Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities · New York

The Pines at Heartwood

Troy, NY · ~48 workers · 6 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
9.6
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

The Pines at Heartwood runs at 251% 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 Pines at Heartwood: 9.6 TCR = 251% of Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities BLS 3.8 · 6y Form 300A (see methodology below)

The Pines at Heartwood safety composite

The Pines at Heartwood scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 87% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 32%), 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).

C

56/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 9.55 per 100 workers

Safer than 32% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 87% 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%).

The Pines at Heartwood held a steady TCR band

The Pines at Heartwood's TCR held near 0.2 from 7.5 in 2016 to 7.3 in 2022. Peak filing year was 2020 at 18.6 TCR. In 2022, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=7.5 · 2017=2.5 · 2018=15.9 · 2019=5.5 · 2020=18.6 · 2022=7.3

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623311 · Troy, NY ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 9.6 · 251% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #70/98
  • PHOTO Keystone Villa at Do…
  • BOOK 6y book
  • INJ 6 inj
  • SIZE ~48 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Keystone Villa at Douglassville (0.0 TCR gap)

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

The Pines at Heartwood in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows The Pines at Heartwood averages 9.6 TCR (251% 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 Pines at Heartwood TCR series: 2016=7.5 · 2017=2.5 · 2018=15.9 · 2019=5.5 · 2020=18.6 · 2022=7.3 · BLS 3.8

Where The Pines at Heartwood falls in its industry

4,127 Assisted-living facilities wit establishments

Safer than 32% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 6.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to New York alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #70 safest of 98 Assisted-living facilities wit employers in New York.

The Pines at Heartwood (48 employees, TCR 9.6) 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 Pines at Heartwood
The Pines at Heartwood (48 employees, TCR 9.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 employees and a TCR of 6.9

The Pines at Heartwood 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 7.3 0.0 1 1 0
2020 18.6 15.5 0 6 0
2019 5.5 0.0 2 0 0
2018 15.9 0.0 0 6 0
2017 2.5 0.0 0 1 0
2016 7.5 0.0 3 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623311 · NY · Troy

4,127 Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 21,008 rated employers in New York with headcount on file · 97 employers in Troy, NY · 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 Keystone Villa at Douglassville 9.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Opus East Memphis 9.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Brookdale Beavercreek 9.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR The Weils 9.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE Kreher Enterprises LLC 48 FTE
STATE-SIZE SENECA STREET CREW LOCATION-NY04 48 FTE
STATE-SIZE NIAGARA FALLS SERVICE CENTER-NY37 48 FTE
STATE-SIZE Enbridge St. Lawrence Gas - Massena 48 FTE
CITY-NEAR St. Peter's Health Partners/ Samaritan Hospital 2,640 FTE
CITY-NEAR Samaritan Hospital 1,709 FTE
CITY-NEAR Samaritan Hospital-Troy-SPHP-NY 1,466 FTE
CITY-NEAR St. Mary's Hospital- Troy/Seton Health 807 FTE
NAT-TCR Auto Bolt Company 9.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Stop & Shop 100615 9.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Department of Public Works 9.6 TCR
NAT-TCR 6400-SWY-0017-0017-00249 9.6 TCR
NAT-SIZE Price Cutter # 5 48 FTE
NAT-SIZE H&S Towing Service, Inc 48 FTE
NAT-SIZE Oahu Plumbing & Sheet Metal LTD 48 FTE
NAT-SIZE LEX-ODFL 48 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, 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.