Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities · South Carolina

The Palms of Mount Pleasant

Mount Pleasant, SC · ~166 workers · 5 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
18.9
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

The Palms of Mount Pleasant runs at 498% 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 Palms of Mount Pleasant: 18.9 TCR = 498% of Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities BLS 3.8 · 5y Form 300A (see methodology below)

The Palms of Mount Pleasant safety composite

The Palms of Mount Pleasant scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 5%), 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

17/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 18.93 per 100 workers

Safer than 6% of industry peers

DART rate
F 18.02 per 100 workers

Safer than 5% 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 Palms of Mount Pleasant: 2.1 → 23.4 TCR

Peak year 2020 @ 34.4 TCR · DART/TCR 0.95× in 2022

The Palms of Mount Pleasant's TCR rose 21.3 from 2.1 in 2018 to 23.4 in 2022. Peak filing year was 2020 at 34.4 TCR. In 2022, DART was 0.95× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623311 · Mount Pleasant, SC ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade F · TCR 18.9 · 498% of ind

  • DART 18.0 DART
  • RANK #72/76
  • PHOTO Cogir of Mill Creek
  • BOOK 5y book
  • INJ 30 inj
  • SIZE ~166 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Cogir of Mill Creek (0.0 TCR gap)

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

The Palms of Mount Pleasant in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows The Palms of Mount Pleasant averages 18.9 TCR (498% 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 Palms of Mount Pleasant TCR series: 2018=2.1 · 2019=5.6 · 2020=34.4 · 2021=29.1 · 2022=23.4 · BLS 3.8

Where The Palms of Mount Pleasant falls in its industry

4,127 Assisted-living facilities wit establishments

Safer than 6% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 6.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to South Carolina alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #72 safest of 76 Assisted-living facilities wit employers in South Carolina.

The Palms of Mount Pleasant (166 employees, TCR 18.9) 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 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate The Palms of Mount Pleasant
The Palms of Mount Pleasant (166 employees, TCR 18.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 employees and a TCR of 6.9

The Palms of Mount Pleasant has more 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 23.4 18.0 7 6 0
2021 29.1 23.5 4 22 0
2020 34.4 32.1 8 37 0
2019 5.6 1.4 8 0 0
2018 2.1 1.4 3 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623311 · SC · Mount Pleasant

4,127 Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 7,610 rated employers in South Carolina with headcount on file · 55 employers in Mount Pleasant, 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 Cogir of Mill Creek 18.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR LifeStream Complete Senior Living 18.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR The Arbors at Amherst 18.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Rose Arbor & Wildflower Lodge 18.9 TCR
STATE-SIZE West Fraser Newberry 166 FTE
STATE-SIZE 2807-0469 166 FTE
STATE-SIZE 2807-0497 166 FTE
STATE-SIZE 2807-0528 166 FTE
CITY-NEAR Town Hall 719 FTE
CITY-NEAR SSA-COOPER,LLC 694 FTE
CITY-NEAR SSA-ATLANTIC ,LLC 474 FTE
CITY-NEAR WM 4384 263 FTE
NAT-TCR 5472-NAI-0033-0033-00628 18.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Suburban Waste Services 18.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Clinic - Roselawn 18.9 TCR
NAT-TCR The City of Bloomington - Fire Dept 18.9 TCR
NAT-SIZE Windsor Gardens Conv Ctr of Long Beach 166 FTE
NAT-SIZE Delong's, Inc. 166 FTE
NAT-SIZE Azenx - Phoenix 166 FTE
NAT-SIZE Longwood Health and Rehabilitation Center 166 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. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.