Grand Jury Indicts Seven in 2025 Explosion

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…

Ag employers need skilled labor to meet future needs, and farmworkers need opportunities to enhance their futures. Here's where a Central Valley college is working to bridge that gap.

After a more-than-six-year hiatus, Cal/OSHA’s committee to recommend changes to the airborne contaminants’ permissible exposure limits will be back in action later this month. Here’s what to expect and how to get involved.

Polluted water from Mexico plagues San Diego beaches and environs. It is clearly a hazard to the public, but are more regulations needed to address employee safety? Is it a workplace hazard? One San Diego County legislator thinks so, and here’s what she proposes to do about it.

An autonomous tractor company at the heart of an important experimental variance has gone out of business. What does that mean for the growers seeking greater use of self-driving equipment?

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.

49 COR 40-9057 [¶23,396]

MOTION TO AMEND CITATION –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §371.2 –
The Division failed to follow the procedure for amending citations.  

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

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 2 was affirmed, and the proposed penalty was deemed reasonable.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated Mar. 11, 2026, Inspection No. 1568389 (Claremont)

49 COR 40-9059 [¶23,398R]

ORDER – INTERLOCUTORY
Labor Code §6614  –
The Division’s petition was interlocutory in nature because the order from which it sought reconsideration, the denial of the Division’s Motion Concerning Hearing Dates, was not a final order. The Board denied the petition for reconsideration.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated March 25, 2026, Inspection No. 1820991.

 

49 COR 40-9058 [¶23,397]

FAILURE TO REPORT SERIOUS INJURY
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §342(a)
The proffered evidence showed the Division failed to establish when Employer knew or would have known, with diligent inquiry, that the injury constituted a serious reportable injury.

INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, sections 3203(a)(6) and (7)
The Division failed to present evidence that Employer did not implement procedures to identify and evaluate hazards or take corrective action.  The evidence proffered showed that Employer implemented training provisions in accordance with its IIPP.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
The citations were vacated.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated March 10, 2026, Inspection No 1652861 (Sylmar)

 

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)