Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
5,194,531Inspections Most recent open 2026-08-11 Last loaded 2026-08-14

OSHA Inspection: HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH NURSING & REHAB - REGENT CARE CENTER

Fatality or catastrophe inspection · Health discipline

On , OSHA opened a fatality or catastrophe health inspection of HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH NURSING & REHAB - REGENT CARE CENTER in 50 POLIFLY ROAD, HACKENSACK, NJ 07601 (NAICS 623110). OSHA activity number 344865449.

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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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 Hackensack Meridian Health Nursing & Rehab - Regent Care Center for free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Hackensack Meridian Health Nursing & Rehab - Regent Care Center is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Site address
50 POLIFLY ROAD
City
HACKENSACK
State
NJ
ZIP
07601
Mailing
343 THORNALL STREET, EDISON, NJ 08837
Inspection type
Fatality or catastrophe (M)
Scope
Partial (B)
Discipline
Health
Advance notice
No
Union status
Union (A)
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
623110
Employees
265
Ownership type
Private (A)

4 citations on file for this inspection.

1910.134 D01 II

Deleted Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 4 exposed
Issued
Oct 28, 2020
Abate by
Nov 12, 2020
Penalty
Initial $13,494 · Current $0 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(ii): The employer did not select and use a NIOSH-certified respirator in compliance with the conditions of its certification:   a) At the facility, 50 Polifly Road, Hackensack, NJ:  On or about April 29, 2020, and continuing thereafter, employees who were required to work with confirmed and suspected COVID19 residents were required to wear KN95 respirators that did not contain labeling or markings to establish the required certification.
Recent events (3)
  • · J (S) $0
  • · C (S) $13494
  • · Z (S) $13494

1910.134 E01

Deleted Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 17 exposed
Issued
Oct 28, 2020
Abate by
Nov 23, 2020
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator before the employee was required to use the respirator in the workplace:    (a) At the facility, 50 Polifly Road, Hackensack, NJ:    On or about April 29, 2020, and continuing thereafter, the employer required employees to wear KN95 filtering facepiece respirators while providing direct patient care to COVID-19 positive patients.  The employer did not provide medical evaluations to these employees before they were required to use the respirators.
Recent events (3)
  • · J (S) $0
  • · C (S) $0
  • · Z (S) $0

1910.134 F02

Deleted Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 12 exposed
Issued
Oct 28, 2020
Abate by
Nov 23, 2020
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using tight-fitting facepiece respirators were not fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator.    (a) At the facility, 50 Polifly Road, Hackensack, NJ:    On or about April 29, 2020, and continuing thereafter, the employer did not provide initial fit tests for  employees who were required to wear N95 filtering facepiece respirators and KN95 respirators when providing direct patient care to COVID-19 positive patients.
Recent events (3)
  • · J (S) $0
  • · C (S) $0
  • · Z (S) $0

1910.134 K01

Deleted Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 10 exposed
Issued
Oct 28, 2020
Abate by
Nov 23, 2020
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.134(k)(1): Employees who were required to wear respirators did not receive training in the elements required by the standard..     (a) At the facility, 50 Polifly Road, Hackensack, NJ:     On or about April 29, 2020, and continuing thereafter, Employees were required to wear N95 respirators and KN95 respirators while providing direct patient care to COVID-19 positive patients.  The employer did not ensure the employees understood how improper fit, usage and failure to conduct seal checks could compromise the protective effect of the respiratory protection.
Recent events (3)
  • · J (S) $0
  • · C (S) $0
  • · Z (S) $0

This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). OSHA publishes its own view of this case as inspection number 344865449.

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