Connecticut Spring and Stamping Safety Record

Farmington, CT · Manufacturing

F

Significantly elevated violation rate. This employer's safety record is among the worst on file.

Last inspected 06/05/2019

Based on public OSHA records. How is this calculated? · Data updated March 2026

According to OSHA enforcement records, Connecticut Spring and Stamping in Farmington, Connecticut has 69 workplace safety violations across 7 inspections, with 46 classified as serious and $29,864 in total penalties. Safety grade: F (significantly elevated violations). OSHA records span 1989 to 2019.

Connecticut Spring and Stamping in Farmington, Connecticut has received an F safety grade, indicating a significantly elevated rate of workplace safety violations compared to other employers. Within the manufacturing industry, this places Connecticut Spring and Stamping among the most frequently cited employers. An F grade is assigned when an employer's weighted violation score exceeds 6.0 per inspection, factoring in the severity of each citation.

46 of the 69 violations on record are classified as serious, meaning OSHA determined they posed a risk of death or serious physical harm. Workers at employers with F safety grades may want to understand their rights under OSHA regulations, including the right to file a complaint about unsafe working conditions without fear of retaliation. Connecticut workers who have been injured on the job may also be eligible for workers' compensation benefits.

9.9 Connecticut Spring and Stamping violations/inspection
vs
4.1 Manufacturing avg
Above industry average
View Manufacturing industry report →
69 Violations
7 Inspections
46 Serious
$29,864 Penalties
Serious?
46 ($29,864)
Other-than-Serious?
23 ($0)
1910.0217 OSHA Standard
Cited in 3 inspections (15 total) since 1989
1910.0215 Abrasive Wheel Machinery
Cited in 3 inspections (7 total) since 1989
1910.0147 Lockout/Tagout — Machines
Cited in 3 inspections (4 total) since 1993
1910.0212 Machine Guarding — General
Cited in 2 inspections (7 total) since 1989
1910.0219 Lockout/Tagout (Energy Control)
Cited in 2 inspections (6 total) since 1989
Violations decreased 100% over the past 5 years (0 recent vs 69 prior).
OSHA initially proposed $53,070 in penalties for Connecticut Spring and Stamping, later reduced to $29,864 — a 44% reduction through informal settlement or contest. Learn how OSHA penalties work.
1910.0217 OSHA Standard
15 citations $12,368
1910.0215 Abrasive Wheel Machinery
7 citations $878
1910.0212 Machine Guarding — General
7 citations $3,000
1910.0219 Lockout/Tagout (Energy Control)
6 citations $2,350
1910.0305 Electrical — Wiring Methods
4 citations $478

Workers' Compensation in Connecticut

Workers injured on the job in Connecticut may be entitled to medical coverage, temporary & permanent disability, death benefits, vocational rehabilitation.

This is general information about workers' compensation laws in Connecticut, not legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney for your specific situation.

Were you injured at Connecticut Spring and Stamping?

This employer has 69 OSHA violations on record, including 46 classified as serious. If you've been hurt on the job, you may be entitled to compensation.

Free case review · No obligation · Confidential

Attorney advertising. Free consultations available in most states. Not legal advice. By submitting, you agree to be contacted about your potential claim.

No workplace accident investigations on file for Connecticut Spring and Stamping in OSHA records.

DateTypeLocationViolationsPenalties
06/05/2019 Referral? Farmington, CT 0 $0
03/20/2017 Planned? Farmington, CT 1 $3,297
10/30/2013 Referral? Farmington, CT 0 $0
11/18/2011 Referral? Farmington, CT 7 $10,287
01/09/2007 Planned? Farmington, CT 27 $8,680
01/21/1993 Referral? Farmington, CT 5 $1,500
11/17/1989 Referral? Farmington, CT 29 $6,100

Improve Your Safety Grade

Links may be affiliate-supported. This does not affect our safety ratings or recommendations.

Injured at Connecticut Spring and Stamping? You may be entitled to compensation. Get Free Case Review