What Should Texas Construction Companies Know About OSHA’s Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements?

July 2025 • Source: Pappas Grubbs Price

The Department of Energy’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) imposes certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements on Texas construction companies. It is important for construction employers to understand the scope of their recordkeeping and reporting obligations in order to protect themselves from costly fines and other consequences associated with OSHA compliance violations. 

Recordkeeping Requirements

Construction employers with more than 10 employees at any point during a given year are required to keep a record of serious work-related injuries and illnesses. Serious injuries and illnesses are generally defined as those requiring medical treatment beyond first aid, or those that resulted in loss of consciousness, days away from work, restricted work, or transfer to another job. Employers must track these injuries and illnesses using OSHA Form 300: Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses and Form 301: Injury and Illness Incident Report. These records must be maintained at the worksite for at least five years, and each year, from February through April, employers must post a summary of the reportable injuries and illnesses from the previous year. 

Electronic Submission of Injury and Illness Data

Construction employers with a peak of 20 or more employees during a calendar year are required to submit injury and illness data electronically to OSHA using Form 300A: Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses, by March 2 of the following year. This submission must be made whether or not the company had any reportable injuries or illnesses. 

In addition, as of January 1, 2024, employers in certain “high-hazard” industries with 100 or more employees must electronically submit Form 300 and Form 301 data. This requirement applies to certain subsets of the construction industry, including “Foundation, Structure and Building Exterior Contractors”; click here for a full list of industries.

Reporting Fatalities and Severe Injuries

All Texas employers, regardless of size or industry, are required to report a worker fatality to OSHA within eight hours and any severe injuries – including an amputation, loss of an eye, or an in-patient hospitalization – within 24 hours. To report a fatality or severe injury, call the nearest OSHA office, call the OSHA 24-hour hotline at 800-321-6742, or report online. Be prepared to provide the business name, name(s) of impacted employee(s), location and time of the incident, a brief description of what happened, and a contact person with phone number. 

Employers do not have to report events that resulted from a motor vehicle accident on a public street or highway, unless it occurred in a construction work zone. Similarly, deaths and injuries resulting from incidents on a commercial or public transportation system, such as an airplane or bus, do not need to be reported. In addition, hospitalizations for diagnostic testing or observation only need not be reported. 

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.

Justin T. Woods Successfully Argues Traditional and No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment

June 2025 • Source: Pappas Grubbs Price

Shareholder Justin T. Woods has successfully argued a Traditional and No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment, resulting in a dismissal of all claims against the Defendants, a large, national convenience store chain. The suit involved a Plaintiff who tripped and fell over an empty pallet on the floor in front of the check-out counter and sued the store and related entities for claimed personal injuries. Relying on several appellate court decisions which have held a pallet on the floor of a convenience or grocery store is not an unreasonably dangerous condition, the Motion argued that the Plaintiff’s trip was not caused by any dangerous condition and Defendants, therefore, had no duty to either move the pallet or warn Plaintiff of its presence. Moreover, the presence of the pallet was readily apparent, and the Plaintiff should have seen and avoided tripping over it. The Court agreed and granted the Motion, dismissing the suit in its entirety.

Kim Townsend and Andrew Lauri Secure Favorable Outcome in Complex Queens Motor Vehicle Trial

June 2025 • Source: Gallo Vitucci Klar LLP

Kim Townsend & Andrew Lauri of GVK’s Trial Team obtained a trial victory in a contentious unified Queens County motor vehicle case involving lumbar herniations, cervical herniations, cervical fusion surgery, shoulder labral tears and shoulder surgery.

Plaintiff was previously awarded conditional summary judgment against our client on liability, which was affirmed by the Appellate Division, Second Department, which also held that plaintiff’s comparative fault was to be determined by the jury.  At trial, the Court awarded plaintiff a directed verdict on liability and dismissed our affirmative defense of comparative fault right before summations despite the Appellate Court’s decision, and despite dashcam video evidence showing plaintiff travelling at an excessive speed, failing to keep a proper look out, and unsafely changing lanes at the time of the accident.

Kim Townsend argued that, based on the reliable medical evidence, plaintiff’s fusion surgery was entirely unnecessary, and plaintiff’s pre-surgical treatment was steered entirely by his first attorney, before his trial attorneys were retained. The trial narrative echoed complaints of endemic fraud currently permeating our courts.

On summation, plaintiff’s attorneys asked for $6,000,000. While the jury was deliberating, the parties entered in a high/low agreement of $500,000/$1,500,000. After 3 days of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of $250,000.

Briggs Johnson of GVK’s Appellate Practice Group also spent two full days in the Second Department arguing several thorny and hotly contested appellate issues that arose in the middle of trial, including trial court’s decision to strike our affirmative defense of plaintiff’s comparative fault.

Shareholder Justin T. Woods Secures Non-Suit in Response to Motion for Summary Judgment

June 2025 • Source: Pappas Grubbs Price

Shareholder Justin T. Woods has secured a non-suit for our client in response to a Motion for Summary Judgment.

The Plaintiffs were three men who alleged to have been injured on three separate occasions as patrons of a Northgate, College Station bar at the hands of bouncers working on behalf of the bar. Our client was one of these bouncers. Justin moved for Summary Judgment, arguing the claims of two of these Plaintiffs were time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations and that the third Plaintiff had been unable to provide any evidence that it was the actions of our client, in particular, who caused him injuries, if any. The Plaintiffs, rather than respond to the Motion, dismissed all claims against our client.