What are Cal/OSHA health and safety regulations?

Useful Rulings on Health and Safety Regulations – Cal/OSHA

Recent Rulings on Health and Safety Regulations – Cal/OSHA

FRANK DEPTO VS ST PAUL THE APOSTLE CHURCH ET AL

Plaintiff is certified with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”), which subjects him to both criminal and civil liability if he knowingly partakes in an OSHA violation. (TAC, ¶ 11.) Defendants were aware of Plaintiff’s certifications. (Ibid.) In or around November 2016, Plaintiff had a meeting with his supervisor and principal of the school, Billups, regarding installation of a kiln in the closet of the art classroom. (TAC, ¶ 14a.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ENGEL VS MEDINA

Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated OSHA safety and training policies and procedures, including maintaining a safe workplace and directing the manner the zip-line would be installed. Plaintiff Monica Engel sues for loss of consortium. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants transferred the property in an off-record transfer in order to avoid payment to plaintiffs for the damages suffered. The complaint alleges the following cause of action: premises liability; negligence; and fraudulent conveyance.

  • Hearing

CAUDILLO VS WERMERS CORPORATION

The issue in SeaBright, supra, was "whether the hirer can be liable to the contractor's employees for workplace injuries allegedly resulting from the hirer's failure to comply with safety requirements of Cal–OSHA and its regulations. That raises the question whether the tort law duty, if any, to comply with Cal–OSHA and its regulations for the benefit of an independent contractor's employees is nondelegable, an issue we discuss below." Id., at 600.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SOFIA VERGARA VS NICHOLAS LOEB ET AL

Loeb argues that the form directive is void as against public policy because it does not comply with California Health & Safety Code § 125315 by not containing a provision regarding divorce or separation.

  • Hearing

SILBERG V. WRIGHT

Cal-OSHA Regulations and Exemptions Defendant’s first affirmative defense for comparative fault and third affirmative defense for assumption of the risk also require plaintiff to establish that a violation of a law enacted for the safety of employees contributed to plaintiff’s injury. (Labor Code section 2801(a).) Plaintiff argues that Cal-OSHA regulations apply to this case and that defendant violated one or more of these regulations. However, Cal-OSHA regulations apply to “employers.”

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Gary Nadler via Zoom

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

WAHAB VS. YRC INC.

Under CFRA, an employee may take leave for a serious health condition. A “serious health condition'" is "an illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition that involves either of the following: [¶] (A) Inpatient care in a hospital, hospice, or residential health care facility. [¶] (B) Continuing treatment or continuing supervision by a health care provider." Cal. Labor Code § 12945.2(c)(8). "Continuing treatment" is "ongoing medical treatment or supervision by a health care provider ...."

  • Hearing

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH VS. CALIFORNIA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH APPEALS BOARD

.: 34-2018-80003007 RELATIONS, DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH APPEALS BOARD, Respondent/Defendant, BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS, Real Party in Interest.

  • Hearing

JAMES GRIGGS V. THE MOUNTAIN WINERY, ET AL.

He advances and relies in large part on California Occupational Safety and Health Act regulations (“Cal-OSHA” regulations) and argues that based on the violation of these regulations, he would be entitled to an instruction on negligence per se at trial. His argument is focused, not on who may be liable, but on the fact that a breach occurred. Plaintiff also drops a footnote in which he cites to a portion of an opinion discussing non-delegable duties.

  • Hearing

STEPHEN STIMAC, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS BERBERIAN ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.

Iler declares he has 40 years of construction experience and 20 years construction safety experience. (Iler Decl., ¶ 2.) He has a general contractor’s license and is certified in construction health and safety by two national boards. (Iler Decl., ¶ 2.) He also states he is competent and qualified in fall protection as well as trenching and excavation; he is a former instructor on such topics at an OSHA Training Institute. (See Iler Decl., Ex. A; ¶ 2.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GOLDEN STATE BORING & PIPE JACKING, INC. VS. CALIFORNIA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH APPEALS BOARD

To the extent the parties’ arguments rely on testimony at the hearing, they may renew those arguments at the hearing on the merits. 2 The Division is vested with primary responsibility for administering and enforcing the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973 (“the Act”). (Lab. Code § 6300 et seq.) It does this by, among other things, investigating workplace accidents and enforcing occupational safety and health standards commonly referred to as safety orders. (See Ricks Elec. v.

  • Hearing

GOLDEN STATE BORING & PIPE JACKING, INC. VS. CALIFORNIA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH APPEALS BOARD

^ The Division is vested with primary responsibility for administering and enforcing the Califomia Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973 ("the Act"). (Lab. Code § 6300 et seq.) It does this by, among other things, investigating workplace accidents and enforcing occupational safety and health standards commonly referred to as safety orders. (See Ricks Elec. V. Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Bd. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4"' 1023, 1026.)

  • Hearing

PHILLIPS VS. DUNKEL

Abich (2011) 51 Cal.4th 285, 291, “Whether unlicensed contractors or their workers may or must be deemed the homeowners' employees under section 2750.5, either for purposes of tort liability generally or with regard to Cal–OSHA [(California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973) (§ 6300 et seq.) ] specifically, are difficult and unsettled questions in this court.]

  • Hearing

NATURES PRODUCE VS DEDEAUX PROPERTIES LLC ET AL

. ¶¶ 19-20); (6) Many of the design, construction and installation defects violate American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (“ASHRAE”), the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Cal-OSHA”) or manufacturer standards of care for the industry. (Id. ¶ 21); (7) Though Plaintiff has notified Defendants of the defects with the property, Defendants have failed to sufficiently fix these defects or acknowledge responsibility for the defects.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LEONEL CARRASCO TORRES ET AL VS HARRY J OLEN ET AL

Instead, Alston was required by Cal OSHA to require its subcontractors to follow certain safety guidelines. Cal OSHA determined that Alston did NOT violate of any Cal OSHA safety standards and dismissed the citation. (DSS 23.) The Cal OSHA Appeals Board made the following findings: “On August 3, 2015, Leonel Torres (Torres), a KML employee, fell through a skylight on the roof when he was not wearing fall protection.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BARBARA WONG VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

It is alleged that Defendant was notified by Cal-OSHA on multiple occasions of its unsafe and typhus-ridden conditions at Central Division, yet Defendant decided not to comply with Cal-OSHA directions. Defendant did not act with due care in omitting to respond to Cal-OSHA violations and allowing typhus, a fatal disease, to persist in Central Division and causing Plaintiff to come into contact with the disease. 2. First Cause of Action Dangerous Condition. Gov.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CALIFORNIA HOTEL & LODGING ASSOCIATION VS CITY OF LONG BEACH

It contends it was able to establish that a petition before the Standards Board focused on occupational health and safety, whereas this measure was focused on workload compensation. Plaintiff argues Local 11 did not advance legal or factual theories or provide substantial evidence that the City of Long Beach could not have and/or did not provide otherwise.

  • Hearing

KARLA , INDIVIDUALLY & AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM OF OSCAR JOVANI MIRANDA AND VALERIA A. MIRANDA MIRANDA VS 7 STAR LOGISTICS, INC

Plaintiff argues that Agents acted with malice because of their willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ANA CECILIA MARTINEZ V. ANTONIO JAIMEZ, ET AL.

It was responsible for ensuring that all safety and health policies and procedures were clearly communicated to and understood by all employees, and for conducting hazard inspections to evaluate workplace hazards and correct unhealthy conditions, practices, or procedures in a timely manner.

  • Hearing

RODRIGUEZ V. ADVANCED COMPOSITE PRODUCTS AND TECHNOLOGY, INC.

As to the deposition of Steve Perez, Plaintiff states,“VP Clampitt fired Machinist Perez upon hearing Perez was going to complain to OSHA about Employer’s dangerous manufacturing machinery.” (Opposition; 15:18-19.) The SAC does not allege that Plaintiff made a workplace safety complaint. Rather, the SAC alleges, “On or about the second week of July of 2018, Plaintiff sent an email to Flexial, aclient of ACPT, stating that Employer had lost its AS9100 certification. . . .

  • Hearing

VAN KHA VS PPG INDUSTRIES INC ET AL

Violations of the public policies embodied in Labor Code section 1102.5 and California’s Occupational Safety and Health Act (Labor Code section 6300, et seq.) also provide bases for such a claim. (See Ferrick v. Santa Clara University (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1347 [concerning Labor Code section 1102.5]; Boston v. Penny Lane Centers, Inc. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 936, 947 [Cal-OSHA].)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

TALIA WISE VS SIX FLAGS ET AL

Defendant challenges Plaintiff’s ability to take the depositions of any Department of Industrial Relations safety inspectors. Defendant otherwise opposes any redundant written discovery, but agrees to new discovery on the new causes of action in the first amended complaint filed March 20, 2020. Plaintiff in reply concedes that the depositions of medical staff were completed, and focuses on Cal-OSHA/DOSH depositions, written discovery propounded to Magic Mountain, and Magic Mountain PMQ depositions.

  • Hearing

JOSEPH SHEPLER VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

State of California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, et al.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JOSEPH SHEPLER VS BOARD OF TRUSTEE OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE U

Seven (7) Campus Limitation—Overbroad Objection The parties’ biggest dispute is Defendant’s overbroad objection—Defendant refuses to respond to any discovery/produce any documents and is withholding information to all but the seven campuses that California’s Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety & Health (“DOSH” and/or “DIR” ) did not investigate. The dispute centers around which section of Labor Code section 2699.3 applies.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ESTHER ISAAC, ET AL. VS ELWYN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

The report concluded that there was sufficient evidence to substantiate the claims that Abass was sleeping while on duty during the night shift and had barricaded the front door in violation of Elwyn’s workplace safety policies and OSHA.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SHIMMICK/FCC/IMPREGILO JOINT VENTURE VS. CALIFORNIA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH APPEALS BOARD

, 2016, Real Party in Interest, California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal OSHA) assessed Petitioner citations and penalties for violations of occupational safety and health standards codified in California Code of Regulations, title 8. (AR, 000001-00006.) Cal OSHA served Petitioner with notices of the citations and penalties by certified mail. (Lab. Code, §6317.) Petitioner alleges that it electronically filed a notice of appeal on November 7, 2016.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.