Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
5,189,645Inspections Most recent open 2026-07-16 Last loaded 2026-07-20

OSHA Inspection: DIXON'S PAINTING

Referral inspection · Safety discipline

On , OSHA opened a referral safety inspection of DIXON'S PAINTING in 195 SHORE ROAD, OLD GREENWICH, CT 06870 (NAICS 238160). OSHA activity number 333880623.

Watch Dixon'S Painting — free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Dixon'S Painting is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Establishment
DIXON'S PAINTING
Site address
195 SHORE ROAD
City
OLD GREENWICH
State
CT
ZIP
06870
Mailing
13 RENZULLI ROAD, NORWALK, CT 06851
Inspection type
Referral (C)
Scope
Partial (B)
Discipline
Safety
Advance notice
No
Union status
B
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
238160
Employees
4
Ownership type
A

5 citations on file for this inspection.

1926.501 B13

Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Abate by
Penalty
Initial $4200.00 · Current $2520.00 Reduced
29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13):  "Residential construction." Each employee engaged in residential construction activities 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above lower levels shall be protected by guardrail systems, safety net system, or personal fall arrest system unless another provision in paragraph (b) of this section provides for an alternative fall protection measure. Exception: When the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems, the employer shall develop and implement a fall protection plan which meets the requirements of paragraph (k) of 1926.502.  Note: There is a presumption that it is feasible and will not create a greater hazard to implement at least one of the above-listed fall protection systems. Accordingly, the employer has the burden of establishing that it is appropriate to implement a fall protection plan which complies with 1926.502(k) for a particular workplace situation, in lieu of implementing any of those systems.    JOBSITE:   The employees, engaged in installing roofing shingles were not protected from the hazard of falling between 11 feet 3 inches to 18 feet 5 inches to the ground from the low pitched roof (4 in 12 pitch), by use of guardrails and/or personal fall arrest systems, or other equivalent means.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $2520
  • — Z (S) $4200

1926.503 A01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Abate by
Penalty
Initial $3000.00 · Current $1800.00 Reduced
29 CFR 1926.503(a)(1):  The employer did not provide a training program for each employee who might be exposed to fall hazards, to enable each employee to recognize the hazards of falling and the procedures to be followed in order to minimize these hazards.    JOBSITE:   The employees, exposed to the hazard of falling while installing roofing shingles on the low pitched roof (4 in 12 pitch), were not provided with information and training to control or minimize such hazards.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $1800
  • — Z (S) $3000

1926.1060 A

Serious Gravity 5 2 instances 2 exposed
Issued
Abate by
Penalty
Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00
29 CFR 1926.1060(a):  The employer did not provide a training program for each employee using ladders and stairways, which would train each employee in the procedures to be followed to minimize hazards related to ladder and stairways.    JOBSITE:  The employees, using an aluminum extension ladders to have access to upper working levels were not provided with information and training regarding the safe use and handling of the ladders.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1926.1053 B01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Abate by
Penalty
Initial $3000.00 · Current $1800.00 Reduced
29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(1):  Portable ladders were used for access to an upper landing surface and the ladder side rails did not extend at least 3 feet (.9 m) above the upper landing surface to which the ladder is used to gain access:    JOBSITE:  The side rails of the following aluminum extension ladders, used by the employees as a means of access, did not extend at least 3 feet above the upper working levels.    A. The 26 foot aluminum extension ladder.    B. The Werner 22 foot aluminum extension ladder.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $1800
  • — Z (S) $3000

1926.1053 B05 I

Serious Gravity 5 2 instances 2 exposed
Issued
Abate by
Penalty
Initial $3000.00 · Current $1800.00 Reduced
29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(5)(i):  Non-self-supporting ladders were not used at an angle such that the horizontal distance from the top support to the foot of the ladder is approximately one-quarter of the working length of the ladder (the distance along the ladder between the foot and the top support):    JOBSITE:  The horizontal distance from the vertical support to the base of the following aluminum extension ladders, which were used by the employees to access the upper working levels, were greater than one fourth (1/4) of the working length of the ladders.     A. East side of the house; a 26 foot aluminum extension ladder.    B. West side of the house; a Werner 22 foot aluminum extension ladder.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $1800
  • — Z (S) $3000

This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). The original IMIS detail view is available at OSHA's Establishment Search for activity number 333880623.