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.

Date palm growers have, for almost two decades, been using safety procedures via the Cal/OSHA variance process. Now it’s time to make them formal, they say. Here are the issues.

A California legislator explains why she authored a bill that would take much of the investigative responsibility away from Cal/OSHA’s Bureau of Investigations.

Ahead of an expedited hearing on allegedly unabated hazards, Cal/OSHA says it needs more time to investigate a tragic police operation, even though it has already issued citations. Here’s what the Cal/OSHA Appeals Board says in response.

After a grenade explodes at a Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department training center, killing three deputies, Cal/OSHA and other agencies are investigating what went wrong. Now Cal/OSHA is weigh-ing in on its findings with a major fine.

A central California high school freshman provides perspectives about school safety. She looks at safety through an interesting lens, and her research and perceptions are worth the read. Click here...

Here are the latest fatal workplace incidents from around California.

An East Bay legislator wants to give investigatory powers from Cal/OSHA's Bureau of Investigations to individual district attorneys. But what's behind the move? Here's what we know so far.

Cal/OSHA has finally published the 2023 Bureau of Investigations report. Here are BOI’s activi-ties for that year and how they compare to previous years.

49 COR 40-9053 [¶23,394]

OPERATION OF INDUSTRIAL TRUCKS –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3650(t)(33) –
The Division established that Employer failed to ensure the use of an operator restraint system (seatbelt) when forklifts were operated.

 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE –
Independent Employee Action Defense –
Employer failed to establish all five elements of IEAD and, therefore, did not meet its burden of proof.

REPEAT GENERAL CLASSIFICATION –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §334(d) –
The proffered evidence established that Employer received a citation involving substantially similar regulatory requirements and essentially similar conditions or hazards within five years from the date the previous citation became final.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 1 was affirmed and the adjusted penalty was deemed reasonable.

 Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated Feb. 27, 2026,  Inspection No. 1603753 (Fremont)

 

 

49 COR 40-9054 [¶23,395R]

MEDICAL EVALUATION –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §5144(e)(1)
The Appeals Board concluded that Employer required the use of respirators in some instances without medically evaluating the employees as required.  Citation 1, Item 1 was affirmed.

 INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM (IIPP) –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1509(a) and §3203(a)(6)
The Appeals Board concluded that Employer effectively implemented its IIPP which included methods and/or procedures for correcting unsafe or unhealthy work hazards. Citation 2 was vacated.

CONTROL OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES – DUSTS, FUMES, MISTS, VAPORS AND GASES, RESPIRATORY PROTECTION, PERMISSIBLE PRACTICE –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §5144(a)(1)
The Appeals Board concluded that cocci spores met the definition of harmful dust and the hazard presented by cocci spores in outdoor workplaces was applicable to the safety order.  The proffered evidence showed that the Division failed to demonstrate employee exposure to the hazard.  Citation 3 was vacated.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS –
Labor Code §6317
The proffered evidence showed that each violation was ongoing in nature and constituted a continuing violation.  The Division was not barred from issuing Citation 2.

 MULTI-EMPLOYER WORKSITE – CONTROLLING EMPLOYER, DUE DILIGENCE
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §336.10
The Appeals Board concluded that Employer did not implement an effective system for promptly correcting hazards.  Employer did not prove the due diligence defense. Citation 1, Item 1 was affirmed.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated March 12, 2026, Inspection No. 1235941.

49 COR 40-9049 [¶23,392R]

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §6614(a) –
The Appeals Board lacked jurisdiction to grant Employer’s petition for reconsideration.

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated March 13, 2026, Inspection No. 1628750.

 

49 COR 40-9049 [¶23,393R]

INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM (IIPP) –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3203(a)(4) and (6)
The Appeals Board agreed with the ALJ’s Decision which found that Employer failed to effectively implement its IIPP by identifying, evaluating and correcting hazards.

 UNGUARDED ROOF HATCH OPENING –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1632(b)(1)
The Appeals Board agreed with the ALJ’s Decision which found that Employer failed to ensure a hatch opening was labeled and secured.

MULTI-EMPLOYER WORKSITE – CONTROLLING EMPLOYER, DUE DILIGENCE
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §336.10
The Appeals Board reversed the ALJ Decision. Employer did not establish that it acted with due diligence in fulfilling its responsibilities as controlling employer.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated March 12, 2026, Inspection No. 1371294.

 

49 COR 40-9047 [¶23,391]

OPERATION OF CHAIN SAW –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §3425(a)(10)
The proffered evidence showed that Employer did not ensure that the employee used a second point of attachment while operating a chainsaw in a tree.

 INDEPENDENT EMPLOYEE ACT DEFENSE –
Employer satisfied all five elements of IEAD.

 ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
The citation was dismissed and the proposed penalty was vacated.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated February 19, 2026, Inspection No 1532781 (Kelsey)

 

49 COR 40-9044 [¶23,390]

PNEUMATICALLY DRIVEN NAILERS – OPERATED PER MANUFACTURER’S INSTRUCTIONS –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1704(b)(2)
The proffered evidence showed that Employer did not ensure that an employee operated a nailer in accordance with the manufacturer’s operating and safety instructions.

INDEPENDENT EMPLOYEE ACT DEFENSE –
Employer failed to establish all five elements of IEAD.

SERIOUS CLASSIFICATION, ACCIDENT-RELATED AND REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION –
Labor Code §6432(a) and (c)
The causal nexus between the Serious violation and the injury was sufficient to sustain the Accident-Related classification. Employer did not rebut the presumption.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
The proposed penalty of the affirmed citation was assessed.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated February 24, 2026, Inspection No 1692164 (Roseville)

49 COR 40-9043 [¶23,389]

INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §3203(a)(4) and (6)
The proffered evidence showed that Employer had a written IIPP that was implemented.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 2 was vacated.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated February 13, 2026, Inspection No 1642084 (Sylmar)

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)