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.

Occupational health advocates say California should go the Down Under way and ban engineered stone. But industry representatives here say that’s not necessary. Here’s what they think the state should do instead.

Are protections for healthcare workers from surgical plume finally close to being published by Cal/OSHA? And what should the rules contain? An advisory committee will hash out a draft proposal later this month. Here’s what it would require.

Here’s a look back at the occupational safety and health stories from the pages of Cal-OSHA Reporter that shaped 2025 – and will have an impact on 2026.

Here are the California workplace fatalities that closed out 2025.

Two years after Cal/OSHA adopted revisions to its silica standard to help protect workers in the engineered stone fabrication industry, the organization that started the process is petitioning for a ban on fabricating the hazardous substance. Here’s why the group says the time is right to take this step.

More employers get recognition from Cal/OSHA for their efforts to promote safe workplaces. Here are the latest companies to qualify for the agency’s various partnership programs.

While investigators continue to probe a massive blast in Yolo County that took the lives of seven fireworks employees, Cal/OSHA has cited the company involved. Other investigations continue.

Longtime employer defense attorney Fred Walter is calling it a career. Here are his takeaways after 45-years working within the Cal/OSHA system.

49 COR 40-9024 [¶23,379]

HEAT ILLNESS AND INJURY PREVENTION PLAN –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3395(a)
The proffered evidence established the HIPP did not include high heat procedures and acclimatization procedures.

 ELEVATED LOCATIONS – GUARDRAILS –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3210(c)
The proffered evidence showed Exception 9 applied and Employer was not required to provide an alternative to guardrails.  Citation 2 was vacated.

GENERAL VIOLATION –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §334(b)
The proffered evidence showed that Citation 1 was properly classified as General as the violation had a relationship to occupational safety and health.

ABATEMENT –
The proffered evidence established that Employer could modify its written HIPP to include all of the required elements.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTY –
Citations 1 and its associated penalty was assessed.  Citation 2 was vacated.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated November 26, 2025, Inspection No. 1645828 (Long Beach)

49 COR 40-9021 [¶23,380]

REPORTING SERIOUS INJURY –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §342(a)
The Division met its burden to show Employer failed to report a serious injury.

 PUSH STICKS OR PUSH BLOCKS FOR TABLE SAWS –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §4300.1(c)(2)
The proffered evidence showed Employer failed to provide suitable push sticks or push blocks for ripping operations.

TABLE SAW GUARDING –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §4300.1(a)
The proffered evidence showed the employer failed to ensure the table saw’s blade was effectively guarded.

 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES –
Employer did not establish that the inspection was invalid or that the citations were issued untimely.
Employer could not avail itself of the IEAD because its injured employee was considered a member of management. Moreover, the safety order required positive guarding.

SERIOUS VIOLATION – REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §6432(c)
The proffered evidence showed that Citations 2 and 3 were properly classified as Serious as there was a realistic possibility of serious physical harm.  Employer did not rebut the presumption.

ACCIDENT-RELATED CHARACTERIZATION –
The proffered evidence established a causal nexus between the violation and the serious injury as alleged in Citation 2.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citations 1, 2 and 3, were affirmed but the penalty calculations for Citations 2 and 3 were amended.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated December 1, 2025, Inspection No. 1638538 (Sun Valley)

49 COR 409026 [¶23,381R]

JURISDICTION – PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated December 19, 2025, Inspection No. 1675024.

49 COR 40-9017 [¶23,378R]

CODE OF SAFE PRACTICES –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1704(f)
The Division’s proffered evidence showed Employer failed to include adequate warnings regarding the safe use of the nail gun in its COSP.

MANUFACTURER’S INSTRUCTIONS –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1704(b)(2)
The Division’s proffered evidence showed the nail gun was not operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s operating instructions.

TRAINING –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1704(g)
The Division’s proffered evidence showed that Employer failed to train its employees on the safe use of the nail gun.

SAFETY ORDER – VAGUE AND UNENFORCEABLE  –
The Appeals Board determined that safety order §1704(f) was not unconstitutionally vague or ambiguous.  Employer had adequate notice of the violation of the training requirement.

CITATION NOTICE/PARTICULARITY –
Labor Code §6317
The Appeals Board determined that the citation described with particularity the nature of the violation affording Employer due process.

SERIOUS CLASSIFICATION AND REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION –
Labor Code §6432(a) –
Citations 2 and 3 were properly classified as Serious as there was a realistic possibility of serious physical harm.  Employer did not rebut the presumption.

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 for Citation 2.

ABATEMENT –
Employer did not demonstrate that the abatement requirements and timeframe for Citations 2 and 3 were unreasonable.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTY –
The citations were affirmed, with the Board’s adjustment in penalty for Citation 3.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated December 3, 2025, Inspection No. 1692964.

 

49 COR 40-9015 [¶23,377]

ILLNESS AND INJURY PREVENTION PROGRAM (IIPP)
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1509(a) –
The evidence presented demonstrated that the Division met its burden to show that Employer failed to effectively implement its IIPP by adequately analyzing and correcting known hazards at the worksite.

CONSTRUCT, INSTALL OR MAINTAIN POSITIVE STOPS
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3324(b)  –
The Division did not provide sufficient evidence that there was a failure to install and maintain a positive stop or devices on a horizontal sliding gate.

SERIOUS VIOLATION – REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §334(c)(1)
The proffered evidence showed that Citation 1 was properly classified as Serious as there was actual serious physical harm.  Employer did not rebut the presumption.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 1 was affirmed, and the proposed penalty was assessed.  Citation 2 was vacated.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated Nov. 14, 2025, Inspection No. 1722052 (Lancaster)

 

49 COR 40-9015 [¶23,376R]

FAILURE TO APPEAR – GOOD CAUSE
Labor Code §6611 –
The Appeals Board found that Employer did not demonstrate good cause for its failure to appear.

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated November 20, 2025, Inspection No. 1599318

 

49 COR 40-9011 [¶23,375]

OPERATING RULES –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3664(a)
The proffered evidence showed that Employer failed to post a set of Operating Rules for employees operating industrial trucks or industrial tow tractors

INDUSTRIAL TRUCKS –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3650(t)(22)
The proffered evidence showed Employer securely blocked or restrained trucks and trailers at loading docks.

FOOT PROTECTION –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3385(a)
The proffered evidence showed Employer failed to provide appropriate foot protection to employees exposed to falling objects or crushing or penetrating actions.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES –
Employer did not establish any of its asserted affirmative defenses.

 REGULATORY CLASSIFICATION –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §334(a)
The proffered evidence showed that Citation 1, Item 1, was properly classified as it was a failure to post violation.

SERIOUS VIOLATION – REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §6432(c)
The proffered evidence showed that Citation 2 was properly classified as Serious as there was a realistic possibility of serious physical harm.  Employer did not rebut the presumption.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 1, Item 1, and Citation 2, were affirmed and the proposed penalties were deemed reasonable.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated Oct. 28, 2025, Inspection No. 1469097 (Santa Clarita)

 

49 COR 40-9005 [¶23,373]

ILLNESS AND INJURY PREVENTION PROGRAM (IIPP)
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3203(a)(4)(B) –
The evidence presented demonstrated that the Division did not meet its burden to show that Employer failed to effectively implement its IIPP by adequately inspecting, identifying and evaluating hazards at the worksite.

INSPECTION
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §2941(d) –
The Division did not provide sufficient evidence that there was a failure to inspect the poles to ensure they were in a safe condition before climbing.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated Oct. 31, 2025, Inspection No. 1484149 (Soda Springs)