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…

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.

The California Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries has been released after a two-month delay. Here’s what the latest tally reveals.

A Cal/OSHA Standards Board member is stepping away from the rulemaking body. Here’s why, and what happens next for the rulemaking body.

Little mistakes can have huge consequences in the energy business. Here are the results of two investigations into significant incidents at California refineries in recent years, along with the lessons we can learn from them.

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

State-plan states such as California are required to adopt federal rules, and Cal/OSHA is rushing one through. It is the federal "walkaround" rule that allows people outside the target company to accompany inspectors to workplaces. But could it all be for naught? Here's why that could happen.

More California employers received recognition for their safety efforts. Here are the latest companies enrolled in Cal/OSHA programs.

A tragic incident early in her safety career left a lasting impression on Melvina Stacey. Now she is Associated General Contractors’ Safety Professional of the Year. Learn how her remarkable story helps her get great safety results.

The Cal/OSHA Standards Board appears close to publishing a regulatory proposal to enhance gate safety. It affects nearly every California industry. Is it regulatory overreach? Here’s what the latest language looks like, and what could happen next.

49 COR 40-9040 [¶23,388]

TRAINED FIRST AID PERSONS –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1512(b)
Employer did not have an appropriately trained person available to render first aid at the job site.

 INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1509(a)
Employer did not provide training and instruction sufficient to comply with §3203(a)(7).

SERIOUS VIOLATION – REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §6432(c)
The proffered evidence showed that Citation 2 was properly classified as Serious.  Employer did not rebut the presumption.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citations 1 and 2 were affirmed, and the proposed penalties were assessed.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated Feb. 6, 2026, Inspection No. 1691867 (Woodland Hills)

 

49 COR 40-9039 [¶23,387R]

APPEAL – LATE FILING
Labor Code § 6601 –
Employer failed to establish good cause for its late appeal, which was the result of internal operating problems.

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated February 11, 2026, Inspection No. 1784640.

49 COR 40-9037 [¶23,386]

ROLLING SCAFFOLDS –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1646(k)
The Division did not prove that the employees were untrained or that the training provided was inadequate.

SCAFFOLDS – GENERAL REQUIREMENTS –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1637(l)
The Division did not prove that Employer had removed the scaffold cross brace.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 1 and Citation 2 and their associated penalties were vacated.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated January 9, 2026, Inspection No 1660543 (Palm Springs)

 

49 COR 40-9037 [¶23,385R]

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

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated January 14, 2026, Inspection No. 1496831.

 

49 COR 40-9033 [¶23,384]

EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP –
Labor Code §§2772
The proffered evidence showed Employer did not establish the three parts of the ABC test. The workers were found to be Employer’s employees.

DUAL EMPLOYMENT –
The ALJ determined Employer was a secondary employer of the employees.

 ANNUAL PERMIT –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §341(c)(2)(B)
The proffered evidence showed the excavation was for the purpose of performing emergency repair work, an exception to the permit requirement. The citation was dismissed.

CODE OF SAFE PRACTICES –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1509(b)
The proffered evidence showed the CSP did not address the hazards involved in working in or around trenches.

APPROPRIATELY TRAINED PERSON –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1512(b)
The proffered evidence showed no one certified to render first aid was available within a few minutes before a first responder would arrive.

EXCAVATION AND TRENCHES GENERAL REQUIREMENTS –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1541.1(c)(2)(C)
The proffered evidence showed Employer did not have written specifications for the trench protective system.

Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1541(h)(1)
The proffered evidence showed one employee was inside the trench with accumulated water at the bottom.

Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1541(k)(2)
The proffered evidence showed Employer allowed employees to work in the excavation without required cave-in protective system in place.

Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1541(c)(2)
The proffered evidence showed the Employer did not provide a safe means of egress in the trench excavation over five feet in depth.

Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1541(a)(1)
The proffered evidence showed Employer failed to provide an adequate protective system to protect employees from cave-ins.

SERIOUS CLASSIFICATION AND REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION –
Labor Code §6432(a) and (c)
Citations 2 through 5 – The proffered evidence showed there was a realistic possibility of serious injury for failure to have a sufficient protective system in the excavation.  Employer did not rebut the presumption.

REPEAT VIOLATIONS –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §334(d)
Citations 4 and 5 were determined to be a repeat of violations affirmed in a Settlement Order issued in August 2023.

DUPLICATIVE PENALTIES –
Citations 2, 3, and 5 involved a single hazard with the same abatement.  The ALJ vacated the penalties for Citations 2 and 3, determining they were duplicative of Citation 5.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 1, Item 1, was vacated.  Citation 1, Items 2, 3, and 4 were affirmed with penalties adjusted.  Citations 2 and 3 were affirmed with penalties vacated.  Citations 4 and 5 were affirmed with penalties adjusted.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated December 22, 2025, Inspection No 1719334 (San Francisco)

49 COR 40-9027 [¶23,382]

 EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP –
Labor Code §§2772 and 2750.5
The proffered evidence showed Employer did not establish all three parts of the ABC test. The workers did not have a license which was required for the work performed.  They were found to be Employer’s employees.

 INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1509(a)
The proffered evidence showed Employer did not have a written IIPP at the time of inspection.

 CODE OF SAFE PRACTICES –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1509(b)
The proffered evidence showed Employer did not have a written CSP at the time of inspection.

 APPROPRIATELY TRAINED PERSON –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1512(b)
The Division failed to present sufficient evidence to establish Employer violated the cited regulation.  Appeal was granted.

 LIGHT-DUTY EXTERIOR SCAFFOLDS –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1640(b)(2)
The proffered evidence showed that scaffold ledgers surrounding the exterior of the house did not meet the regulation requirements.

Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1640(b)(3)
The proffered evidence showed the scaffold did not have sufficient diagonal bracing.

Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1640(b)(4)
The proffered evidence showed the scaffold did not have midrails at the working levels.

Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1640(b)(5)
The proffered evidence showed platform planks did not cover the entire space between the uprights on the working levels.

 STEP LADDER USE –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1675(b)
The proffered evidence showed Employer failed to ensure proper use of portable ladders.

 COVID-19 PREVENTION PROGRAM –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §3205(c)
The ALJ decided the requirements of the COVID-19 Prevention Program were no longer in effect and dismissed the citation.

 HEAT ILLNESS PREVENTION PLAN –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §3395(i)
The proffered evidence showed Employer did not have a written HIPP.

 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES – LOGICAL TIME DEFENSE –
Employer failed to show that implementing the safeguards in the safety order would expose an employee to a greater danger than non-compliance.

 SERIOUS CLASSIFICATION, AND REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION –
Labor Code §6432(a) and (c)
Citations 2 through 5 – the proffered evidence showed there was a reasonable possibility of serious injury due to the fall hazard.  Employer did not rebut the presumption.

 ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 1, Items 2, 3, 4 and 5 were affirmed along with their associated penalties. Citation 1, Items 3 and 6 were vacated.  Citations 2 through 5 were upheld with the Serious classification and penalties affirmed.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated December 22, 2025, Inspection No 1628750 (San Francisco)

49 COR 40-9030 [¶23,383]

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS –
Labor Code §6317 –
The Division presented insufficient proof to establish that the citation was issued within six months of the occurrence of the violation.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated December 31, 2025, Inspection No 1518442 (Tulare)

 

49 COR 40-9024 [¶23,379]

HEAT ILLNESS AND INJURY PREVENTION PLAN –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3395(a)
The proffered evidence established the HIPP did not include high heat procedures and acclimatization procedures.

 ELEVATED LOCATIONS – GUARDRAILS –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3210(c)
The proffered evidence showed Exception 9 applied and Employer was not required to provide an alternative to guardrails.  Citation 2 was vacated.

GENERAL VIOLATION –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §334(b)
The proffered evidence showed that Citation 1 was properly classified as General as the violation had a relationship to occupational safety and health.

ABATEMENT –
The proffered evidence established that Employer could modify its written HIPP to include all of the required elements.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTY –
Citations 1 and its associated penalty was assessed.  Citation 2 was vacated.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated November 26, 2025, Inspection No. 1645828 (Long Beach)