2 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.25× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623312 · Georgetown, SC ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 10.0 · 263% of ind

  • DART 2.5 DART
  • RANK #70/107
  • PHOTO HP Burlington Proper…
  • BOOK 3y book
  • INJ 11 inj
  • SIZE ~38 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: HP Burlington Properties, LLC (0.0 TCR gap)

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

The Landings of Georgetown in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows The Landings of Georgetown averages 10.0 TCR (263% 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

The Landings of Georgetown TCR series: 2022=0 · 2023=15.2 · 2024=14.8 · BLS 3.8

Where The Landings of Georgetown falls in its industry

6,510 Assisted-living facilities wit establishments

Safer than 31% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 7.2.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to South Carolina alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #70 safest of 107 Assisted-living facilities wit employers in South Carolina.

The Landings of Georgetown (38 employees, TCR 10.0) 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 The Landings of Georgetown
The Landings of Georgetown (38 employees, TCR 10.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 49 employees and a TCR of 7.2

The Landings of Georgetown 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 14.8 2.5 6 0 0
2023 15.2 3.0 5 0 0
2022 0.0 0.0 0 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623312 · SC · Georgetown

6,510 Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 7,610 rated employers in South Carolina with headcount on file · 53 employers in Georgetown, SC · 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 HP Burlington Properties, LLC 10.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR Brookdale Sherwood 10.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR Ivy Park at San Marino 10.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR FM Grande, LLC 10.0 TCR
STATE-SIZE Soli Organic Inc. - Anderson 38 FTE
STATE-SIZE Titan Orchard Management 38 FTE
STATE-SIZE STOREROOM OPERATIONS CENTER 38 FTE
STATE-SIZE Fleet/Radio (Columbia) 38 FTE
CITY-NEAR Georgetown County 765 FTE
CITY-NEAR International Paper - Georgetown Mill 702 FTE
CITY-NEAR 625 311 FTE
CITY-NEAR WM 625 285 FTE
NAT-TCR Benedictine Living Community 10.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Mulberry Martin Transport 10.0 TCR
NAT-TCR OC Delivery Direct, LLC 10.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Yoder Meats 10.0 TCR
NAT-SIZE Interstate Feedlot 38 FTE
NAT-SIZE Northwest Associates 38 FTE
NAT-SIZE HARD Manufacturing Co., Inc. 38 FTE
NAT-SIZE Kempton Construction LLC 38 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.