Cal/OSHA has made revisions to its proposal on who can accompany inspectors during site site inspections. Here’s what’s being proposed.

Grand Jury Indicts Seven in 2025 Explosion

Even the best safety programs need refreshing from time to time. Here’s how one construction company recognized it needed help, who it hired, and how that effort paid off with savings of $3M.

2022’s AB 2243 calls for Cal/OSHA to make changes to the heat illness and wildfire smoke standards. Here’s what the Division of Occupational Safety and Health is proposing and how it affects employers.

Here’s how three bills affecting California occupational safety and health are progressing in the state legislature.

Cal/OSHA has been given the green light to ban the fabrication and installation of engineered stone, as a silicosis crisis continues to strike workers in the countertop industry. But how far should the ban go, and how ready is the industry to switch to alternative products, as Australia already has?

An agricultural chemical plant in Hanford has a myriad of hazards. Here’s how it addresses them and why Tessendero Kerley Hanford is the newest Cal-VPP Star site.

An Eastern Sierra ski resort faces willful and serious violation allegations from Cal/OSHA after a ski patroller's death late last year. Here’s what the agency says went wrong in this major case, but will the facts disprove the allegation?

Here’s how some significant Cal/OSHA cases were resolved in settlement talks with the agency and employers.

Two more fatal incidents underscore the importance of trench safety and protecting workers in the “cone zone.”

49 COR 40-9107 [¶23,423R]

APPEAL – LATE FILING
Labor Code §6614(a) –
The Appeals Board lacked jurisdiction to grant Employer’s petition for reconsideration.

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated August 12, 2026, Inspection No. 1784640.

49 COR 40-9107 [¶23,424R]

INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM (IIPP) –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1509(a)/§3203(a)(4)
The Appeals Board agreed with the ALJ’s Decision, which found that Employer failed to effectively implement its IIPP by identifying and evaluating new workplace processes.

EXCAVATION COVERINGS –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1541(l)(2)
The Appeals Board agreed with the ALJ’s Decision, which found that Employer failed to adequately protect remotely located excavations.

MULTI-EMPLOYER WORKSITE – CORRECTING EMPLOYER, DUE DILIGENCE DEFENSE
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §336.10
The Appeals Board agreed with the ALJ’s Decision, determining that Employer was not relieved of liability.

LABOR CODE §6432(c) –
Employer failed to rebut the presumption of a serious citation as to Citation 2.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated August 13, 2026, Inspection No. 1454931.

49 COR 40-9105 [¶23,421R]

JURISDICTION – GOOD CAUSE
Labor Code §6614(a) –
The Appeals Board lacked jurisdiction to grant reconsideration over the Division’s untimely petition for reconsideration.

 

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated July 30, 2026, Inspection No. 1625267.

49 COR 40-9105 [¶23,422]

DAMAGED LADDERS –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §3276(e)(3)
The proffered evidence showed that Employer did not violate the cited safety order as it was not required to withdraw the ladder from service prior to the accident.

PORTABLE LADDER TRAINING –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §3276(f)
The proffered evidence showed the Division failed to meet its burden of proof to show Employer did not provide training on the safe use of ladders.

INJURY AND ILLNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3203(a)(4)
The proffered evidence showed Employer had procedures for identifying hazards and implemented them with respect to the work that gave rise to the accident.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 1, Item 1, was affirmed and the proposed penalty was affirmed.  Citation 1, Item 2, and Citations 2 and 3 were dismissed, and the associated penalties were vacated.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated July 22, 2026, Inspection No 1551180 (San Diego)

49 COR 40-9103 [¶23,420]

INJURY AND ILLNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3203(a)(2)
The proffered evidence showed Employer ensured employee compliance with safe and healthful work practices.

HAZARD ASSESSMENT –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3380(f)(1)(A) –
The evidence proffered by the Division established that Employer failed to adequately assess the hazards in the restaurant kitchen and select the proper PPE to protect against those hazards.

PROTECTION FROM SLIPPERY FLOOR SURFACES –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3272(d) –
The proffered evidence showed that Employer effectively protected its employees from the hazard of slippery floors.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 1, Item 1 and Citation 2 and their associated penalties were vacated.  Citation 1, Item 2, and its associated penalty was affirmed.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated July 14, 2026, Inspection No. 1808018 (Simi Valley)

 

49 COR 40-9103 [¶23,419R]

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION – VERIFICATION
Labor Code §6616 –
Employer’s Petition for Reconsideration was not verified.

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated July 24, 2026, Inspection No. 1637991.

 

49 COR 40-9095 [¶23,416]

MACHINE GUARDING –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §4002 (a) –
The evidence proffered by the Division established that the mixer was guarded by location.

SERIOUS CLASSIFICATION, ACCIDENT-RELATED AND REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §334(c)(1) –
The causal nexus between the Serious violation and the injury was sufficient to sustain the Accident-Related classification. Employer did not rebut the presumption.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE –
Independent Employee Action Defense –
IEAD does not apply to guarding violations.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 1 and its associated penalty were affirmed.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated June 26, 2026, Inspection No. 1731627 (Los Angeles)

49 COR 40-9096 [¶23,417R]

FALL PROTECTION and LADDER SAFETY –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1670(a) and §1675(b)
The Appeals Board concluded that Employer’s work required fall protection and Employer was not entitled to the “greater hazard” defense.  The Appeals Board concluded that Employer failed to ensure proper ladder use.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – INDEPENDENT EMPLOYEE ACT
The Board found that Employer failed to establish three elements of the IEAD.

LABOR CODE §6432(c) –
Employer failed to rebut the presumption of a serious citation. As a result, Citations 2 and 3 were properly classified as serious and the Board reinstated the proposed penalties.

PENALTIES – DUPLICATIVE VIOLATIONS
The Board concluded that Citation 1, Item 3, and Citations 2 and 3 were duplicative.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated July 13, 2026, Inspection No. 1355061.