Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
4,113,118Inspections Most recent open 2026-07-13 Last loaded 2026-07-17

OSHA Inspection: JUAN MANUEL PEREZ VENEGAS

Planned inspection · Safety discipline

On , OSHA opened a planned safety inspection of JUAN MANUEL PEREZ VENEGAS in 10522 OLEADER WAY, PLAIN CITY, OH 43064 (NAICS 238130). OSHA activity number 342602497.

Watch Juan Manuel Perez Venegas — free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Juan Manuel Perez Venegas is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Site address
10522 OLEADER WAY
City
PLAIN CITY
State
OH
ZIP
43064
Mailing
1881 BIG TREE, COLUMBUS, OH 43223
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
6
Ownership type
A

2 citations on file for this inspection.

1926.102 A01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 6 exposed
Issued
Abate by
Penalty
Initial $2173.00 · Current $1521.00 Reduced
29 CFR 1926.102(a)(1): The employer shall ensure that each affected employee uses appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation.  a. On or before August 31, 2017 where an employee was operating a circular saw to cut lumber, the employee's eyes were not protected from flying particles, thereby being exposed to struck-by hazards.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $1521.1
  • — Z (S) $2173

1926.501 B13

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 6 exposed
Issued
Abate by
Penalty
Initial $3259.00 · Current $2281.00 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.  a. On or before August 31, 2017 where an employee was sheathing the roof of a house, the employee was not protected from falls, thereby being exposed to a 10 foot fall hazard.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $2281.3
  • — Z (S) $3259

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 342602497.