DIR’s Director is leaving, and you may be a surprised to learn where she’s going and what she’ll be doing. Click here for the whole story.

“Moving fast and breaking things” can lead to mistakes. Now NIOSH is getting some of its people and programs back after recent cuts that have been described as “decimation.”

Fontana's Verco Decking provides the decking for many high-rise buildings, hospitals, schools, and shopping centers in California. Safety is its foundation, as it protects workers from many sig-nificant hazards. Here's how the newest company to qualify for Cal/OSHA's Voluntary Protection Program does it.

Cal/OSHA has made some significant changes to its draft standard on workplace violence preven-tion for the general industry. Click here to see the changes, the agency's reasoning, and how you can weigh in on this important topic.

Here’s the latest on legislation of interest to California’s occupational safety and health community.

Here are the latest fatal workplace incidents from around California.

Defense attorneys say that new requirements for prehearing conferences by administrative law judges in Cal/OSHA cases are becoming burdensome. Here’s what the controversy is all about.

Cal/OSHA is moving quickly to adopt federal rules on the design and fit of personal protective equipment in construction. But what realities on the ground make it difficult?

The State of California has a $12 billion deficit. Here's how the governor proposes to affect the Cal/OSHA programs in the coming fiscal year.

Here are some lessons on fall protection from the recent National Stand-Down to Prevent Falls in Construction.

49 COR 40-8934 [¶23,335]

SAFE PRACTICES AND PERSONAL PROTECTION –
Title 8, Cal. Code Regs, §3410(c)  –
The Division established that Employer failed to ensure that provided protection against burns to the ears and necks of firefighters engaged in wildland firefighting was worn by employees.

REPEAT VIOLATIONS – SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR REGULATORY REQUIREMENT –
Title 8, Cal. Code Regs, §334(d)  –
Violations need not be identical to establish a repeat classification. The parties stipulated the previous citation was affirmed for violation of section 3410.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES –
Employer did not prove any of its pleaded affirmative defenses by a preponderance of the evidence.

ABATEMENT –
Employer did not demonstrate that abatement would be unreasonable.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Employer withdrew its appeal of Citation 2. Citation 1 was affirmed by the ALJ. The classification was correct. The proposed penalties for Citations 1 and 2 were assessed.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated April 16, 2025, Inspection No 1360156 (Oroville)

49 COR 40-8933 [¶23,334]

COVID-19 PREVENTION PROGRAM –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3205(c)(3)(B)(3) –
The section was amended, no longer requiring written notice of exposure or imposing a one-business-day time frame.

HEAT ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3395(i) –
The Division met its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence to demonstrate that Employer’s HIPP did not contain all required elements.

CLASSIFICATION –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §334(b)
The Division established a General violation as there was a relationship to the occupational safety and health of employees.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 1, Item 1 was dismissed and Citation 1, Item 2 was affirmed.

 Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated April 28, 2025, Inspection No 1598862 (Culver City)

49 COR 40-8931 [¶23,333R]

PERFECTION OF APPEAL  –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §359.1(b) –
Employer filed an incomplete appeal due to misunderstanding, which did not constitute good cause.
Labor Code § 6617 –
Employer’s petition failed to assert grounds upon which the Board may have considered reconsideration.

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated May 6, 2025, Inspection No. 1763124.

49 COR 40-8931 [¶23,332R]

AUTHORITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES, SETTLEMENT ORDER –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations §364.2 (f) – The Appeals Board determined there were no grounds to set aside the settlement agreement.

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated May 1, 2025, Inspection No. 1660546.

49 COR 40-8929 [¶23,331R]

GOOD CAUSE FOR LATE APPEAL  –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §359 –
An Employer’s misunderstanding of the appeal does not constitute good cause for a late appeal.

Labor Code §§ 6600, 6601–
The 15 working day period may be extended by the Appeals Board for good cause. Employer demonstrated good cause for its late appeal of Citation 1.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration and Order of Remand dated April 23, 2025, Inspection No. 1760736.

49 COR 40-8927 [¶23,330]

PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §6151(e)(2) –
The Division failed to meet its burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Employer failed to visually inspect the fire extinguisher monthly as required.

 ACCESS TO POTABLE DRINKING WATER –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3395(c) –
The Division did not meet its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence to demonstrate that the water provided by Employer for its outdoor employees was not potable or that Employer did not frequently encourage its outdoor employees to drink water or that the location of the water fountain was not as close as practicable to where the outdoor employees were working.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citations 1 and 2 were dismissed by the ALJ.  The penalties were vacated.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated March 26, 2025, Inspection No 1602873 (Bakersfield)

49 COR 40-8925 [¶23,329R]

JURISDICTION – PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION –
Labor Code §6614(a) – The Appeals Board lacked jurisdiction to grant reconsideration over the untimely petition filed by Employer.

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated March 27, 2025, Inspection No. 1684649.

 

 

49 COR 40-8925 [¶23,328R]

JURISDICTION – PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION –
Labor Code §6614(a) – The Appeals Board lacked jurisdiction to grant reconsideration over the untimely petition filed by Employer.

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated March 6, 2025, Inspection No. 1717277.