1. Introduction

OSHA's injury-and-illness recordkeeping system is governed principally by 29 C.F.R. Part 1904. For covered employers, the system requires accurate documentation of qualifying work-related injuries and illnesses through:

1. OSHA Form 300 — Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses
2. OSHA Form 300A — Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses
3. OSHA Form 301 — Injury and Illness Incident Report, or an equivalent form.

The purpose is not merely paperwork. OSHA uses these records to identify workplace hazards, evaluate safety programs, target inspections, and determine whether employers are complying with the OSH Act. OSHA expressly states that many employers with 10 or more employees must keep these records, although certain low-risk industries and smaller employers receive exemptions.

A crucial distinction is that recording an injury does not itself establish employer fault, employee fault, an OSHA violation, or workers' compensation entitlement. It means the employer has determined that the case is work-related, is a new case, and satisfies OSHA's recording criteria.

2. Statutory and Regulatory Framework

The principal framework is:

• OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 651–678
• 29 C.F.R. Part 1904
• § 1904.1 — small-employer exemption
• § 1904.2 — partially exempt industries
• § 1904.4 — recording criteria
• § 1904.5 — work-relatedness
• § 1904.6 — new cases
• § 1904.7 — general recording criteria
• §§ 1904.8–1904.11 — special recording situations
• § 1904.29 — forms
• § 1904.30 — multiple establishments
• § 1904.32 — annual summary
• § 1904.33 — retention and updating
• § 1904.35 — employee involvement/access
• § 1904.36 — prohibition against discrimination
• § 1904.39 — fatalities and specified severe injuries
• § 1904.40 — providing records to government representatives
• § 1904.41 — electronic submission.

3. Who Must Maintain OSHA 300 Records?

The basic rule applies to employers required to keep occupational injury and illness records under Part 1904.

Generally, employers with 10 or fewer employees are partially exempt, subject to specified exceptions. Certain industries are also partially exempt because OSHA historically determined that their injury and illness rates are sufficiently low.

However, an exemption from routine recordkeeping does not necessarily mean an employer is exempt from all OSHA reporting obligations.

For example, severe incidents such as:

• work-related fatalities;
• in-patient hospitalizations;
• amputations;
• loss of an eye;

can trigger separate reporting requirements.

4. The Three Principal Forms

A. OSHA Form 300

The Form 300 is the detailed log.

It records information such as:

• employee/job information;
• date of injury or illness;
• location;
• description;
• body part affected;
• classification of case;
• days away from work;
• restricted-work days;
• type of injury or illness.

It provides the employer's case-by-case record.

B. OSHA Form 300A

The Form 300A is the annual summary.

It aggregates:

• total cases;
• deaths;
• cases involving days away;
• cases involving restricted work or job transfer;
• other recordable cases;
• total days;
• injury/illness categories;
• employee and hours-worked information.

Covered employers must review the prior year's log, complete and certify the summary, and generally post the 300A from February 1 through April 30.

C. OSHA Form 301

Form 301 provides more detailed information concerning the individual incident.

An equivalent form can generally be used if it contains the required information.

OSHA requires a Form 301 or equivalent for each recordable injury or illness.

5. The Basic Recording Test

The central question is not:

"Was an employee injured at work?"

Instead, employers should ask:

Step 1 — Is it work-related?

Step 2 — Is it a new case?

Step 3 — Does it satisfy a recording criterion?

Only when the applicable requirements are satisfied does the employer record the case.

6. Work-Relatedness

Under § 1904.5, an injury or illness is generally work-related when an event or exposure in the work environment either caused or contributed to the resulting condition or significantly aggravated a pre-existing condition.

The employer therefore has to examine:

• where the event occurred;
• what the employee was doing;
• whether a workplace exposure existed;
• whether a pre-existing condition was involved;
• whether an exception applies.

Not every medical condition experienced while an employee is physically at work is automatically recordable.

7. New Case Requirement

Under § 1904.6, employers must distinguish between:

New cases

and

Continuations of previously recorded cases.

Generally, a case is treated as a new case when:

• the employee has not previously experienced a recorded injury/illness of the same type affecting the same body part; or
• the employee had completely recovered and a subsequent workplace event/exposure caused the condition to recur.

This prevents employers from counting the same continuing injury as multiple separate cases.

8. General Recording Criteria

Under § 1904.7, a work-related injury or illness generally becomes recordable if it results in one or more of the following:

1. Death
2. Days away from work
3. Restricted work or job transfer
4. Medical treatment beyond first aid
5. Loss of consciousness
6. A significant diagnosed injury or illness

9. Days Away From Work

If a work-related injury causes an employee to miss at least one subsequent day of work, the employer generally records the case as a days-away case.

The day of the injury itself generally is not counted as a day away.

The counting begins on the following day.

OSHA also requires appropriate updating where the eventual number of days becomes known.

10. Restricted Work

A case may be recordable if an employee is:

• restricted from performing one or more routine job functions; or
• transferred to another job because of the injury or illness.

A doctor's restriction can therefore trigger recordability even where the employee continues working.

Importantly, the employee's personal willingness to work does not necessarily eliminate the restriction for OSHA recordkeeping purposes.

11. Medical Treatment Beyond First Aid

Not every medical visit makes a case recordable.

OSHA distinguishes:

First aid

from

Medical treatment.

Certain limited treatments fall within the first-aid exceptions.

By contrast, medical treatment beyond first aid generally triggers recording.

Examples of first-aid-type treatment can include certain:

• nonprescription medications at nonprescription strength;
• minor wound care;
• certain non-serious treatments identified by the regulation.

The precise regulatory definitions must be applied rather than relying on whether the employee visited a doctor.

12. Loss of Consciousness

A work-related loss of consciousness is recordable regardless of how brief it is.

OSHA's guidance emphasizes that "loss of consciousness" means actual unconsciousness, rather than merely feeling dizzy, disoriented, or lightheaded.

13. Significant Diagnosed Injuries

Certain significant injuries must be recorded even if they do not otherwise result in:

• days away;
• restricted work;
• medical treatment beyond first aid; or
• loss of consciousness.

Examples include certain:

• fractures;
• cracked bones;
• punctured eardrums;
• occupational cancers;
• chronic irreversible diseases.

14. Special Categories

OSHA also has special rules concerning:

• needlestick and sharps injuries;
• medical-removal cases;
• occupational hearing loss;
• tuberculosis;
• certain other specifically regulated conditions.

These provisions must be considered separately rather than relying exclusively on the six general criteria.

15. Time Limit for Making the Entry

Generally, a covered employer must record a qualifying injury or illness within seven calendar days after receiving information that the recordable case occurred.

Failure to make the entry on time does not necessarily eliminate the underlying obligation to maintain an accurate record.

That continuing obligation became a particularly important issue in the OSHA recordkeeping litigation discussed below.

16. Five-Year Retention Requirement

Under § 1904.33, employers must retain:

• OSHA 300 Logs;
• privacy-case lists, if applicable;
• OSHA 300A summaries;
• OSHA 301 Incident Reports;

for five years following the end of the calendar year covered by the records.

The five-year period is extremely important in OSHA enforcement.

17. Updating the OSHA 300 Log

During the retention period, the employer must update the OSHA 300 Log when:

• a previously undiscovered recordable injury is identified; or
• the classification, description, or outcome of a previously recorded case changes.

For example:

Employee initially returns to work with no restrictions, but later develops a condition requiring days away from work.

The employer must update the Log appropriately.

OSHA does not generally require the employer to update the 300A or 301 in the same way during the retention period, although updates may be made where appropriate.

18. Annual Review

At the end of each calendar year, covered employers must review the previous year's OSHA 300 Log.

The employer should verify:

• completeness;
• accuracy;
• classification;
• number of days;
• case status.

The employer then prepares the Form 300A.

OSHA specifically requires the employer to correct deficiencies identified during the annual review.

19. Certification

The Form 300A must be certified by a company executive meeting the regulatory definition.

Certification means that the executive is affirming that the summary is reasonably believed to be accurate and complete based on the information available.

Therefore, certification should not be treated as a purely administrative signature.

20. Posting Requirements

The 300A generally must be posted:

February 1 through April 30

in a conspicuous location where employee notices are normally posted.

The posting requirement is designed to give employees access to information concerning the workplace's injury and illness experience.

21. Employee Access

Employees and certain representatives have rights to access OSHA recordkeeping information.

OSHA requires covered employers to provide appropriate records to:

• current employees;
• former employees;
• employee representatives;

subject to the specific access rules.

Authorized government representatives can also request the records.

22. Privacy Cases

Certain cases qualify as privacy concern cases.

In such cases, the employer must protect identifying information as required by § 1904.29.

Examples can involve:

• intimate body parts;
• certain reproductive conditions;
• mental illness;
• HIV infection;
• tuberculosis;
• needlestick injuries involving contaminated materials;
• other categories specified by the regulation.

The purpose is to balance:

employee access to workplace injury information

against

employee privacy.

23. Multiple Establishments

Employers with multiple locations must determine whether separate OSHA 300 Logs are required.

Generally, separate establishments expected to operate for one year or longer have separate records.

Certain short-term establishments receive special treatment.

Centralized recordkeeping can be permitted under specified circumstances if information can be transmitted appropriately and the required records can be produced when necessary.

24. Electronic Submission

OSHA has electronic-submission requirements for certain establishments.

Under the current framework, certain establishments with:

• 100 or more employees in designated high-hazard industries

must electronically submit detailed information from Forms 300 and 301.

Other covered establishments may have obligations to electronically submit Form 300A information.

For establishments covered by the detailed-submission rule, the deadline is generally March 2 of the year following the calendar year covered by the records.

25. Recordkeeping vs. Reporting

These concepts should not be confused.

Recordkeeping

Maintaining OSHA 300, 300A and 301 records.

Reporting

Notifying OSHA about specified serious incidents.

For example, a work-related fatality can require an OSHA report within 8 hours, in addition to the corresponding recordkeeping obligations.

Thus:

Recording an incident does not necessarily satisfy a separate immediate reporting obligation.

26. Accuracy Is a Substantive Requirement

One of the most important legal principles is:

An OSHA 300 Log must be accurate, not merely existent.

An employer cannot avoid liability simply by producing a document labeled "OSHA 300 Log."

Potential violations include:

• failing to record cases;
• recording nonrecordable cases improperly;
• misclassifying cases;
• understating days away;
• incorrectly classifying restricted work;
• failing to update cases;
• providing inaccurate copies to OSHA.

OSHA has specifically emphasized an employer's continuing obligation to maintain accurate records.

27. Case Law 1 — Secretary of Labor v. General Dynamics Corp.

General Dynamics Corp., 15 BNA OSHC 2122 (Rev. Comm'n 1993)

This is one of the foundational OSHA recordkeeping decisions.

The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission addressed the continuing nature of recordkeeping obligations.

The Commission recognized that an employer's obligation to maintain accurate injury and illness records could continue beyond the initial failure to make an entry.

The decision is significant because recordkeeping is treated as an ongoing obligation rather than a one-time administrative event.

OSHA has repeatedly cited General Dynamics as authority for the continuing nature of recordkeeping violations.

Practical lesson

If an employer discovers an old missing OSHA 300 entry during the retention period, it cannot simply say:

"The seven-day deadline has passed, so nothing needs to be done."

The employer should correct the record.

28. Case Law 2 — Secretary of Labor v. Johnson Controls, Inc.

Johnson Controls, Inc., 15 BNA OSHC 2132 (Rev. Comm'n 1993)

The Commission similarly held that inaccurate OSHA injury records could constitute continuing violations.

The Commission reasoned that an inaccurate record continued to violate the employer's obligation until the record was corrected or the applicable retention obligation expired.

Importance

The case establishes an important distinction:

The initial failure and the continued maintenance of an inaccurate record can have separate temporal significance.

This became particularly important in OSHA's interpretation of its six-month citation limitations period.

29. Case Law 3 — AKM LLC v. Secretary of Labor (Volks II)

AKM LLC v. Secretary of Labor, 675 F.3d 752 (D.C. Cir. 2012)

This is perhaps the most famous modern OSHA recordkeeping case.

The employer, Volks Constructors, had allegedly failed to record injuries properly.

The OSHRC treated the recordkeeping violations as continuing violations.

The D.C. Circuit rejected that approach and held that OSHA's six-month statute of limitations under 29 U.S.C. § 658(c) barred citations issued more than six months after the initial failure to record.

Why it mattered

The case created significant tension between:

• OSHA's continuing-obligation interpretation; and
• the D.C. Circuit's interpretation of the OSH Act's limitations period.

OSHA subsequently amended the recordkeeping regulation in 2016 to expressly clarify the continuing obligation to make and maintain accurate records.

Interview point

Volks II should always be mentioned when discussing the statute of limitations for OSHA recordkeeping violations.

30. Case Law 4 — Secretary of Labor v. AKM LLC (Volks I)

AKM LLC, 23 BNA OSHC 1414 (Rev. Comm'n 2011)

Before the D.C. Circuit's Volks II decision, the OSHRC had concluded that OSHA recordkeeping violations could be continuing violations.

The Commission relied upon the principles developed in:

• General Dynamics;
• Johnson Controls.

It concluded that an employer's failure to correct inaccurate or incomplete injury records could continue during the applicable retention period.

Importance

This case demonstrates the judicial conflict that ultimately produced Volks II.

OSHA's later regulatory amendment effectively codified its continuing-obligation position.

31. Case Law 5 — Kaspar Wire Works, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor

Kaspar Wire Works, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, 268 F.3d 1123 (D.C. Cir. 2001)

This case involved hundreds of alleged recordkeeping violations.

OSHA alleged that the employer had failed to record numerous injuries and illnesses.

The evidence showed that:

• the same personnel had been responsible for recordkeeping for years;
• the employer had previously recorded serious injuries;
• a subsequent inspection uncovered a very large number of unrecorded injuries.

The D.C. Circuit upheld findings of willfulness and substantial per-instance penalties.

Legal significance

The case demonstrates that recordkeeping violations can become willful where the employer:

• knows the requirements;
• has experience with the requirements;
• deliberately or consciously disregards them.

Practical lesson

Training failures are one thing.

A documented practice of intentionally excluding recordable injuries is another.

32. Case Law 6 — Secretary of Labor v. Caterpillar, Inc.

Caterpillar, Inc., 15 BNA OSHC 2153 (Rev. Comm'n 1993)

Caterpillar is important in the context of instance-by-instance recordkeeping penalties.

The Commission recognized circumstances in which individual failures to record particular injuries could support separate citation items or penalties.

Importance

An employer should not assume:

"We have one bad OSHA 300 Log, so there can only be one penalty."

Depending on the facts and applicable penalty framework, multiple recordkeeping failures may have separate consequences.

The case is repeatedly referenced in later recordkeeping litigation concerning individual instances.

33. Case Law 7 — Secretary of Labor v. Kohler Co.

Kohler Co., 16 BNA OSHC 1769 (Rev. Comm'n 1994)

Kohler involved numerous recordkeeping violations and is another important authority concerning instance-by-instance treatment.

The Commission's recordkeeping jurisprudence recognizes that OSHA may, depending on the circumstances, identify individual failures to record particular injuries rather than treating an entire defective record as a single violation.

Practical lesson

Employers should evaluate every recordable case individually.

A systemic failure can therefore create substantial cumulative exposure.

34. Case Law 8 — Secretary of Labor v. PSSI

A later OSHRC decision involving recordkeeping reinforced the importance of maintaining accurate records that can be produced to OSHA.

The Commission emphasized that an employer's provision of inaccurate copies of its OSHA 300 Log could violate the requirement to provide records to an authorized government representative.

The decision also reaffirmed that OSHA need not prove that a particular employee was harmed in order to establish a recordkeeping violation.

Practical lesson

Recordkeeping enforcement focuses on the integrity of the required records themselves.

35. Case Law 9 — Union Tank Car Co.

Union Tank Car Co., OSHRC Docket No. 00-0098

The Commission discussed the limitations period and the continuing nature of obligations concerning OSHA-required occupational records.

The decision relied upon General Dynamics and Johnson Controls in recognizing that an uncorrected error or omission in required records could continue until corrected or otherwise no longer subject to the recordkeeping requirement.

Importance

This line of cases illustrates the development of the continuing-violation doctrine before Volks II.

36. Case Law 10 — Hercules, Inc. and Alliant Techsystems, Inc.

Hercules, Inc. and Alliant Techsystems, Inc., OSHRC Docket No. 95-1483

The Commission discussed OSHA's recordkeeping enforcement practice and referenced cases including:

• Kohler;
• Caterpillar;
• General Dynamics.

The case demonstrates the procedural and evidentiary issues that can arise when OSHA alleges large numbers of individual recordkeeping failures.

37. Summary of the Major Cases

38. The Volks Problem and the 2016 Regulatory Amendment

This is an especially important interview topic.

Before Volks II

OSHRC generally regarded inaccurate or missing records as continuing violations.

Volks II

The D.C. Circuit held that OSHA could not use the continuing-violation theory to evade the six-month statutory limitations period.

Afterward

OSHA amended Part 1904 in 2016 to clarify that employers have an ongoing obligation to make and maintain accurate records during the five-year retention period.

The amended framework expressly requires employers to maintain accurate records and update Logs when necessary.

Therefore, modern compliance analysis must account for the post-2016 regulatory text, not simply the pre-2016 case law.

39. Recordkeeping and Willfulness

Recordkeeping violations can be characterized as:

• other-than-serious;
• serious where appropriate;
• repeat;
• willful;
• failure-to-abate,

depending upon the applicable facts and enforcement framework.

A willful violation generally requires more than negligence.

Evidence relevant to willfulness can include:

• prior OSHA citations;
• prior training;
• written policies;
• knowledge of recordability;
• repeated instructions;
• deliberate omission;
• management directives to minimize recordable cases.

Kaspar Wire Works is particularly important here.

40. Anti-Retaliation Considerations

Employers should never discourage employees from reporting injuries.

Section 1904.35 and related provisions prohibit discrimination or retaliation connected to injury reporting and recordkeeping.

Problematic practices may include:

"Do not report injuries because our OSHA rate is too high."

or:

"You will lose your safety bonus if you report an injury."

Such policies can undermine the integrity of the OSHA system.

41. Incentive Programs and OSHA Logs

An employer might have:

"Zero-injury bonus."

This can create pressure against reporting.

A legally safer program should reward:

• hazard identification;
• safety participation;
• corrective-action completion;
• training;
• near-miss reporting;

rather than merely rewarding employees for having no reported injuries.

The goal should be:

accurate reporting + hazard prevention, not suppression of injury reports.

42. Recordkeeping Contractors

Employers sometimes outsource OSHA recordkeeping to:

• HR departments;
• safety consultants;
• payroll companies;
• third-party administrators.

But outsourcing does not eliminate the employer's regulatory responsibilities.

The employer must maintain systems ensuring that the records are:

• accurate;
• timely;
• complete;
• available;
• properly retained.

A contractor's mistake can therefore become the employer's compliance problem.

43. Internal Recordkeeping Workflow

A good compliance system can use the following process:

Step 1 — Employee reports injury

↓

Step 2 — Supervisor documents incident

↓

Step 3 — Safety/HR determines work-relatedness

↓

Step 4 — Determine whether it is a new case

↓

Step 5 — Apply § 1904.7 criteria

↓

Step 6 — Check special rules

↓

Step 7 — Enter Form 300

↓

Step 8 — Complete Form 301

↓

Step 9 — Monitor changing medical/work status

↓

Step 10 — Update Form 300 where required

↓

Step 11 — Conduct annual review

↓

Step 12 — Prepare and certify Form 300A

↓

Step 13 — Post and electronically submit where applicable

44. Common Employer Errors

Error 1 — Recording only severe injuries

OSHA's criteria are broader than hospitalization or surgery.

Error 2 — Treating every doctor's visit as recordable

A medical visit does not automatically mean medical treatment beyond first aid.

Error 3 — Ignoring restrictions

A physician-imposed restriction can trigger recordability.

Error 4 — Failing to update cases

A case's classification can change.

Error 5 — Destroying records after one year

The general retention period is five years.

Error 6 — Assuming an old omission is irrelevant

The continuing obligation to maintain accurate records is critical.

Error 7 — Failing to distinguish recordkeeping from reporting

Some incidents require immediate OSHA reporting in addition to being recorded.

Error 8 — Providing inaccurate records during an inspection

This can create an independent violation.

45. Recordkeeping Audit Checklist

An employer conducting an annual OSHA 300 audit should ask:

Coverage

• Is the establishment required to keep OSHA records?
• Are any exemptions applicable?

Completeness

• Were all reported injuries reviewed?
• Were all recordable cases entered?

Classification

• Were days-away cases properly classified?
• Were restricted-work cases properly classified?
• Was medical treatment correctly distinguished from first aid?

Accuracy

• Are dates correct?
• Are day counts correct?
• Are body parts and injury descriptions accurate?

Updating

• Did any cases change classification?
• Were previously undiscovered cases added?

Forms

• Is every recordable case supported by a Form 301 or equivalent?
• Does the 300A reconcile with the 300 Log?

Posting

• Was the 300A properly posted?

Retention

• Are five years of required records available?

Electronic submission

• Is the establishment subject to OSHA's electronic submission requirements?

Privacy

• Were privacy cases appropriately handled?

Retaliation

• Are employees free to report injuries without retaliation?

46. Hypothetical Example

Assume an employee cuts a hand while operating machinery.

The employee receives:

• cleaning;
• a bandage;
• nonprescription medication;
• no work restriction;
• no days away.

If the treatment falls entirely within OSHA's first-aid provisions and no other recording criterion applies, the incident may not be recordable.

Now change the facts:

The physician prescribes treatment that qualifies as medical treatment beyond first aid.

The case may become recordable.

Change the facts again:

The employee receives first aid but is diagnosed with a fracture.

The significant-injury criterion may make the case recordable even if no days away result.

This illustrates why employers must apply the regulatory criteria rather than relying solely on the severity perceived by a supervisor.

47. Relationship to OSHA Inspections

During an OSHA inspection, the compliance officer can review:

• OSHA 300 Logs;
• 300A summaries;
• 301 reports;
• privacy case information;
• supporting documentation.

OSHA regulations require employers to provide required records to authorized government representatives within the applicable timeframe; § 1904.40 generally requires production within four business hours when requested during an inspection.

48. Why Accurate Logs Matter

Accurate OSHA logs serve at least four functions:

1. Regulatory enforcement

They allow OSHA to identify hazardous workplaces.

2. Employer safety management

Employers can identify recurring hazards.

3. Employee awareness

Employees can understand workplace injury patterns.

4. Government policy

OSHA can use aggregate data to identify industry-wide hazards.

The Supreme Court and federal courts have also recognized the importance of occupational safety records in enforcing the OSH Act.

49. Interview-Style Answer

If asked:

"What are the OSHA 300 Log recordkeeping requirements?"

A strong answer is:

Covered employers must record qualifying work-related injuries and illnesses under 29 C.F.R. Part 1904 using Forms 300, 300A, and 301 or equivalent forms. A case generally must be recorded when it is work-related, is a new case, and meets one of OSHA's recording criteria, such as death, days away from work, restricted work or job transfer, medical treatment beyond first aid, loss of consciousness, or a significant diagnosed injury or illness. Employers generally have seven calendar days to make the entry, must retain the records for five years, must update the OSHA 300 Log during that period when required, and must conduct an annual review and prepare the 300A summary. Certain employers must electronically submit injury data to OSHA. The cases of General Dynamics, Johnson Controls, Volks I, Volks II, and Kaspar Wire Works are particularly important because they address continuing recordkeeping obligations, the statute of limitations, and willful violations.

50. Conclusion

OSHA 300 recordkeeping is fundamentally an accuracy, completeness, timeliness, and transparency obligation.

The employer should remember five core rules:

1. Record every case that meets the regulatory criteria.
2. Do not confuse first aid with medical treatment beyond first aid.
3. Maintain and update the Log throughout the applicable retention period.
4. Retain the required records for five years.
5. Never discourage or retaliate against employees for reporting workplace injuries.

The most important case-law development is the progression from General Dynamics and Johnson Controls, through Volks I and Volks II, to OSHA's post-Volks regulatory clarification. The modern rule expressly emphasizes an employer's continuing responsibility to maintain accurate injury and illness records.

In short:

An OSHA 300 Log is not simply a historical spreadsheet. It is a legally required safety record whose accuracy must be maintained throughout the regulatory retention period.