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

OSHA Inspection: JUBENTINO MUNOZ

Planned inspection · Safety discipline

On , OSHA opened a planned safety inspection of JUBENTINO MUNOZ in 4958 PINEHAVEN LANE, ARCOLA, TX 77583 (NAICS 238160). OSHA activity number 346421050.

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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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 Jubentino Munoz — free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Jubentino Munoz is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Establishment
JUBENTINO MUNOZ
Site address
4958 PINEHAVEN LANE
City
ARCOLA
State
TX
ZIP
77583
Mailing
8914 LOCKWOOD DRIVE, HOUSTON, TX 77016
Inspection type
Planned (H)
Scope
Partial (B)
Discipline
Safety
Advance notice
No
Union status
B
Opened
Closing conference
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
238160
Employees
6
Ownership type
A

5 citations on file for this inspection.

1926.100 A

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Feb 2, 2023
Abate by
Mar 1, 2023
Penalty
Initial $2,679 · Current $1,340 Reduced
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) At the jobsite, employees were exposed to struck-by hazards while working from the ground without wearing hard hats.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $1340
  • — Z (S) $2679

1926.102 A01

Serious Gravity 5 2 instances 4 exposed
Issued
Feb 2, 2023
Abate by
Mar 1, 2023
Penalty
Initial $2,679 · Current $1,340 Reduced
29 CFR  1926.102(a)(1):  Eye and face protective equipment were not used when machines or operations presented potential eye or face injury from physical, chemical, or radiation agents:  a) At the jobsite, employees were exposed to struck-by hazards while using a nail gun without wearing eye protection.   b) At the jobsite, an employee was exposed to struck-by hazards while operating a circular saw without wearing eye protection.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $1340
  • — Z (S) $2679

1926.501 B13

Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Feb 2, 2023
Abate by
Mar 1, 2023
Penalty
Initial $4,688 · Current $2,344 Reduced
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:  a) At the jobsite, employees were exposed to a fall hazard of approximately 10-feet and greater while working on the roof of a house without using fall protection.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $2344
  • — Z (S) $4688

1926.1053 B01

Serious Gravity 5 2 instances 4 exposed
Issued
Feb 2, 2023
Abate by
Mar 1, 2023
Penalty
Initial $3,349 · Current $1,696 Reduced
29 CFR  1926.1053(b)(1):  Portable ladders were used for access to an upper landing surface and the ladder side rails did not extend at least 3 feet (.9 m) above the upper landing surface to which the ladder was used to gain access:  a) At the jobsite, employees were exposed to a fall hazard of approximately 10-feet when they used an aluminum ladder at the rear of the house that was not set three feet above the porch roof.   b) At the jobsite, employee were exposed to a fall hazard of approximately 10-feet when they used an aluminum ladder at the rear left side of the house that was not set three feet above the porch roof.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $1696
  • — Z (S) $3349

1926.1053 B05 I

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 4 exposed
Issued
Feb 2, 2023
Abate by
Mar 1, 2023
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR  1926.1053(b)(5)(i):  Non-self-supporting ladders were not used at an angle such than the horizontal distance from the top support to the foot of the ladder way approximately one-quarter of the working length of the ladder (the distance along the ladder between the foot and the top support).  a) At the jobsite, the horizontal distance from the top support to the foot of an aluminum extension ladder was approximately one-half of the working length of the ladder, exposing employees to fall hazards.
Recent events (2)
  • — I (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

View Jubentino Munoz'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 346421050.

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