Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
5,189,992Inspections Most recent open 2026-07-18 Last loaded 2026-07-22

OSHA Inspection: JOSE PINTO

Planned inspection · Safety discipline

On , OSHA opened a planned safety inspection of JOSE PINTO in 765 CROSS POINT ROAD, GAHANNA, OH 43230 (NAICS 238130). OSHA activity number 340033745.

What this inspection record means

OSHA opens inspections for many reasons — routine scheduling under a national or local emphasis program, an employee complaint or referral, or a follow-up after a reported injury. Opening or conducting an inspection is not itself an allegation or a finding that this employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.

Watch Jose Pinto — free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Jose Pinto is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Establishment
JOSE PINTO
Site address
765 CROSS POINT ROAD
City
GAHANNA
State
OH
ZIP
43230
Mailing
1027 SMITH ROAD, COLUMBUS, OH 43207
Inspection type
Planned (H)
Scope
Partial (B)
Discipline
Safety
Advance notice
No
Union status
B
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
238130
Employees
5
Ownership type
A

4 citations on file for this inspection.

1903.19 D01

Other-than-serious 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Feb 12, 2015
Abate by
Mar 20, 2015
Penalty
Initial $400 · Current $400
29 CFR 1903.19(d)(1): The employer must submit to the Agency, along with the information on abatement certification required by paragraph (c)(3) of this section, documents demonstrating that abatement is complete for each willful or repeat violation and for any serious violation for which the Agency indicates in the citation that such abatement documentation is required:  a.  The employer has failed to submit abatement certification and documentation within ten days of the abatement date, November 27, 2014, for a violation of 29 CFR 29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13), issued as citation 1, item 3, and described as follows:    Employees were observed working on the top level of an apartment building with open side without fall protection. The employees were exposed to a fall hazard of 30 feet.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (O) $400

1926.404 F06

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 4 exposed
Issued
Nov 6, 2014
Penalty
Initial $2,000 · Current $2,000
29 CFR 1926.404(f)(6): Grounding path. The path to ground from circuits, equipment, and enclosures shall be permanent and continuous.  a. The three extension cords that were plugged into the generator were all missing grounding pins. The employees were exposed to an electrocution hazard.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $2000

1926.405 A02 II I

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 4 exposed
Issued
Nov 6, 2014
Penalty
Initial $2,000 · Current $2,000
29 CFR 1926.405(a)(2)(ii)(I): Flexible cords and cables shall be protected from damage. Sharp corners and projections shall be avoided. Flexible cords and cables may pass through doorways or other pinch points, if protection is provided to avoid damage.  a. The flexible cord had the external insulation stripped away in a 2 inch section of extension cord exposing the internal wires. The employees were exposed to contact with electrical current.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $2000

1926.501 B13

Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Nov 6, 2014
Abate by
Nov 27, 2014
Penalty
Initial $2,800 · Current $2,800
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.  a. Employees were observed working on the top level of an apartment building with open side without fall protection. The employees were exposed to a fall hazard of 30 feet.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $2800

View Jose Pinto's full OSHA safety record →

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 340033745.

Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.