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

OSHA Inspection: SAFETY CHOICE GENERAL SERVICES, LLC

Referral inspection · Safety discipline

On , OSHA opened a referral safety inspection of SAFETY CHOICE GENERAL SERVICES, LLC in BLDG. 1-4 LAWSON LANE, RIDGEFIELD, CT 06877 (NAICS 238350). OSHA activity number 340761238.

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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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 Safety Choice General Services, LLC — free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Safety Choice General Services, LLC is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Site address
BLDG. 1-4 LAWSON LANE
City
RIDGEFIELD
State
CT
ZIP
06877
Mailing
210 SOUTH KING STREET, DANBURY, CT 06811
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
238350
Employees
3
Ownership type
A

4 citations on file for this inspection.

1910.178 L01 I

Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Aug 31, 2015
Abate by
Sep 25, 2015
Penalty
Initial $2,800 · Current $1,900 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.178(l)(1)(i): The employer did not ensure that each powered industrial truck operator is competent to operate a powered industrial truck safely, as demonstrated by the successful completion of the training and evaluation specified in this paragraph (l).    Worksite: The employer did not ensure through providing training and evaluation that the employee who was required to operate the Traverse all-terrain forklift truck was competent to operate the powered industrial truck safely at all times.      On or about July 02, 2015, the above all-terrain forklift truck, used to elevate a supported working platform rolled backwards and tipped over, causing the elevated work platform to fall to the ground, and an employee sustained injuries from the incident.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $1900
  • — Z (S) $2800

1926.451 F07

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Aug 31, 2015
Abate by
Sep 25, 2015
Penalty
Initial $2,000 · Current $1,200 Reduced
29 CFR 1926.451(f)(7): Scaffolds were not erected, moved, dismantled, or altered, by trained and experienced employees under the supervision and direction of a competent person qualified in scaffold erection, moving, dismantling or alteration:; Such activities were not performed only by experienced and trained employees selected for such work by the competent person.    Worksite: The employer did not ensure that the supported work platform from that employees were required to work was erected under the supervision of a person competent in scaffold erection.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $1200
  • — Z (S) $2000

1926.454 A01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Aug 31, 2015
Abate by
Sep 25, 2015
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1926.454(a)(1): The employer failed to have each employee who performs work while on a scaffold trained regarding the nature of any electrical hazards, fall hazards and falling object hazards in the work area.  Worksite: The employer did not ensure that the employees who were required to work from a supported work platform were trained to recognize the hazards associated with the type of scaffold being used.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1926.451 G01 VII

Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Aug 31, 2015
Abate by
Sep 11, 2015
Penalty
Initial $2,800 · Current $1,900 Reduced
29 CFR 1926.451(g)(1)(vii): Each employee on a scaffold, not otherwise specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(vi) of this section, more than 10 feet (3.1 m) above lower level was not protected from falls by the use of personal fall arrest systems or guardrail systems meeting the requirements of paragraph (g)(4) of this section.    Worksite: The employer did not ensure that the employee who was working from the elevated work platform was protected from fall hazards by the use of guardrails or a personal fall arrest system.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $1900
  • — Z (S) $2800

View Safety Choice General Services, LLC'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 340761238.

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