Continuing care retirement communities · California

The Watermark at Westwood Village

Los Angeles, CA · ~32 workers · 7 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

C
Average Safety Record
3.3
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

The Watermark at Westwood Village runs at 87% of its industry's injury rate - about level with the typical Continuing care retirement communities workplace, earning a grade C.

The Watermark at Westwood Village: 3.3 TCR = 87% of Continuing care retirement communities BLS 3.8 · 7y Form 300A (see methodology below)

The Watermark at Westwood Village safety composite

The Watermark at Westwood Village scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 87% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 51%), 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).

B

77/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
B 3.3 per 100 workers

Safer than 84% 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%).

TCR Δ

−1.0

2016→2022

The Watermark at Westwood Village injury rate improved

The Watermark at Westwood Village's TCR fell 1.0 from 1.0 in 2016 to 0.0 in 2022. Peak filing year was 2020 at 22.1 TCR. In 2022, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=1.0 · 2017=0.0 · 2018=0.0 · 2019=0.0 · 2020=22.1 · 2021=0.0 · 2022=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623311 · Los Angeles, CA AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade C · TCR 3.3 · 87% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #20/216
  • PHOTO Robin Way
  • BOOK 7y book
  • INJ 2 inj
  • SIZE ~32 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Robin Way (0.0 TCR gap)

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

The Watermark at Westwood Village in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows The Watermark at Westwood Village averages 3.3 TCR (87% of the Continuing care retirement communities BLS benchmark).

Source U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Injury Tracking Application (Form 300A) As of 2026-08-25

The Watermark at Westwood Village TCR series: 2016=1 · 2017=0 · 2018=0 · 2019=0 · 2020=22.1 · 2021=0 · 2022=0 · BLS 3.8

Where The Watermark at Westwood Village falls in its industry

4,127 Continuing care retirement com establishments

Safer than 84% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 6.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to California alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #20 safest of 216 Continuing care retirement com employers in California.

The Watermark at Westwood Village (32 employees, TCR 3.3) 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 Watermark at Westwood Village
The Watermark at Westwood Village (32 employees, TCR 3.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 employees and a TCR of 6.9

The Watermark at Westwood Village has fewer employees than the Continuing care retirement communities median and a lower 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 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2021 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2020 22.1 0.0 1 0 0
2019 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2018 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2017 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2016 1.0 1.0 1 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623311 · CA · Los Angeles

4,127 Continuing care retirement communities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 51,834 rated employers in California with headcount on file · 2,064 employers in Los Angeles, 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 Robin Way 3.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR The Worthington 3.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Brookdale Lakeway 3.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Congregational Home, Inc. 3.3 TCR
STATE-SIZE Schreiner Farms 32 FTE
STATE-SIZE FIVE POINTS T.I.C. 32 FTE
STATE-SIZE OFFICE 32 FTE
STATE-SIZE Brocchini Farms Inc. 32 FTE
CITY-NEAR Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. 50,317 FTE
CITY-NEAR UC Los Angeles 40,333 FTE
CITY-NEAR LADWP 11,717 FTE
CITY-NEAR Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 10,346 FTE
NAT-TCR USM Store #505 3.3 TCR
NAT-TCR SLC Recycling Industries 3.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Electrostatic Spraying Systems, Inc. 3.3 TCR
NAT-TCR US Foods West Virginia 3.3 TCR
NAT-SIZE Hastings MN Thrift Store 32 FTE
NAT-SIZE Bob Melton Truck Service Inc 32 FTE
NAT-SIZE Tucson 1170 32 FTE
NAT-SIZE The Plains Oh Depot 32 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.