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.

An East Bay legislator wants to give investigatory powers from Cal/OSHA's Bureau of Investigations to individual district attorneys. But what's behind the move? Here's what we know so far.

Cal/OSHA has finally published the 2023 Bureau of Investigations report. Here are BOI’s activi-ties for that year and how they compare to previous years.

A letter from the Cal/OSHA Standards Board to county prosecutors on the silicosis crisis pro-voked a sharp response from one district attorney. The Board chair explains his request. And the controversy continues…

A long-simmering debate about when construction employers are required to erect construction personnel hoists is coming to a close with an impending Standards Board vote. Here’s what the regulation would require and what stakeholders are saying.

A high-end residential project, Seaside, overlooks Monterey Bay. But general contractor Shea Homes has not overlooked safety on the project and, in fact, has become a model for the industry. Here’s why and how.

After a hospital employee is stabbed by a homeless man at a San Francisco Peninsula hospital, Cal/OSHA cites the organization for a willful violation of the healthcare violence prevention standard. Here’s how the case was resolved.

Cal/OSHA was forced to remove correctional facilities from its indoor heat illness standard in 2024. It has now released draft language to regulate those workplaces. Here’s the language and how you can weigh in on it.

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.

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)

 

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)