49 COR 40-8947 [¶23,342R]
FOOT PROTECTION - Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3385(a) The Appeals Board upheld the ALJ’s Decision finding Employer failed to require its employees wear protective footwear. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES – INDEPENDENT EMPLOYEE ACT DEFENSE (IEAD) Employer failed to establish all five elements of IEAD, the defense failed. NEWBERY DEFENSE Employer failed to show that the hazard was unforeseeable. SERIOUS VIOLATION - REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION - Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §6432(c) The Appeals Board determined the Serious classification was proper as there was a realistic possibility of serious physical harm. Employer did not rebut the presumption. SERIOUS 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. ABATEMENT – The Appeals Board determined the ALJ’s Decision finding that abatement was needed for the entire facility was incorrect. Protective footwear was not the sole means of abatement.Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated June 19, 2025, Inspection No. 1436480.
Read More...