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.”

New rules for residential construction on fall protection trigger heights are now in effect. Here’s why the Cal/OSHA Standards Board could not get a one-year delay for the industry, and what happens next on this controversial, Fed-OSHA-mandated change.

Starting July 1st, companies that hire domestic workers such as housekeepers and landscapers, must abide by Cal/OSHA regulations, ending a longstanding exemption. More inspections for landscapers and pool maintenance too. But what are the implications for the homeowners they serve?

A federally mandated regulatory change by Cal/OSHA is designed to ensure PPE fits each worker. It’s focused on women. Can industry timely meet this requirement?

The latest fatal California workplace incidents include a massive explosion at a fireworks ware-house in the Sacramento Valley.

Victor Muniz says cleanup and recovery crews at the sites of the devastating January fires in the Los Angeles area still aren’t following safety protocols. Here’s what Cal/OSHA has to say about the issue.

In an unusual workplace fatality, a nurse at a state hospital in Templeton died from tuberculosis within 11 days of being diagnosed. Does this portend an outbreak, and how big is the TB problem in California?

Cal/OSHA has wrapped up investigations into fatality cases from the latter half of 2024. Here are the results and who got cited.

The controversy surrounding autonomous equipment in agriculture continues as employers and Labor fight it out allegedly over safety. A Cal/OSHA Standards Board advisory committee is seek-ing to find common ground for regulating modern autonomous agricultural equipment. Follow the fight here.

49 COR 40-8947 [¶23,342R]

FOOT PROTECTION –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3385(a)
The Appeals Board upheld the ALJ’s Decision finding Employer failed to require its employees wear protective footwear.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES –
INDEPENDENT EMPLOYEE ACT DEFENSE (IEAD)
Employer failed to establish all five elements of IEAD, the defense failed.

NEWBERY DEFENSE
Employer failed to show that the hazard was unforeseeable.

SERIOUS VIOLATION – REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §6432(c)
The Appeals Board determined the Serious classification was proper as there was a realistic possibility of serious physical harm.  Employer did not rebut the presumption.

SERIOUS ACCIDENT-RELATED CHARACTERIZATION –
The Appeals Board agreed with the ALJ’s determination that the Division demonstrated a causal nexus between the violation and serious injury.

ABATEMENT –
The Appeals Board determined the ALJ’s Decision finding that abatement was needed for the entire facility was incorrect. Protective footwear was not the sole means of abatement.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated June 19, 2025, Inspection No. 1436480.

49 COR 40-8946 [¶23,341R]

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

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated June 13, 2025, Inspection No. 1637005.

49 COR 40-8945 [¶23,340]

REPORTING SERIOUS INJURY –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §342(a)
The Division established that Employer failed to report a serious injury to the Division.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTY –
Citation 1 was affirmed and its proposed penalty assessed.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated May 29, 2025, Inspection No. 1626625 (San Diego)

 

49 COR 40-8945 [¶23,340]

REPORTING SERIOUS INJURY –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §342(a)
The Division established that Employer failed to report a serious injury to the Division.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTY –
Citation 1 was affirmed and its proposed penalty assessed.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated May 29, 2025, Inspection No. 1626625 (San Diego)

 

49 COR 40-8943 [¶23,338R]

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 June 9, 2025, Inspection No. 1624337.

 

49 COR 40-8943 [¶23,339]

CLASSIFICATION AND REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION –
Labor Code §6432(a) and (c)
Employer failed to rebut the presumption of a serious citation. The violation was the cause of the citation, establishing nexus. As a result, the citation was properly characterized as Serious Accident-Related. 

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTY –
Citation 1 was affirmed and its proposed penalty assessed.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated May 23, 2025, Inspection No. 1620468 (Brawley)

 

49 COR 40-8937 [¶23,337] 

PROVISION OF HANDRAILS –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1626(c)(1)(A) –
The Division did not meet its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence to demonstrate that Employer failed to provide at least one handrail for stairways having four or more risers. 

INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1509(a) –
The Division met its burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Employer did not implement and maintain an effective injury and illness prevention program by failing to provide training and instruction and enforce safe methods of using a circular saw.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES –

LABOR CODE §6317 –
The evidence showed that the Division’s citation was written with sufficient particularity and provided sufficient notice of the substance of the alleged violation. Employer failed to show prejudice.

INDEPENDENT EMPLOYEE ACTION DEFENSE –
Employer failed to establish all five elements of the defense. 

CLASSIFICATION AND REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION –
Labor Code §6432(a) and (c)
Employer failed to rebut the presumption of a serious citation. As a result, the citation was properly classified as serious. 

ABATEMENT CREDIT –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §336(e)(2) –
Employer was not entitled to abatement credit as it did not timely submit proof of abatement. 

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 1 was dismissed by the ALJ and the penalty was vacated.  Citation 2 was affirmed and its proposed penalty assessed.

 

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated May 16, 2025, Inspection No. 1436014 (Los Angeles)

49 COR 40-8937 [¶23,336R]

JURISDICTION – PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §6614(a) –
The Board lacked jurisdiction to grant Employer’s untimely petition for reconsideration.

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated May 22, 2025, Inspection No. 1632835.

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)