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 former longtime chair of the Cal/OSHA Standards Board is retiring, both from the Board and his union.

We’re about to begin the three-month period in which employers must post their workplace injury and illness summaries. Here are the details on what is required – and the additional requirements for some California employers.

The Construction Employers’ Association has honored more than a dozen companies with its President’s Awards, the first of a two-part award slate.

Do the Cal/OSHA standards for construction personnel hoists need a lift to the latest national consensus standards? An April advisory committee will make that determination. Here are the issues and how you can get involved.

After a lengthy delay, the Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses is out. Here’s how California and the nation as a whole fared in 2024.

While an occupational medical group has called on Cal/OSHA to ban the fabrication of engineered stone, an industry association is pleading for a calmer approach. Here's what the organization has in mind.

It's been a long and winding road to get updated Cal/OSHA requirements for first-aid kits, but the finish line appears in sight. What potholes are still out there on the regulatory highway?

Cal/OSHA says its proposed revisions to the PSM standard for refineries are about clarity, cleaning up ambiguities, and heading off federal preemption. Labor representatives say it's a matter of control. Here's what the community had to say at a recent public hearing.

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)

49 COR 40-9021 [¶23,380]

REPORTING SERIOUS INJURY –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §342(a)
The Division met its burden to show Employer failed to report a serious injury.

 PUSH STICKS OR PUSH BLOCKS FOR TABLE SAWS –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §4300.1(c)(2)
The proffered evidence showed Employer failed to provide suitable push sticks or push blocks for ripping operations.

TABLE SAW GUARDING –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §4300.1(a)
The proffered evidence showed the employer failed to ensure the table saw’s blade was effectively guarded.

 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES –
Employer did not establish that the inspection was invalid or that the citations were issued untimely.
Employer could not avail itself of the IEAD because its injured employee was considered a member of management. Moreover, the safety order required positive guarding.

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.

ACCIDENT-RELATED CHARACTERIZATION –
The proffered evidence established a causal nexus between the violation and the serious injury as alleged in Citation 2.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citations 1, 2 and 3, were affirmed but the penalty calculations for Citations 2 and 3 were amended.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated December 1, 2025, Inspection No. 1638538 (Sun Valley)

49 COR 409026 [¶23,381R]

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 December 19, 2025, Inspection No. 1675024.

49 COR 40-9017 [¶23,378R]

CODE OF SAFE PRACTICES –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1704(f)
The Division’s proffered evidence showed Employer failed to include adequate warnings regarding the safe use of the nail gun in its COSP.

MANUFACTURER’S INSTRUCTIONS –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1704(b)(2)
The Division’s proffered evidence showed the nail gun was not operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s operating instructions.

TRAINING –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1704(g)
The Division’s proffered evidence showed that Employer failed to train its employees on the safe use of the nail gun.

SAFETY ORDER – VAGUE AND UNENFORCEABLE  –
The Appeals Board determined that safety order §1704(f) was not unconstitutionally vague or ambiguous.  Employer had adequate notice of the violation of the training requirement.

CITATION NOTICE/PARTICULARITY –
Labor Code §6317
The Appeals Board determined that the citation described with particularity the nature of the violation affording Employer due process.

SERIOUS CLASSIFICATION AND REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION –
Labor Code §6432(a) –
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.

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 for Citation 2.

ABATEMENT –
Employer did not demonstrate that the abatement requirements and timeframe for Citations 2 and 3 were unreasonable.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTY –
The citations were affirmed, with the Board’s adjustment in penalty for Citation 3.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated December 3, 2025, Inspection No. 1692964.