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

Grand Jury Indicts Seven in 2025 Explosion

An agricultural chemical plant in Hanford has a myriad of hazards. Here’s how it addresses them and why Tessendero Kerley Hanford is the newest Cal-VPP Star site.

An Eastern Sierra ski resort faces willful and serious violation allegations from Cal/OSHA after a ski patroller's death late last year. Here’s what the agency says went wrong in this major case, but will the facts disprove the allegation?

Here’s how some significant Cal/OSHA cases were resolved in settlement talks with the agency and employers.

Two more fatal incidents underscore the importance of trench safety and protecting workers in the “cone zone.”

Cal/OSHA is edging closer to its official proposal on workplace violence prevention in general industry. Here’s the latest draft and how you can weigh in on it.

Three employers are cited after a fatal fall at a Los Angeles residential roofing job earlier this year. Here’s what Cal/OSHA alleges in this tragic case.

A construction company petitioned the Cal/OSHA Standards Board in 2020 to clarify the rules for bracing rebar columns. At last, regulatory draft language has surfaced. Here’s what the issue is all about, why the Board proposes, and how you can weigh in on it.

A fall protection trainer is petitioning the Cal/OSHA Standards Board, saying it’s about time that Type II safety helmets are a requirement, not just a recommendation. Here’s what a Type II is and how it’s different from a hard hat.

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.

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)

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)

 

49 COR 40-9103 [¶23,419R]

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION – VERIFICATION
Labor Code §6616 –
Employer’s Petition for Reconsideration was not verified.

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated July 24, 2026, Inspection No. 1637991.

 

49 COR 40-9095 [¶23,416]

MACHINE GUARDING –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §4002 (a) –
The evidence proffered by the Division established that the mixer was guarded by location.

SERIOUS CLASSIFICATION, ACCIDENT-RELATED AND REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §334(c)(1) –
The causal nexus between the Serious violation and the injury was sufficient to sustain the Accident-Related classification. Employer did not rebut the presumption.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE –
Independent Employee Action Defense –
IEAD does not apply to guarding violations.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 1 and its associated penalty were affirmed.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated June 26, 2026, Inspection No. 1731627 (Los Angeles)

49 COR 40-9096 [¶23,417R]

FALL PROTECTION and LADDER SAFETY –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1670(a) and §1675(b)
The Appeals Board concluded that Employer’s work required fall protection and Employer was not entitled to the “greater hazard” defense.  The Appeals Board concluded that Employer failed to ensure proper ladder use.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – INDEPENDENT EMPLOYEE ACT
The Board found that Employer failed to establish three elements of the IEAD.

LABOR CODE §6432(c) –
Employer failed to rebut the presumption of a serious citation. As a result, Citations 2 and 3 were properly classified as serious and the Board reinstated the proposed penalties.

PENALTIES – DUPLICATIVE VIOLATIONS
The Board concluded that Citation 1, Item 3, and Citations 2 and 3 were duplicative.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated July 13, 2026, Inspection No. 1355061.

49 COR 40-9100 [¶23,418]

FALL PROTECTION –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §2940.6(b) –
The proffered evidence established that employer failed to ensure the use of fall protection while work was performed at an elevated location.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS –
Labor Code §6317(e)(1) –
The citation was timely issued given the Governor’s Executive Orders, which extended the statute of limitations under the Emergency Services Act.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE –
Independent Employee Action Defense –
Employer established all five elements of IEAD. 

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 1 and its associated penalty were dismissed.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated June 30, 2026, Inspection No. 1499128 (Idyllwild)

49 COR 40-9091 [¶23,414]

INJURY AND ILLNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3203(a)(4) and (a)(7)
The proffered evidence showed Employer had procedures for identifying hazards and implemented them with respect to the work that gave rise to the accident.  There was no evidence that Employer failed to provide adequate training to its employees.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citations 1 and 2 were dismissed, and the penalties were vacated.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated June 19, 2026,  Inspection No. 1531603 (San Francisco)