Parkwood Landscape Maintenance, a Southern California landscaping company, is in hot water with Cal/OSHA over alleged heat illness violations, which the agency says is a first-of-its-kind case.

The Division of Occupational Safety and Health has long required driverless tractors to have an operator stationed in the vehicles. Now it says it is rescinding its opposition. Here’s why and what it envisions for possible regulatory reform.

Cal/OSHA has published revisions to its controversial residential fall protection proposal. And there is a notice out for comments. Will they be able to address construction’s concerns and keep the Feds happy?

After a controversial and failed vote in March, Cal/OSHA’s Standards Board adopts a revised indoor heat illness rule. Will this one pass muster with OAL?

It’s time for the annual fall protection stand-down week, which focuses on preventing this persistent source of fatalities and injuries in the workplace.

Cal/OSHA cites employers in fatality cases from the second half of 2024, including what could be the first-ever serious violations for a fatality under the indoor heat illness standard.

After months of waiting, DIR finally announces this year’s meetings of the Cal/OSHA Advisory Committee. Here’s the schedule.

The Title 8 definition of “serious injury or illness” been changed. So have reporting requirements. Premium subscribers can find all the answers here.

Here are the latest fatal workplace incidents from around California.

The cuts at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health have effectively ended, at least for now, several important programs, including one that could jeopardize the development of a field respirator for wildland firefighting. Here’s why and what the Cal/OSHA community thinks could be done to remedy the situation.

Carpenters lend their voices to the residential construction industry’s call for Fed-OSHA to rescind its controversial requirement for Cal/OSHA to adhere to a six-foot fall protection trigger. Here’s the latest on this tug of war between the Feds and the state.

Talk about a deep dive. Cal/OSHA has spent more than eight years perfecting its regulations on diving to satisfy Fed-OSHA, while protecting important rules for divers in this state. Here’s what it’s all about.

ESV 12-15-17

ESV 12-8-17

ESV 12-01-17

ESV 11-22-17

ESV 11-17-17

49 COR 40-8929 [¶23,331R]

GOOD CAUSE FOR LATE APPEAL  –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §359 –
An Employer’s misunderstanding of the appeal does not constitute good cause for a late appeal.

Labor Code §§ 6600, 6601–
The 15 working day period may be extended by the Appeals Board for good cause. Employer demonstrated good cause for its late appeal of Citation 1.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration and Order of Remand dated April 23, 2025, Inspection No. 1760736.

49 COR 40-8927 [¶23,330]

PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §6151(e)(2) –
The Division failed to meet its burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Employer failed to visually inspect the fire extinguisher monthly as required.

 ACCESS TO POTABLE DRINKING WATER –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3395(c) –
The Division did not meet its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence to demonstrate that the water provided by Employer for its outdoor employees was not potable or that Employer did not frequently encourage its outdoor employees to drink water or that the location of the water fountain was not as close as practicable to where the outdoor employees were working.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citations 1 and 2 were dismissed by the ALJ.  The penalties were vacated.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated March 26, 2025, Inspection No 1602873 (Bakersfield)

49 COR 40-8925 [¶23,329R]

JURISDICTION – PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION –
Labor Code §6614(a) – The Appeals Board lacked jurisdiction to grant reconsideration over the untimely petition filed by Employer.

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated March 27, 2025, Inspection No. 1684649.

 

 

49 COR 40-8925 [¶23,328R]

JURISDICTION – PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION –
Labor Code §6614(a) – The Appeals Board lacked jurisdiction to grant reconsideration over the untimely petition filed by Employer.

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated March 6, 2025, Inspection No. 1717277.

 

49 COR 40-8923 [¶23,326R]

Digest of COSHAB’s Amended Decision After Remand from Superior Court dated February 24, 2025, Inspection No. 1235643.

49 COR 40-8923 [¶23,327R]

INJURY ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3203(a)(5)
The Board affirmed the ALJs Decision which determined Employer’s IIPP was not implemented.
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §§3203(a)(4) and (a)(6)
The Board affirmed the ALJs Decision which found Employer did not implement its IIPP to effectively identify and evaluate workplace hazards; and that Employer failed to appropriately act to correct the exposure hazard.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTY –
The citations were affirmed by the Board.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated February 25, 2025, Inspection No. 1499137.

49 COR 40-8919 [¶23,324R]

MACHINERY OR EQUIPMENT – GUARDED BY LOCATION –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §4002(a) –
The evidence established that the roll sizer was guarded by its frame and location.

HAZARDOUS ENERGY CONTROL –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3314(c) –
There was no factual dispute that the roll sizer was not stopped at the time the employee reached into it during cleaning operations.

INDEPENDENT EMPLOYEE ACTION DEFENSE –
The Board found that Employer established all five elements of the IEAD.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated February 6, 2025, Inspection No. 1238985.

49 COR 40-8921 [¶23,325]

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE –
EMPLOYEE-EMPLOYER RELATIONSHIP –

Labor Code §§6303(b), 6304.1(a) –
A preponderance of the evidence established that an employer-employee relationship existed between Appellant and the workers at the site.

Labor Code §2750.5 –
An injured worker, who did not have a contractor’s license, was deemed an employee of Employer, rather than an independent contractor.

Labor Code §2775 –
Employer did not establish all three elements of the ABC test by a preponderance of the evidence.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated February 5, 2025,  Inspection No 1580564 (Sun Valley)