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

OSHA Inspection: PEDRO ESPINOZA

Planned inspection · Safety discipline

On , OSHA opened a planned safety inspection of PEDRO ESPINOZA in 330 EMERALD WAY, BRANDON, MS 39047 (NAICS 238130). OSHA activity number 343295499.

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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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 Pedro Espinoza — free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Pedro Espinoza is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Establishment
PEDRO ESPINOZA
Site address
330 EMERALD WAY
City
BRANDON
State
MS
ZIP
39047
Mailing
111 ROLLING HILLS COVE, PHILADELPHIA, MS 39350
Inspection type
Planned (H)
Scope
Complete (A)
Discipline
Safety
Advance notice
No
Union status
B
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
238130
Employees
4
Ownership type
A

5 citations on file for this inspection.

1926.25 A

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Sep 5, 2018
Abate by
Sep 20, 2018
Penalty
Initial $2,217 · Current $2,217
29 CFR 1926.25(a): During the course of construction, alteration, or repairs,  debris was not kept cleared from work areas, passageways, and stairs, in and around buildings or other structures:  (a) Lot #260 - On or about July 13, 2018 employees working on a residential building had wood scrap with sharp nails and other construction materials to accumulate on site.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $2217

1926.100 A

Serious Gravity 1 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Sep 5, 2018
Abate by
Sep 20, 2018
Penalty
Initial $1,663 · Current $1,663
29 CFR 1926.100(a): Employees working in areas where there was a possible danger of head injury from impact, or falling or flying objects, or from electrical shock and burns, were not protected by protective helmets:  (a) Lot #260 - On or about July 13, 2018 employees were exposed to falling tools and other construction materials and were not wearing hard hats.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $1663

1926.300 C

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Sep 5, 2018
Abate by
Sep 20, 2018
Penalty
Initial $2,772 · Current $2,772
29 CFR 1926.300(c): Employees using hand and power tools and exposed to the hazard of falling, flying, abrasive, or splashing objects, or exposed to harmful dusts, fumes, mists, vapors, or gases were not provided with the particular personal protective equipment necessary to protect them from the hazard.  All personal protective equipment did not meet the requirements nor was it maintained according to subparts D and E of this part:  (a) Lot #260 - On or about July 13, 2018 an employee using a pneumatic nail gun was exposed to struck-by hazards of debris due to not using personal protective equipment such as safety glasses.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $2772

1926.501 B13

Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Sep 5, 2018
Abate by
Sep 20, 2018
Penalty
Initial $3,880 · Current $3,880
29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13): 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 other provisions of paragraph (b) of this section used to provide an alternative fall protection measure:   (a) Lot #260 - On or about July 13, 2018 two employees were decking on the roof of a residential house without fall protection exposing employees to a fall of 25 feet to the ground.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $3880

1926.1053 B01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Sep 5, 2018
Abate by
Sep 20, 2018
Penalty
Initial $2,772 · Current $2,772
29 CFR 1926.1053(b)(1): Where portable ladders were used for access to an upper landing surface and the ladder's length allows, the ladder side rails did not extend at least 3 feet (.9 m) above the upper landing surface being accessed:   (a) Lot #260 - On or about July 13, 2018 an extension ladder being used by employees was not extended at least 3 feet above the landing of the roof.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $2772

View Pedro Espinoza'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 343295499.

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