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.

Almost two years ago, Australia banned engineered stone after attempts to get a handle on a silicosis crisis failed. Is California marching down the same path? And what happens in the meantime?

A Cal/OSHA advisory committee has been working to find a way forward on the use of autonomous equipment in agriculture. Here’s what the Standards Board staff has recommended, along with arguments for and against.

Surface mining can be extremely hazardous. These individuals and organizations have been recognized by the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association for their efforts to make their workplaces safe.

Here are the latest workplace fatalities from around California.

The federal government says California has not complied with all its requirements for commercial driver’s licenses and is demanding full compliance. But does a recent federal court ruling put this action on hold?

Cal/OSHA has been working on a general industry workplace violence regulation for years. While legislation has established basic requirements the fights continue. Here's the latest on the Cal/OSHA effort.

The latest Cal/OSHA inspection statistics show some divergent trends. Click here to see what’s happening and the possible reasons why.

Here are the latest California fatal workplace incidents.

49 COR 40-9003 [¶23,372R]

 LATE APPEAL – GOOD CAUSE
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §359(d) –
Labor Code §§6600, 6601and 6602 –

The 15 working day period may be extended by the Appeals Board for good cause. Employer demonstrated good cause for its late appeal.

 

49 COR 40-9003 [¶23,371R]

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

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated November 3, 2025, Inspection No. 1698769.

49 COR 40-8999 [¶23,369R]

FAILURE TO APPEAR – GOOD CAUSE
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §383(c) –
The Appeals Board found that Employer did not have good cause for failing to appear at the status conference, which was properly noticed.

 PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION – VERIFICATION AND SERVICE
Labor Code §§6616, 6617 and 6619 –
Employer’s petition failed to assert grounds upon which the Board may have considered reconsideration.  The Petition was not verified, and proof of service was not provided.

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated October 31, 2025, Inspection No. 1745466.

49 COR 40-8999 [¶23,370]

LOAD HANDLING
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §4999(i)(2) –
The ALJ determined the safety order was not applicable because the proffered evidence showed the load (cage) was not considered suspended by the crane.

 Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §5008(e) –
The proffered evidence showed Employer failed to ensure the crane operator secured the cage before leaving the crane unattended.

 SERIOUS CLASSIFICATION AND REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION –
Labor Code §6432 (c) –
Citation 2 was properly classified as Serious.  Employer did not rebut the presumption.

 ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 1, Items 1, 2 and 4 were vacated.  Citation 1, Item 3, and Citation 2 were affirmed, and penalties were assessed for a total of $7,125.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated Oct. 13, 2025, Inspection No. 1487520 (Bakersfield)

49 COR 40-8997 [¶23,367]

DE-ENERGIZING LINES AND EQUIPMENT
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §2940.14(c)(2)  –
The Division established that Employer failed to ensure that a portable switch, through which a source of electric energy could be supplied to a line to be de-energized, was open.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated Oct. 22, 2025, Inspection No. 1529748 (Los Angeles)

49 COR 40-8998 [¶23,368R]

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

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated October 30, 2025, Inspection No. 1751481.

 

49 COR 40-8995 [¶23,366R]

INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3203(a)(7)
The proffered evidence showed Employer failed to provide effective training and instruction regarding the new occupational hazard.

SERIOUS VIOLATION –
Labor Code §6432(a)
The Board determined that the ALJ Decision incorrectly affirmed the Serious classification; it reduced the classification to General.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTY –
The citation was affirmed; with the reclassification, the penalty was recalculated by the Board.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated October 23, 2025, Inspection No. 1486257.

49 COR 40-8991 [¶23,365]

CODE OF SAFE PRACTICES
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1509(a)  –
The Division established that Employer did not adopt a Code of Safe Practices which related to excavation operations performed at the jobsite.

THOROUGH SURVEY
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1511(b) –
The Division established that Employer failed to conduct a thorough survey.

 EMERGENCY SERVICES CONTACT INFORMATION
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1512(e) –
The proffered evidence showed Employer provided a satisfactory communication system for contacting emergency services.  Citation 1, Item 3, was vacated.

 EXCAVATION PROTECTIVE SYSTEM
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1541.1(a) –
The proffered evidence established Employer failed to ensure each employee in an excavation was protected from cave-ins by an adequate protective system.

SLOPING and BENCHING SYSTEMS
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1541.1(b) –
The proffered evidence showed the Employer failed to select and construct slopes and configurations of sloping and benching systems.  Citation 3 was vacated as it was duplicative of Citation 2.

SERIOUS CLASSIFICATION AND REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION –
Labor Code §6432 (c) –
Citation 2 was properly classified as Serious.  Employer did not rebut the presumption.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 1, Item 3, and Citation 3 were vacated.  Citation 1, Items 1 and 2, and Citation 2 were affirmed, and penalties were assessed for a total of $7,685.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated Oct. 3, 2025, Inspection No. 1296297 (San Diego)