Grand Jury Indicts Seven in 2025 Explosion

Leaders of the Division of Occupational Safety and Health got a four-hour grilling by state legislators in the wake of a critical state audit. The fire is still hot. Click here to read about it…

To ban or not to ban – that is the question before the Cal/OSHA Standards Board on the topic of engineered stone containing respirable crystalline silica. Here's how the rulemaking body has come down on the issue.

April showers lead to May flowers, and May leads to the annual state budget revision. Here's how Cal/OSHA fared compared to the governor's January proposal.

Four OSH-related bills advance in the California legislature. Click here to see what's happening with these bills.

A distribution hub at a former Sacramento-area Air Force base is the newest member of Cal/OSHA's prestigious Voluntary Protection Program. Here's what Hydra McClellen does, and how it does it safely.

Stakeholders say the latest draft of Cal/OSHA's general industry workplace violence standard is much improved from last year's version. But how close are we to an official version? Here's the latest on this important Cal/OSHA rulemaking project.

An almost 50-year-old standard on lawn equipment needs a little trimming, a trade group says. Here's what it has in mind.

Among the hundreds of settlements between Cal/OSHA and California employers are several cas-es involving fatalities. Here's what these tragic incidents were about and how they were resolved through the settlement process.

Here are the latest workplace fatalities from around California in recent weeks.

49 COR 40-9071 [¶23,403]

INJURY AND ILLNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3203(b)(1)
The proffered evidence showed the Division did not establish a violation of record-keeping requirements. 

HAZARDOUS ENERGY CONTROL –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3314(g)
The proffered evidence showed the Division did not establish a violation of written energy control procedures.

Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3314(c)(1)
The proffered evidence showed Employer was not in compliance with the exception to the lockout/tagout requirements.

SERIOUS VIOLATION – REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §6432(c)
The proffered evidence showed that Citations 2 and 3 were properly classified as Serious as there was a realistic possibility of serious physical harm.  Employer did not rebut the presumption.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 1, Items 1 and 2, were dismissed. Citation 2 was affirmed and the adjusted penalty was assessed.

 

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated April 27, 2026, Inspection No. 1552002 (Fremont)

49 COR 40-9067 [¶23,402R]

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE –
Unexpected Extreme Departure Defense
The Board concluded that the evidence established that all three elements were demonstrated by Employer.

DUE PROCESS –
The Board concluded that the Division was not prejudiced by the post-submission amendment and that it was sufficiently provided with due process upon notice and the opportunity to present argument through the submission of briefs.

Digest of COSHAB’s Amended Decision After Remand from Superior Court dated April 4, 2026, Inspection No. 1040471.

 

49 COR 40-9063 [¶23,400]

PORTABLE LADDER TRAINING –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §3276(f)
The proffered evidence showed the Division failed to meet its burden of proof to show Employer did not provide training on the safe use of ladders.

 LADDER USE ON ROLLING SCAFFOLDS –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1646(f)
The proffered evidence showed the Division failed to meet its burden of proof to show Employer allowed the use of rolling scaffolds to elevate ladder height.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated March 27, 2026, Inspection No 1643382 (Ontario)

 

49 COR 40-961 [¶23,399]

EXCAVATION PROTECTIVE SYSTEM
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1541(j)(2) –
The proffered evidence established Employer failed to ensure that material was not protected from falling into the excavation by a retaining device or other methods.

SERIOUS CLASSIFICATION AND REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION –
Labor Code §6432 (c) –
Citation 1, Item 2 was properly classified as Serious.  Employer did not rebut the presumption.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 1, Item 1, and Item 2 were affirmed, and penalties were assessed for a total of $3,375.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated March 20, 2026, Inspection No. 1547223 (Vernon)

49 COR 40-9057 [¶23,396]

MOTION TO AMEND CITATION –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §371.2 –
The Division failed to follow the procedure for amending citations.  

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE –
Independent Employee Action Defense –
Employer failed to establish all five elements of IEAD and, therefore, did not meet its burden of proof.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 2 was affirmed, and the proposed penalty was deemed reasonable.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated Mar. 11, 2026, Inspection No. 1568389 (Claremont)

49 COR 40-9059 [¶23,398R]

ORDER – INTERLOCUTORY
Labor Code §6614  –
The Division’s petition was interlocutory in nature because the order from which it sought reconsideration, the denial of the Division’s Motion Concerning Hearing Dates, was not a final order. The Board denied the petition for reconsideration.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated March 25, 2026, Inspection No. 1820991.

 

49 COR 40-9058 [¶23,397]

FAILURE TO REPORT SERIOUS INJURY
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §342(a)
The proffered evidence showed the Division failed to establish when Employer knew or would have known, with diligent inquiry, that the injury constituted a serious reportable injury.

INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, sections 3203(a)(6) and (7)
The Division failed to present evidence that Employer did not implement procedures to identify and evaluate hazards or take corrective action.  The evidence proffered showed that Employer implemented training provisions in accordance with its IIPP.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
The citations were vacated.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated March 10, 2026, Inspection No 1652861 (Sylmar)

 

49 COR 40-9053 [¶23,394]

OPERATION OF INDUSTRIAL TRUCKS –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3650(t)(33) –
The Division established that Employer failed to ensure the use of an operator restraint system (seatbelt) when forklifts were operated.

 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE –
Independent Employee Action Defense –
Employer failed to establish all five elements of IEAD and, therefore, did not meet its burden of proof.

REPEAT GENERAL CLASSIFICATION –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §334(d) –
The proffered evidence established that Employer received a citation involving substantially similar regulatory requirements and essentially similar conditions or hazards within five years from the date the previous citation became final.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 1 was affirmed and the adjusted penalty was deemed reasonable.

 Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated Feb. 27, 2026,  Inspection No. 1603753 (Fremont)