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

OSHA Inspection: A TEAM GENERAL CONTRACTING AND DEVELOPMENT, LLC

Referral inspection · Safety discipline

On , OSHA opened a referral safety inspection of A TEAM GENERAL CONTRACTING AND DEVELOPMENT, LLC in 755 LAKEWOOD RD., WATERBURY, CT 06704 (NAICS 238160). OSHA activity number 342039641.

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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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 A Team General Contracting and Development, LLC — free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for A Team General Contracting and Development, LLC is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Site address
755 LAKEWOOD RD.
City
WATERBURY
State
CT
ZIP
06704
Mailing
112 EASTLAWN ST., FAIRFIELD, CT 06824
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
7
Ownership type
A

4 citations on file for this inspection.

1926.501 B11

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Feb 13, 2017
Abate by
Feb 24, 2017
Penalty
Initial $3,259 · Current $2,281 Reduced
29 CFR 1926.501(b)(11): Each employee on a steep roof with unprotected sides and edges 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above lower levels was not protected from falling by guardrail systems with toeboards, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems.  Worksite: The employer did not ensure that the employees working on the high pitched roof of a commercial building under renovation were protected from fall hazards above 6 feet by the use of guardrails, safety nets or personal fall arrest systems.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $2281.3
  • — Z (S) $3259

1926.503 A01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Feb 13, 2017
Abate by
Feb 24, 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.  Worksite: The employer did not ensure that the employees who were exposed to fall hazards while working on the high pitched roof at a height above 6 feet were trained in fall hazards and the procedures to be followed to minimize such hazards.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1926.1053 B01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Feb 13, 2017
Penalty
Initial $2,173 · Current $1,521 Reduced
29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(1): Where (a) portable ladder(s) was/were used for access to an upper level landing surface and the ladder's length did not allow the ladder side rails to extend at least 3 feet (0.9 m) above the upper landing surface being accessed, the ladder was not secured at its top to a rigid support that will not deflect, and/or a grasping device was not provided to assist employees in mounting and dismounting the ladder.   Worksite: The employer did not ensure that the side rails of the multi-purpose type ladder that was used to gain access to the roof at a height of 8 feet 8 inches above the ground extended at least 3 feet above the landing surface.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $1521.1
  • — Z (S) $2173

1926.1053 B05 I

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Feb 13, 2017
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(5)(i): Non-self-supporting ladder(s) were not used at an angle such that the horizontal distance from the top support to the foot of the ladder was approximately one-quarter of the working length of the ladder.  Worksite: The employer did not ensure that the multi-purpose type ladder that was used to gain access to the roof was used at an angle such that the horizontal distance from the top supports to the feet of the ladders was approximately one-quarter of the working length of the ladders (the distance along the ladder between the foot and top support).
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $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 342039641.

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