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

OSHA Inspection: RICARDO ALAMEDA VASQUEZ

Planned inspection · Safety discipline

On , OSHA opened a planned safety inspection of RICARDO ALAMEDA VASQUEZ in BRAYLEN MANOR: LOT#6, DOUGLASVILLE, GA 30134 (NAICS 238160). OSHA activity number 341823797.

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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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 Ricardo Alameda Vasquez — free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Ricardo Alameda Vasquez is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Site address
BRAYLEN MANOR: LOT#6
City
DOUGLASVILLE
State
GA
ZIP
30134
Mailing
1192 GARDEN PLACE, NORCROSS, GA 30093
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
238160
Employees
3
Ownership type
A

5 citations on file for this inspection.

1926.102 A01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Jan 13, 2017
Penalty
Initial $2,672 · Current $2,672
29 CFR 1926.102(a)(1): Eye and face protective equipment were not used when machines or operations presented potential eye or face injury from physical, chemical, or radiation agents.  (a) Site: Employees using Hitachi Pneumatic Coil Nailer, model no NV45AB2, were not protected from eye injuries while nailing down roof shingles.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $2672

1926.501 B13

Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Jan 13, 2017
Penalty
Initial $3,741 · Current $3,741
29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13): Each employee(s) engaged in residential construction activities 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above lower levels were not protected by guardrail systems, safety net system, or personal fall arrest system, nor were employee(s) provided with an alternative fall protection measure under another provision of paragraph 1926.501(b):   (a) Site: Employees installing roof shingles were exposed to fall hazards of approximately 21.7 feet to the ground below without a Personal Fall Arrest System.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $3741

1926.502 D

Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Jan 13, 2017
Penalty
Initial $3,741 · Current $3,741
29 CFR 1926.502(d): Personal fall arrest systems and their use did not comply with the provisions set forth in paragraphs (1) through (24) of this section:   (a) Site: Employees were using positioning devices, rock climbing harnesses, as a personal fall arrest system and were exposed to fall hazards of approximately 21.7 feet to the ground.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $3741

1926.1053 B01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Jan 13, 2017
Abate by
Feb 9, 2017
Penalty
Initial $2,672 · Current $2,672
29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(1): When portable ladders were used for access to an upper landing surface, 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; or, when such an extension was not possible because of the ladder's length, then the ladder was not secured at its top to a rigid support that will not deflect, and a grasping device, such as a grab rail, was not provided to assist employees in mounting and dismounting the ladder:  (a) Site: Employees were using 32 foot portable extension ladder to gain access to the upper landing surface of a house.  It was only extended approximately 24" above the upper landing surface, exposing employees to falls of approximately 21.7 feet to the ground.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $2672

1926.503 A01

Other-than-serious 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Jan 13, 2017
Abate by
Feb 9, 2017
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1926.503(a)(1): The employer did not provide a training program for each employee potentially 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:  (a) Site: Employees installing roof shingles were exposed to fall hazards of approximately 21.7 feet to the ground and were not provided with fall protection training.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (O) $0

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 341823797.

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