Industrial robots were introduced in the U.S. workplace in the mid to late twentieth century, with the earliest applications primarily in the automobile manufacturing sector for die casting, spot welding, and material handling.^1–3 The adoption of robots in industry has been rapidly increasing ever since. Globally, the annual count of industrial robots installed increased from 50,000 to 400,000 from 1993 to 2017.⁴ Advancements in science and technology have led to rapid evolvement in the field of robotics. The next generation of professional and personal/domestic service robots emerged in the early 21^st century, with primary applications including inspection and maintenance (Laser Guided Vehicles (LGVs), Automated Guided Vehicles (AGVs), Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), recreation, education, and research).⁵ The latest range of robots, robotic arms for collaborative applications, perform tasks alongside or in close contact with workers, sharing a common task or workspace. The rapid technological developments in the field of robotics are also reflected in their expanding range of work environments and in the changing definitions of robots to accommodate these emerging technologies.⁵ Additionally, with growing adoption of robots across industry sectors, workers may experience increased direct or frequent contact with robotic arms and mobile robots, highlighting the potential value of understanding new safety challenges and opportunities for prevention.⁶

There is a wide range of potential implications for implementing robots in the workplace. A recent study conducted by Lowe, Hayden, Albers and Naber ⁷ reviewed 63 case studies documenting the effects of robots as health/safety interventions in small manufacturing enterprises. A German-based study found evidence for robot exposure leading to a 4% and 5% decline in physical job intensity and disability, respectively.⁸ In most cases, manufacturing automation improved processes and worker productivity, reduced risk factors associated with musculoskeletal disorders, and lowered the cost per affected employee.⁸ While introducing robots in the workplace decreased some hazardous occupational exposures by performing tasks that are repetitive, monotonous, or pose higher risk exposures to workers,⁹ they can also potentially introduce new hazards in the workplace. The first robot-related death was reported in the United States in 1979.¹⁰ The Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI) reported 41 robot-related fatalities during the period from 1992 to 2017.⁵ Most deaths occurred due to struck by or crushing incidents.^11,12 According to U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Severe Injury Reports (SIRs), 77 robot-related incidents led to severe injuries during the period from 2015 to 2022, underscoring gaps in controls such as guards and collision avoidance systems.¹² Recent research in the international/global realm provides evidence for an increased rate of occupational injuries in the initial years of integrating robot applications into industries in developing countries, followed by a rate decline in later stages through safety regulations.^11–13 With robots becoming increasingly commonplace in industrial, commercial, and social settings, so does the potential for robot-related injuries in the workplace.^6,14 Combining proactive and reactive control measures may support safe human robot interactions (HRIs) in the future.

Robot safety standards, such as American National Standards Institute/Robotics Industries Association (ANSI/RIA) R15.06 and R15.08,^15–18exist to help minimize workplace injuries, enhance operational safety, and improve productivity in industrial sectors. Established by the Association for Advancing Automation (A3) in 1982, the R15.06 standard laid the foundation for industrial robot safety in the U.S., evolving through systematic frameworks that emphasize risk assessment and hazard mitigation. Key updates, such as the 1999 edition’s structured hazard assessment framework and the 2012 alignment with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 10218, ^19–22 streamlined compliance for global manufacturers, strengthened safeguarding measures, and introduced guidelines for robotic arms for collaborative applications to work safely alongside humans. The ANSI/A3 R15.08 standard addresses the unique safety challenges posed by industrial mobile robots, focusing on mitigating risks associated with their operation and interaction with human workers. Together, these standards serve as resources for manufacturers, system integrators, and end-users, ensuring that the benefits of robotic technologies are realized without compromising safety or operational efficiency in modern manufacturing environments.

Since 1987, seven studies in the U.S., Germany, Japan, Sweden, South Korea, and Finland have evaluated robot-related fatalities and injuries with the goal of identifying risk factors and the cause of injury or death.^{5,8,11,23–26} While the major focus of these studies was on gaining safety insights through fatality assessments/investigations, relatively fewer studies assessed robot-related injuries in the workplace in the U.S.^5,12 A study by Sanders et al. identified 77 robot-related injuries during the period from 2015 to 2022 using OSHA’s Serious Injury Reports.¹² The study identified hazards that led to robot-related incidents and described the injury type, event, and post-collision mitigation strategies. However, detailed information on robot types, operating conditions, and specific robot hazards was not examined in those studies. Thus, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Center for Occupational Robotics Research (CORR), which was established to address the safety of workers who use, wear, or work near robots, highlighted the role of surveillance and monitoring of injuries related to emerging technologies like robotics and automation to improve workplace safety.

This study used claims data from the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (OHBWC) from 2001 to 2020 to identify and describe robot-related injuries and their costs. Workers’ compensation (WC) claims offer detailed information about injured workers, including the cost, severity, and nature of the injury, along with narratives describing the events and exposures that led to the injury. This study aimed to quantify risk exposures, identify emerging health and safety concerns, and enhance injury prevention through WC claims surveillance. Additionally, this study sought to identify industry-specific safety priorities to help mitigate worker injuries and illnesses related to robot incidents in the workplace.²⁷ Several studies have used the OHBWC claims data to identify risk exposure and prevent injuries, illnesses, and fatalities in multiple sectors, including construction, landscaping, and law enforcement.^28–30 However, robot-related WC claims in the U.S. have not yet been explored. This study builds on the previous body of robot-related injury research by broadly exploring the largest dataset of robot-related injury claims to date (i.e., 1,076 OHBWC claims).

During the period from 2001 to 2020, a total of 1,076 robot-related workers’ compensation claims were identified, with 85.2% being MO claims (n=917). The majority of the claimants were male (n=798, 74.2%; Table 2). Two age groups, 25–34 and 35–44, together contained more than half of all cases filed during this period (n=550, 51.1%). More claims were concentrated in Northeastern (n=369, 34.3%) and Southwestern (n=331, 30.8%) Ohio. The highest percentage of claims (63.6%) were filed in companies with employee counts in the 100–1000 estimated FTE range (n=684).

The number of claims per year varied considerably, ranging from 29 to 90 claims annually (Figure 2). On average, there were approximately 54 claims per year. From 2001 to 2020, the number of robot-related total claims significantly decreased by 51% (p < 0.0001). LT claims significantly decreased by 61% (p < 0.0001), and MO claims decreased by 48% (p = 0.002) (Figure 2).

This study analyzed 20 years of robot-related injury claims in Ohio and presented findings on 1,076 claims. The manufacturing sector in Ohio reported the highest number of robot-related claims, both in terms of claim count and total claim cost. Within this sector, the highest number of claims were reported in the motor vehicle manufacturing industries and the plastic and rubber manufacturing industries where the integration of robotics and automation technologies is increasingly prevalent. The leading occupations identified in this study, such as welders, cutters, solderers, brazers, metal and plastic workers, assemblers and fabricators, industry machine mechanics, and production workers, are predominantly employed within the manufacturing industries. This study also found that more than three-fourths of the reported claims involved worker collaboration with a robot. All these findings indicate that workers in highly automated settings may face additional injury risks associated with human-robot interaction. The industries identified in this study with a high number of claims were also identified in another study where robotic arms for collaborative applications were highly common.^37,38 According to BLS employment statistics, Ohio and Michigan have two of the largest workforces in the motor vehicle and motor vehicle parts manufacturing industries in the United States.³¹ These industries were the first to implement robots in the workplace, possibly reflecting why the manufacturing sector also has the highest robot-related injury and fatality counts in Ohio.⁵

During this 20-year study period, overall robot-related claims significantly decreased, including in the manufacturing sector. This trend points towards multiple changes that have occurred in the robotics industry over the last two decades. ANSI and ISO published robotics safety standards and guidelines in 2006 and 2011.^18,19 These standards guided manufacturing industries to focus on improving robotics safety at the design and implementation phases in the workplaces. Furthermore, the decline in claim count over the two decades also corroborates with the introduction of new robotics safety standards for robotic arms for collaborative applications in 2012 and 2016, perhaps providing evidence of their effectiveness in reducing robot-related injuries. Additionally, advancements in robotics and technological developments over the past decade have likely contributed to improved safety in workplaces that involve robots.

In contrast to the trend observed in the manufacturing sector, the claims in the service sector have risen over the 20-year period, and this trend warrants closer attention. Our study revealed that a significant number of claims from the temporary services industry involved workers employed in the manufacturing settings, highlighting the risks temporary workers face when working with or around robots in manufacturing settings. Temporary workers often face unique challenges, including a lack of familiarity with the workplace and insufficient training on safety.³⁹ The Occupational Safety and Health Administration and NIOSH jointly developed recommended practices for protecting temporary workers, emphasizing the shared responsibility of both staffing agencies and host employers in ensuring the safety of temporary workers.³⁹ Several safety practices such evaluating worksites, training staff, defining safety responsibilities in contracts, conducting safety training, and maintaining communication were recommended to better protect temporary workers.³⁹ The rise in claims may also indicate the development of robots applicable to this services sector and their increasing adoption of robots across various industry groups within this sector. Currently, robot safety standards are primarily focused on the manufacturing industry. Given that the work environment, tasks, activities, risk exposures, and types of robots used in industry groups within the service sector may be different from the manufacturing sector, future efforts may be directed toward developing, defining, and documenting robot safety standards that address the industry groups in the service sector specifically.

This study reveals that there are significant disparities between the frequency of claims and their associated costs. While LT claims accounted for around 15% of all claims, they were responsible for a staggering 91% of total claims costs. Similarly, although falls, slips, and trips comprised only 10.6% of all claims, they contributed to 30% of total claim costs, with the average cost per claim almost three times the overall average cost per claim. Furthermore, the construction sector represented just 1.4% of total claims but accounted for over 15% of total claim costs, resulting in the highest average cost per claim ($85,821). These findings highlight the importance of evaluating these robot-related injuries and implementing a comprehensive, multi-faceted approach to mitigate and prevent robot-related injuries in the workplace. Robot safety in the workplace may be improved in five focus areas: robot design and safety controls⁴⁰; robot safety standards and guidelines for design and implementation^19–22; employee training⁴¹; workplace design or environmental factors^40,42,43; and a robot-related injury reporting system.¹²

To enhance HRI safety through robot design and controls, recent research by Cheng and colleagues⁴⁰ suggest implementing visual attention zones based on field of view, auditory attention zones corresponding to workplace noise levels, and avoidance zones for workers near mobile robots. These measures can help workers remain aware of potential hazards, as mobile robots could issue warning signals when approaching these zones to prevent collisions. Additionally, developing adaptive path planning strategies that respond to these warnings can further minimize injury risks in collaborative environments. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into robotics also holds promise for improving worker safety and productivity, particularly in sectors like architecture, engineering, and construction, by enabling applications such as clash prediction, hazard identification, and productivity analysis through computer vision techniques.³⁸ Another study established a framework for creating indoor maps and locating robots in manufacturing environments using computer vision techniques, defining contact avoidance zones around humans and obstacles. These zones allow robots to anticipate worker movements and plan safe paths, thereby reducing collision risks and injuries in collaborative work settings.⁴²

Establishing sector-specific or application-specific safety standards for robot design could allow guidelines to be tailored to the unique requirements of various tasks and work environments rather than relying on universal robot safety standards. This could be helpful for robot designers, manufacturers, and end users to have guidelines and standards that are more tailored to their requirements. The current study results on trends indicate that the developments in robot safety standards may have played a role in the decrease of robot-related injuries in the workplace over time. Standards like ISO 10218^19–22, ISO/TS 15066⁴⁴, ANSI/RIA R15.06^15,18, and ANSI/RIA R15.08^16,17 have established clear safety guidelines for traditional industrial robots, robotic arms for collaborative applications, and industrial mobile robots. These standards emphasize designing robots that are inherently safer, reducing the likelihood of injuries. Additionally, many workplace standards require a thorough risk assessment when implementing robots (e.g., ISO 12100 on risk assessment and risk reduction).⁴⁵ Employers must evaluate potential hazards, implement safety measures, and continuously monitor the workplace for emerging risks. As robots become more prevalent in the workplace, it is crucial for robot safety standards to be regularly updated to keep pace with advancements in robotic technologies and systems.

In terms of worker training, identifying worker groups such as temporary workers in the manufacturing settings who interact closely with robots, and providing them with focused training could help raise awareness about high-risk routine and non-routine tasks.³⁹ This training could inform the development of tailored safety protocols and standard operating procedures to address these risks. Workplace design and environmental factors also play a role in enhancing robotic safety⁴³. Consistent with established safety standards (e.g., ISO 10218 on robotics safety requirements), considerations such as ambient noise levels must be evaluated to ensure that warning alerts from robots are audible above background sounds and noise levels.^19,20 Additionally, in line with ISO/CIE 8995–1:2025 on lighting of indoor workplaces,⁴⁶ visibility issues related to lighting conditions can help ensure that robot signals are clearly seen by workers and human detection capabilities are not compromised under poor lighting. Finally, when reporting robot-related injuries, it might be useful to include the model number of the robot involved.¹² This information could facilitate a more thorough analysis and understanding of incidents and robots involved, ultimately contributing to improved safety measures in the future.¹²

NIOSH established the Center for Occupational Robotics Research (CORR) in 2017 to address the safety of workers who use, wear, or work with robots. CORR provides scientific leadership to guide the development and use of occupational robots that enhance worker safety. Examples of ongoing and past research efforts to reduce robot-related injuries include the development of “smart path” strategies for robot collision avoidance algorithms, examining force limits on human-robot contact events, investigating the effects of robot design on perceived safety and human behavior, ⁴⁷ evaluating effectiveness of robot-to-human communication modalities, and defining avoidance zones using path planning with mobile robots.⁴⁰ These research initiatives may further contribute to building evidence-based guidelines that enable safer integration of robotics into workplaces.

Robotics is a rapidly evolving field driven by continuous technological advancements and increased adoption into the industrial, commercial, and domestic sectors. While emerging technologies help reduce risks associated with hazardous, repetitive, and physically demanding tasks, they can also introduce new workplace hazards. Keeping pace with these advancements can be challenging, but can be valuable to identify high-risk exposures, and implement a comprehensive, targeted, sector- or application-specific safety approach to ensure the safe implementation of robotics in the workplace.