Abstract: At approximately 10:10 a.m. on December 28, 2005, Employee #1, a journeyman carpenter, was working in a hotel undergoing renovations. A general contractor had hired his employer as a subcontractor to build and install wooden furniture for over 550 guest rooms. At the time of the accident, Employee #1 was working alone in one of the hotel rooms. He was using a Skil circular saw, model HD5 58560, date code 58711, to make a small opening in an approximately 3 ft by 6 ft laminated board. He had placed the board on a pair of sawhorses and was holding the saw with his right hand while pushing the board down to stabilize it with his left hand. He lifted the lower guard off the saw to put the blade on the line, but released the guard as soon as he started cutting. Employee #1 was finishing the cut when the saw kicked back and struck his left hand, lacerating three fingers and amputating one of them. Afterward, Employee #1 stated that the blade had been getting dull and that he had planned to change it right after that cut; Employee #1 speculated that the kickback might have been the result of the dull blade hitting a mass of glue in the board. According to the manufacturer, the lower guard should have protected the operator even during the kickback unless it was damaged or tied open. Employee #1's foreman indicated that the saw was nearly new and the lower blade guard was not damaged. The code date of the saw, 58711, indicates that it was manufactured on July 11, 2005. The foreman also stated that Employee #1 had been provided with a jigsaw as well as the circular saw, and that--as an experienced carpenter--he must had felt comfortable enough with the cut to choose the circular saw over the jigsaw. The cause of the accident could not be ascertained due to lack of witnesses. However, Employee #1 should have secured the board with vises or other appropriate methods. The saw had two handles and should have been held with both hands, which would have provided more control in cased of a kickback. Moreover, the jigsaw would have been a more appropriate tool for the task. Both the employer and the general contractor were cited for failure to have an effective safety program.