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.

The Cal/OSHA Standards Board is looking for a force multiplier in the war against silicosis. But a recent letter to seven district attorneys has drawn the ire of at least one such prosecutor. Here’s why.

It's early in the legislative season, but two bills of interest to California's occupational safety and health community have surfaced. Here's what they are and what they would do.

MRIs are an important piece of medical technology, but these powerful machines have been shown to pose hazards to the personnel who administer them. A new petition to Cal/OSHA aims to pro-vide a lifeline in emergencies.

Read the Commentary by publisher J Dale Debber about why and naïve legislators AB 2488 should be killed.

Here are the highlights from the latest batch of Cal/OSHA settlements involving employer fatalities.

Cal/OSHA’s airborne contaminants standard requires air monitoring under the supervision of a competent industrial hygienist. But the California Industrial Hygiene Council says that language is too vague. Here’s what they have asked the Standards Board to do about it.

An employee lost a finger on a press brake in 2024. Then, less than a year later, another employee loses a finger in a similar incident. Now Cal/OSHA is coming down hard on the San Jose employ-er. Get the details in this week’s Cal-OSHA Reporter.

With investigations ended, Cal/OSHA takes action in several cases of workplace fatalities. Here’s how these cases came out.

49 COR 40-9044 [¶23,390]

PNEUMATICALLY DRIVEN NAILERS – OPERATED PER MANUFACTURER’S INSTRUCTIONS –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1704(b)(2)
The proffered evidence showed that Employer did not ensure that an employee operated a nailer in accordance with the manufacturer’s operating and safety instructions.

INDEPENDENT EMPLOYEE ACT DEFENSE –
Employer failed to establish all five elements of IEAD.

SERIOUS CLASSIFICATION, ACCIDENT-RELATED AND REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION –
Labor Code §6432(a) and (c)
The causal nexus between the Serious violation and the injury was sufficient to sustain the Accident-Related classification. Employer did not rebut the presumption.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
The proposed penalty of the affirmed citation was assessed.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated February 24, 2026, Inspection No 1692164 (Roseville)

49 COR 40-9043 [¶23,389]

INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §3203(a)(4) and (6)
The proffered evidence showed that Employer had a written IIPP that was implemented.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 2 was vacated.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated February 13, 2026, Inspection No 1642084 (Sylmar)

49 COR 40-9040 [¶23,388]

TRAINED FIRST AID PERSONS –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1512(b)
Employer did not have an appropriately trained person available to render first aid at the job site.

 INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §1509(a)
Employer did not provide training and instruction sufficient to comply with §3203(a)(7).

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

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citations 1 and 2 were affirmed, and the proposed penalties were assessed.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated Feb. 6, 2026, Inspection No. 1691867 (Woodland Hills)

 

49 COR 40-9039 [¶23,387R]

APPEAL – LATE FILING
Labor Code § 6601 –
Employer failed to establish good cause for its late appeal, which was the result of internal operating problems.

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated February 11, 2026, Inspection No. 1784640.

49 COR 40-9037 [¶23,386]

ROLLING SCAFFOLDS –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1646(k)
The Division did not prove that the employees were untrained or that the training provided was inadequate.

SCAFFOLDS – GENERAL REQUIREMENTS –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1637(l)
The Division did not prove that Employer had removed the scaffold cross brace.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 1 and Citation 2 and their associated penalties were vacated.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated January 9, 2026, Inspection No 1660543 (Palm Springs)

 

49 COR 40-9037 [¶23,385R]

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 January 14, 2026, Inspection No. 1496831.

 

49 COR 40-9033 [¶23,384]

EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP –
Labor Code §§2772
The proffered evidence showed Employer did not establish the three parts of the ABC test. The workers were found to be Employer’s employees.

DUAL EMPLOYMENT –
The ALJ determined Employer was a secondary employer of the employees.

 ANNUAL PERMIT –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §341(c)(2)(B)
The proffered evidence showed the excavation was for the purpose of performing emergency repair work, an exception to the permit requirement. The citation was dismissed.

CODE OF SAFE PRACTICES –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1509(b)
The proffered evidence showed the CSP did not address the hazards involved in working in or around trenches.

APPROPRIATELY TRAINED PERSON –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1512(b)
The proffered evidence showed no one certified to render first aid was available within a few minutes before a first responder would arrive.

EXCAVATION AND TRENCHES GENERAL REQUIREMENTS –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1541.1(c)(2)(C)
The proffered evidence showed Employer did not have written specifications for the trench protective system.

Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1541(h)(1)
The proffered evidence showed one employee was inside the trench with accumulated water at the bottom.

Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1541(k)(2)
The proffered evidence showed Employer allowed employees to work in the excavation without required cave-in protective system in place.

Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1541(c)(2)
The proffered evidence showed the Employer did not provide a safe means of egress in the trench excavation over five feet in depth.

Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1541(a)(1)
The proffered evidence showed Employer failed to provide an adequate protective system to protect employees from cave-ins.

SERIOUS CLASSIFICATION AND REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION –
Labor Code §6432(a) and (c)
Citations 2 through 5 – The proffered evidence showed there was a realistic possibility of serious injury for failure to have a sufficient protective system in the excavation.  Employer did not rebut the presumption.

REPEAT VIOLATIONS –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §334(d)
Citations 4 and 5 were determined to be a repeat of violations affirmed in a Settlement Order issued in August 2023.

DUPLICATIVE PENALTIES –
Citations 2, 3, and 5 involved a single hazard with the same abatement.  The ALJ vacated the penalties for Citations 2 and 3, determining they were duplicative of Citation 5.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 1, Item 1, was vacated.  Citation 1, Items 2, 3, and 4 were affirmed with penalties adjusted.  Citations 2 and 3 were affirmed with penalties vacated.  Citations 4 and 5 were affirmed with penalties adjusted.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated December 22, 2025, Inspection No 1719334 (San Francisco)

49 COR 40-9027 [¶23,382]

 EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP –
Labor Code §§2772 and 2750.5
The proffered evidence showed Employer did not establish all three parts of the ABC test. The workers did not have a license which was required for the work performed.  They were found to be Employer’s employees.

 INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1509(a)
The proffered evidence showed Employer did not have a written IIPP at the time of inspection.

 CODE OF SAFE PRACTICES –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1509(b)
The proffered evidence showed Employer did not have a written CSP at the time of inspection.

 APPROPRIATELY TRAINED PERSON –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1512(b)
The Division failed to present sufficient evidence to establish Employer violated the cited regulation.  Appeal was granted.

 LIGHT-DUTY EXTERIOR SCAFFOLDS –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1640(b)(2)
The proffered evidence showed that scaffold ledgers surrounding the exterior of the house did not meet the regulation requirements.

Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1640(b)(3)
The proffered evidence showed the scaffold did not have sufficient diagonal bracing.

Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1640(b)(4)
The proffered evidence showed the scaffold did not have midrails at the working levels.

Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1640(b)(5)
The proffered evidence showed platform planks did not cover the entire space between the uprights on the working levels.

 STEP LADDER USE –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §1675(b)
The proffered evidence showed Employer failed to ensure proper use of portable ladders.

 COVID-19 PREVENTION PROGRAM –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §3205(c)
The ALJ decided the requirements of the COVID-19 Prevention Program were no longer in effect and dismissed the citation.

 HEAT ILLNESS PREVENTION PLAN –
Title 8, Cal. Code of Regulations, §3395(i)
The proffered evidence showed Employer did not have a written HIPP.

 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES – LOGICAL TIME DEFENSE –
Employer failed to show that implementing the safeguards in the safety order would expose an employee to a greater danger than non-compliance.

 SERIOUS CLASSIFICATION, AND REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION –
Labor Code §6432(a) and (c)
Citations 2 through 5 – the proffered evidence showed there was a reasonable possibility of serious injury due to the fall hazard.  Employer did not rebut the presumption.

 ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES –
Citation 1, Items 2, 3, 4 and 5 were affirmed along with their associated penalties. Citation 1, Items 3 and 6 were vacated.  Citations 2 through 5 were upheld with the Serious classification and penalties affirmed.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated December 22, 2025, Inspection No 1628750 (San Francisco)