Latest News

What Are the Penalties for Failing to Comply with OSHA Standards in Texas?

August 2025 • Source: Pappas Grubbs Price

OSHA standards

Texas employers are required to comply with the health and safety standards set by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). By strictly adhering to all applicable OSHA standards and regulations – which vary based on industry and company size – employers can not only create a safer workplace, but they can minimize their exposure to heavy financial penalties. 

Penalties for Violations

Penalties vary based on the type of violation, its severity and the likelihood that it will cause harm, among other factors. Generally, violations are categorized as “serious,” “other-than-serious,” “willful” or “repeated.” 

“Serious” and “Other-than-Serious” Violations

For 2025, the maximum penalty for a serious or other-than-serious violation is $16,550 per violation. The same maximum penalty applies for failure to adhere to OSHA’s posting requirements. Further, employers who are cited for a violation can be assessed $16,550 per day for every day that the hazard is not corrected beyond the abatement deadline. 

Minimum penalties for an other-than-serious violation or failure to meet the posting requirements can be as low as $0, while penalties for serious violations start at $1,221 per violation. 

In assessing where a particular offense falls within the penalty range, OSHA looks at the gravity of the violation, among other factors. A high-gravity violation is one that has both a high level of severity and a high probability of causing harm.  

Willful or Repeated Violations

For willful or repeated violations, the maximum penalty jumps to $165,514 per violation. The minimum penalty for violations in these categories is $11,823. 

In the case of a repeated other-than-serious violation, which otherwise would have no initial penalty, a penalty of $472 would be proposed for the first repeat violation. This would climb to $1,182 for the second repeated violation and $2,364 for a third repetition.

Discounts for Small Businesses, Clean Records and Fast Abatements

For certain violations and circumstances, OSHA provides discounts of up to 70% off standard penalty rates for smaller companies, a 15% reduction for companies that fix a hazard quickly and a 20% discount for companies with a clean record. 

Businesses with 25 or fewer employees may be eligible for a 70% penalty reduction. A 30% reduction may be offered to companies with between 26 and 100 employees, while employers with 101 to 250 workers may be granted a 10% reduction. 

Additionally, a 15% reduction is available for employers who correct a hazard within five days of discovery (they may be awarded 10 additional days if they contact their OSHA Compliance Safety and Health Officer within the first five days and explain their corrective action and why they need the additional time). 

Further, employers who have never been inspected by federal OSHA or an OSHA state plan, or who have been inspected in the past five years with no serious, repeat, willful or failure-to-abate violations, can qualify for a 20% penalty reduction.

Reductions are not available when the penalties are assessed for high-gravity serious, willful or repeated violations, or for failure to abate a hazardous situation.  

Compliance Is Key

The best way to avoid costly penalties is to maintain strict compliance with all OSHA regulations and standards that apply to your workplace. OSHA compliance is a complex, ongoing process that involves an understanding of which standards apply to your company; implementing appropriate health and safety programs and procedures; training employees; maintaining proper documentation; and performing regular safety audits to identify and correct any problem areas. By meeting all of your obligations under OSHA, you can minimize the risk of costly penalties while helping to keep your workers safe and healthy. 

The OSHA lawyers at Pappas Grubbs Price PC assist employers with the complex OSHA compliance process and help clients assert their rights throughout the OSHA inspection process. With offices in Houston, Dallas, Austin and San Antonio, our OSHA defense lawyers have successfully represented hundreds of clients in OSHA investigations and litigation, and we are able to perform 24/7 rapid response on-site coordination with our clients, often arriving before the OSHA inspector. For assistance with your OSHA matter, contact Pappas Grubbs Price.

 

Andrew Kaye Obtains Summary Judgment In Supreme Court, Kings County On “Threshold” In Multiple Surgery Case

August 2025 • Source: Gallo Vitucci Klar LLP

Plaintiff, who was 56 years-of-age at the time of the accident, alleged to have sustained a significant low back injury when his vehicle came into contact with our client’s tractor-trailer. As a result, plaintiff underwent multiple low back surgeries, leaving him unable to work and in need of a walking device.

With coverage well into the millions of dollars, this claim posed a significant risk for our clients. In an effort to mitigate that risk, the parties mediated. However, mediation proved unsuccessful, necessitating our motion for summary judgment. Through the motion, we sought dismissal under New York’s Insurance Law § 5102(d). Using carefully secured deposition testimony, medical records and expert affidavits, we are argued plaintiff’s debilitating injuries were not caused by the accident and therefore, were not “serious injuries” within the meaning of the statute.

In opposition, plaintiff submitted multiple affidavits. In our reply, we highlighted numerous flaws in the affidavits, arguing the evidence upon which plaintiff opposed the motion was legally inadequate to overcome our prima facie entitlement to dismissal. The Court obviously found our position availing and dismissed plaintiff’s claim.

Although largely academic, as part of this motion, we also successfully obtained dismissal on behalf of truck’s owner pursuant to the Grave’s Amendment. This decision then led to the Court changing the venue of the case from Kings County to Sullivan County, which was another application made within the motion.

 

Martin Rowe Secures Unanimous Defense Verdict in Dump Truck Injury Case

August 2025 • Source: Gallo Vitucci Klar LLP

Congratulations to Martin Rowe on securing a unanimous defense verdict in a personal injury case tried before the Hon. Francis Ricigliano in Nassau County Supreme Court.

A jury was selected on July 21st, and the case was tried before the Hon. Francis Ricigliano, commencing on July 28th and concluding with a defense verdict on July 30th.

The plaintiff was a member of a Masons Lodge that was undergoing some renovations. Our client owned a landscaping dump truck. At the request of his son-in-law, also a member of the Masons Lodge, our client lent the truck to the Lodge for debris removal. He drove the truck to the Lodge, parked it, and returned home. The Masons had previously used the truck under the same arrangement.

The plaintiff, an electrician by trade, was one of the volunteers at the Lodge that morning. He testified that he was attempting to lower the rear tailgate of the dump truck, which weighs 400–500 pounds, when it detached completely, causing it to fall on him and crush his left hand. The plaintiff alleged that we provided the truck in an unsafe condition and that our client had a duty to remain behind to ensure that those using the truck knew how to operate it.

The plaintiff testified that he had only removed 2 of the four pins holding the gate and “does not remember” if the safety chains were present. Two fellow Masons were called as witnesses, but both gave differing accounts of how the accident happened, also not remembering if the safety chains were present.

The defendant testified that he delivered the truck as he had done before, without incident. All the pins and chains were in place when he left the truck. He stated that he lived one mile from the hall and would have returned to instruct anyone who asked.

The defense called Kevin Tully, B.E. in Mechanical Engineering. Mr. Tully testified that he had inspected the truck and used his photos to explain to the jury the proper functioning of the gate and its components. He testified that the door could only have fallen off if all four pins and both safety chains were removed. If the plaintiff had only removed the top pins, as he claimed, the door would not have fallen off. Mr. Tully also testified that the truck could not have been driven to the hall with the pins and chains already removed, as the gate would have fallen off during transport.

The jury initially asked for the photographs. Shortly thereafter, they delivered a unanimous verdict in favor of the defense.

 

Successful Defense Verdict by Patrick Cooney in Santiago v. 90 Eighth Ave Housing Corp.

July 2025 • Source: Gallo Vitucci Klar LLP

A jury was selected in this matter on July 1st-3rd and tried before the Hon. Peter Sweeney commencing on July 9th and concluding with a damage’s verdict on July 24th.

The plaintiff, Marcus Santiago, a window installer, was injured in the course of his employment when he slipped on algae covered exterior stairs on the property owned by our client 90 Eighth Ave Housing Corp. Plaintiff’s employer, Windows We Are successfully moved to dismiss our clients third party action as the contract lacked indemnity and/or additional insured provisions. The case was originally pled as a structural defect case (the steps were in poor condition) but for some reason plaintiff testified at his deposition that he slipped on algae and the pleadings were never amended.

Liability was tried on July 9th -11th. Prior to summations, the LL 240(1) and 241(6) causes of actions were dismissed. The LL 200 charge was incorporated into the general negligence charge. The judge also granted our application to dismiss the actual notice claim and reserved decision on the constructive notice claim letting it go to the jury. The jury returned a 100% adverse verdict finding constructive notice. I renewed my motion for a directed verdict arguing a lack of evidence. The Judge continued to reserve, directing me to file a post-trial motion on the issue.

A damages trial proceeded on July 14th and was finished on July 18th. Summations and charge proceeded on July 23rd. The jury deliberated for 2 days.

The plaintiff sustained a herniation at L5-S1. Lattuga performed a discectomy and fusion surgery and following a failed surgery Lattuga recommended and adjacent segment surgery at L4-5. Dr. Merola provided a second opinion that adjacent segment surgery was necessary. Plaintiff did not have the second surgery but testified at trial he is going to have it.

Plaintiff also treated for torn lateral ligaments in his ankle. Touliopoulos performed a reconstructive surgery. Following little improvement, a second surgery was suggested. Again, he didn’t have the surgery but testified he is going to have it.

Plaintiff raised his demand to 6.1 million following a $300,000 offer. A high low of $750,000-$2,500,000 was also rejected. Counsel was not interested in negotiating following the liability verdict.

The plaintiff’s economist projected future medical based on an Life Care Plan (LCP) prepared by Carfi as well as lost wages. $2,942,890.00 for future medications and $3,331,107.00 future lost earnings were “black boarded” by the plaintiff’s attorney.

Our experts Dr. Kim (spinal surgeon), Dr. Weinfeld (orthopedic), Dr. Canter (LCP) and Mark Ramnauth (vocational rehabilitation), were very credible witnesses (later confirmed by the jury). During closing, I suggested various amounts totaling close to $600,000.

Plaintiff’s attorney asked for $2,000,000 past pain and suffering and $3,000,000 future pain and suffering. She also requested the amounts “black boarded” by the plaintiff’s attorney for a total of $11,273,997.00

The jury returned a damages verdict awarding nothing for past and future damages; $200,000 for past lost earnings and $125,000 for future lost earnings; $150,000 for past medications and $15,000 for future medications. Total damages are $490,000.00. There was also a $750,000 settlement offer on the table, in addition to a high-low agreement that was discussed but not accepted.

 

Certified for the Front Lines: Brett Wolfson’s OSHA 10 Training Enhances Defense in Construction and Workplace Accident Litigation

July 2025 • Source: Zarwin Baum

In May 2025, Brett Wolfson attended a two-day OSHA 10 training and received his OSHA 10-hour Construction Safety and Health Certification. This enhances his skills for defending construction and workplace accident matters, including products liability accidents that occur at a workplace. Some of the topics covered during Brett’s OSHA 10 training included fall protection, personal protective equipment (PPE), confined spaces, lockout tagout, scaffolding, electricity, housekeeping, power tools, and machine guarding.

OSHA is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Despite its intention of providing a workplace free from recognized hazards, OSHA regulations are frequently used as a sword by skilled plaintiffs’ attorneys to build a case against a defendant. OSHA regulations are also at times used in defending claims where fault of the accident is with the injured plaintiff or plaintiff’s employer.

Employers typically have immunity from direct liability for workplace injuries through the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation law of the employer’s respective state. Plaintiffs’ attorneys search for a 3rd party to name in a lawsuit to seek a recovery beyond the limited compensation provided through Workers’ Compensation benefits, sometimes a contractor and sometimes a product manufacturer. That 3rd party is the insured of the various insurance carriers who retain us.

It is imperative for defense counsel to be capable of identifying relevant OSHA regulations that may play a role in a plaintiff’s case so as to properly investigate and inform companies and insurance carriers of liability, ability to defend, and exposure. Effective defense counsel must understand how OSHA operates with respect to investigations, issuing citations for violations, and disposition and/or resolution of OSHA citations.

Brett can be reached at 1-484-823-9264 and/or [email protected]

 
<< first < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > last >>

Page 6 of 43