OSHA Inspection: DAMIAN MARTINEZ

Issued

Oct 18, 2023

Abate by

Dec 6, 2023

Penalty

Initial $413 · Current $413

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1903.19(d)(1): The employer did not submit to the Agency documents demonstrating that abatement is complete for each willful or repeat violation and for any serious violation for which the Agency indicates in the citation that such abatement documentation is required for the following instances:   a) On or about October 10, 2023, the employer failed to submit documentation of corrective action for citation 1, item 1 issued on Mach 22, 2023, with an abatement due date of April 17, 2023.  b) On or about October 10, 2023, the employer failed to submit documentation of corrective action for citation 1, item 2 issued on Mach 22, 2023, with an abatement due date of April 17, 2023.

Issued

Mar 22, 2023

Abate by

Apr 17, 2023

Penalty

Initial $10,313 · Current $10,313

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.102(a)(1): The employer did not ensure that each affected employee used 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 about September 30, 2022, on the East and North side of the roof on a single-story residential structure employees were securing shingles with pneumatic nail guns without wearing eye protection.  Damian Martinez was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard 29 CFR 1926.102(a)(1), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1390454, citation number 1, item number 1 and was affirmed as a final order on May 3, 2019, with respect to a workplace located at 104 Beaver Creek Lane in Maumelle, Arkansas.

Issued

Mar 22, 2023

Abate by

Apr 17, 2023

Penalty

Initial $25,781 · Current $25,781

General-duty citation text

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) On or about September 30,2022, on the East and North side of a single-story residential structure, employees were exposed to a greater than 6-foot fall while shingling a roof without using fall protection.