FLASH REPORTS

Flash: ‘Walkaround’ Rule Changes

Cal/OSHA has made revisions to its proposal on who can accompany inspectors during site site inspections. Here’s what’s being proposed.

Flash: Murder Charges in Esparto Fireworks Blast

Grand Jury Indicts Seven in 2025 Explosion

ARTICLES

Symbols of Resilience

Today marks the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. What are your reflections on this somber remembrance?

Will Appeals Board Revisions Streamline the Process?

The Cal/OSHA Appeals Board continues to refine its rules to make them more effective and efficient. Here are the latest changes proposed by the quasi-judicial body.

Safety Professional Kathleen Crawford Dies

The California construction safety community loses a longtime bright light with the death of Kathleen Crawford.

Two OSH Bills to Governor

Two bills of interest to California’s occupational safety and health community have made it to the governor’s desk. Here’s what they are and what they would do.

Proximity Alerts for Mobile Equipment?

Is it time for high-tech solutions to a common problem: Workers on foot who encounter machinery such as industrial trucks? One stakeholder says yes, and here’s what he proposes to the Cal/OSHA Standards Board.

Infographics Needed at Residential Construction Projects?

Cal/OSHA says current respiratory requirements for construction sites are sufficient; a student petitioner says they are not. Here’s what the petitioner says should be required, in his second go-round with the Cal/OSHA Standards Board.

Major Changes at DOSH

Cal/OSHA’s chief counsel is moving on, as is a longtime elevator authority. Here are the latest moves at the Divi-sion of Occupational Safety and Health and the Standards Board.

Where are the Updated P&Ps?

Cal/OSHA has revised several of its policies and procedures in response to a critical state audit, and inspectors are using the new rules. But why hasn’t the regulated public been able to see them?

CASES

JOSE FIRMAN, AN INDIVIDUAL

49 COR 40-9113 [¶23,427R]

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION – TIMELINESS AND SERVICE
Labor Code §6614(a) –
The Appeals Board lacked jurisdiction to grant Employer’s petition for reconsideration.

Labor Code §6619 –
Employer’s failure to serve its petition for reconsideration required that the Board deny it.

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated August 28, 2026, Inspection No. 1801688.

 

THE INDIANA FINISH LINE, INC. DBA THE FINISH LINE, INC.

49 COR 40-9111 [¶23,425R]

INJURY and ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3203(a)(4)

The Appeals Board affirmed the ALJ’s Decision finding that Employer had identified workplace hazards posed by COVID-19.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated August 14, 2026, Inspection No. 1488312.

 

TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION AND O & G INDUSTRIES, INC.

49 COR 40-9111 [¶23,426R]

MACHINERY and EQUIPMENT DESIGN and ENGINEERING –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3328(a)(1) and (a)(2)

The Appeals Board concluded that the proffered evidence showed that equipment used by Employer was not designed or engineered to safely sustain all reasonably anticipated loads.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated August 13, 2026, Inspection No. 1486176.

INNOVATION CONSTRUCTION INC.

49 COR 40-9107 [¶23,423R]

APPEAL – LATE FILING
Labor Code §6614(a) –
The Appeals Board lacked jurisdiction to grant Employer’s petition for reconsideration.

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated August 12, 2026, Inspection No. 1784640.

TESLA, INC.

49 COR 40-9107 [¶23,424R]

INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM (IIPP) –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1509(a)/§3203(a)(4)
The Appeals Board agreed with the ALJ’s Decision, which found that Employer failed to effectively implement its IIPP by identifying and evaluating new workplace processes.

EXCAVATION COVERINGS –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1541(l)(2)
The Appeals Board agreed with the ALJ’s Decision, which found that Employer failed to adequately protect remotely located excavations.

MULTI-EMPLOYER WORKSITE – CORRECTING EMPLOYER, DUE DILIGENCE DEFENSE
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §336.10
The Appeals Board agreed with the ALJ’s Decision, determining that Employer was not relieved of liability.

LABOR CODE §6432(c) –
Employer failed to rebut the presumption of a serious citation as to Citation 2.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated August 13, 2026, Inspection No. 1454931.

BOULAY CONSTRUCTION

49 COR 40-9105 [¶23,421R]

JURISDICTION – GOOD CAUSE
Labor Code §6614(a) –
The Appeals Board lacked jurisdiction to grant reconsideration over the Division’s untimely petition for reconsideration.

 

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated July 30, 2026, Inspection No. 1625267.

GENERAL DYNAMICS NASSCO

49 COR 40-9105 [¶23,422]

DAMAGED LADDERS –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §3276(e)(3)
The proffered evidence showed that Employer did not violate the cited safety order as it was not required to withdraw the ladder from service prior to the accident.

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.

INJURY AND ILLNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3203(a)(4)
The proffered evidence showed Employer had procedures for identifying hazards and implemented them with respect to the work that gave rise to the accident.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 1, Item 1, was affirmed and the proposed penalty was affirmed.  Citation 1, Item 2, and Citations 2 and 3 were dismissed, and the associated penalties were vacated.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated July 22, 2026, Inspection No 1551180 (San Diego)

COTTI FOODS CALIFORNIA DBA WENDY’S

49 COR 40-9103 [¶23,420]

INJURY AND ILLNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3203(a)(2)
The proffered evidence showed Employer ensured employee compliance with safe and healthful work practices.

HAZARD ASSESSMENT –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3380(f)(1)(A) –
The evidence proffered by the Division established that Employer failed to adequately assess the hazards in the restaurant kitchen and select the proper PPE to protect against those hazards.

PROTECTION FROM SLIPPERY FLOOR SURFACES –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3272(d) –
The proffered evidence showed that Employer effectively protected its employees from the hazard of slippery floors.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 1, Item 1 and Citation 2 and their associated penalties were vacated.  Citation 1, Item 2, and its associated penalty was affirmed.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated July 14, 2026, Inspection No. 1808018 (Simi Valley)