What are Cal/OSHA health and safety regulations?

Useful Resources for Health and Safety Regulations – Cal/OSHA

Recent Rulings on Health and Safety Regulations – Cal/OSHA

ABED DUBESTER VS AMPAM PARKS MECHANICAL, INC., ET AL.

and Health Act (“OSHA”) (and all amendments thereto); the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (“COBRA”) (and all amendments thereto); and any and all claims under federal, state, and local laws against discrimination.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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

What is “it” and what portion of Cal-OSHA regulations were violated?) Plaintiffs allege “unlicensed, uncertified, and untrained” individuals were allowed to operate forklifts.

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PATRICIA J QUIJANO ET AL VS RODDY KHATIB ET AL

In Opposition, Plaintiffs proffer a Police Report indicating that Decedent died of “unknown circumstances”, an OSHA Report indicating that Decedent was found lying in a man-made ditch, and the Deposition testimony of Decedent’s wife indicating that Decedent told her that he smelled a strong smell of gas and was feeling sleepy before he died. (Abrahamian Decl., Exs. 2, 4, and 10.) Plaintiffs have provided no medical expert testimony to rebut Dr.

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

NORM WILSON & SONS, INC. VS CALIFORNIA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH APPEALS BOARD, ET AL.

Authority of Respondent Board and Real Party-in-Interest Division The Division has primary responsibility for administering and enforcing the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973 (“Act”), §6300 et seq. The Division inspects workplaces and issues citations for violations of the safety orders adopted by the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board. §§ 142, 6307, 6308 et seq.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CDWR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CASES

Please see the Consolidate Tentative ruling posted under North Delta Water Agency's Motion for Attorney's Fees...

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CDWR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CASES

California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, California Water Impact Network, AquAlliance, Friends of the River, Sierra Club California, Restore the Delta, Planning and Conservation League, Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Save Our Sandhill Cranes, Center for Food Safety - petitioners in Sacramento Superior Court No. 34-2017-80002674 and answering parties in Sacramento Superior Court No. 34-2017-00215965.

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CDWR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CASES

Please see the Consolidate Tentative ruling posted under North Delta Water Agency's Motion for Attorney's Fees...

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CALIFORNIA HOTEL & LODGING ASSOCIATION VS CITY OF LONG BEACH

The court found that even if the promotion of health and safety was one of the city's purposes in passing the ordinance, that did not make it automatically preempted; it was only a factor in a nuanced inquiry into whether the effect of the ordinance would regulate a field that the state had reserved to itself. Id. at 190.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2020

VARGAS, ET AL. V. LEVEL 10 CONSTRUCTION, L.P., ET AL.

Airways moved for summary judgment based on the Privette doctrine, and, in opposition, SeaBright and the employee presented “a declaration by an accident reconstruction expert, who stated that the lack of safety guards at ‘nip points’ on the conveyor violated Cal- OSHA regulations… and that the safety guards would have prevented Verdon’s injury.” (Id. at p.595.) U.S.

  • Hearing

    Dec 19, 2019

CAL. STATE LABOR COMM. V. RYAN PEACOCK, INC., ET AL.

As directed to Defendant Ryan Peacock this request seeks all documents “relating to worker health and safety . . . in effect at any time between January 1, 2013 and the present.” Defendant Peacock’s response consists of boilerplate objections that the request does not seek discoverable evidence, is overbroad and is vague, all of which are overruled. The response also objects that complying with the request would be unduly burdensome. This objection is also unsupported and overruled.

  • Hearing

    Dec 19, 2019

HAROLD FIGUEROA ET AL VS AT&T CORPORATION ET AL

Because of the danger’s ubiquity and simplicity, ordinary users of the boom lift likely have minimum safety expectations concerning the boom lift’s electrocution hazards. As far as the evidence shows, the inclusion of a PWD may be a legitimate, commonly accepted minimum safety assumption of these users, similar to how an automobile driver views airbags in an automobile.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2019

MARTIN VS HOME DEPOT USA INC

Consequently, summary adjudication of the 2nd cause of action is denied. 3rd Cause of Action for Retaliation The 3rd cause of action alleges Home Depot retaliated against her for complaining of a hostile work environment, age and gender discrimination, markdown manipulations, meal and rest break violations, OSHA violations, and for taking medical leave.

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MARTIN VS HOME DEPOT USA INC

Consequently, summary adjudication of the 2nd cause of action is denied. 3rd Cause of Action for Retaliation The 3rd cause of action alleges Home Depot retaliated against her for complaining of a hostile work environment, age and gender discrimination, markdown manipulations, meal and rest break violations, OSHA violations, and for taking medical leave.

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MARTIN VS HOME DEPOT USA INC

Consequently, summary adjudication of the 2nd cause of action is denied. 3rd Cause of Action for Retaliation The 3rd cause of action alleges Home Depot retaliated against her for complaining of a hostile work environment, age and gender discrimination, markdown manipulations, meal and rest break violations, OSHA violations, and for taking medical leave.

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MARTIN VS HOME DEPOT USA INC

Consequently, summary adjudication of the 2nd cause of action is denied. 3rd Cause of Action for Retaliation The 3rd cause of action alleges Home Depot retaliated against her for complaining of a hostile work environment, age and gender discrimination, markdown manipulations, meal and rest break violations, OSHA violations, and for taking medical leave.

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MARTIN VS HOME DEPOT USA INC

Consequently, summary adjudication of the 2nd cause of action is denied. 3rd Cause of Action for Retaliation The 3rd cause of action alleges Home Depot retaliated against her for complaining of a hostile work environment, age and gender discrimination, markdown manipulations, meal and rest break violations, OSHA violations, and for taking medical leave.

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CALIFORNIA HOTEL & LODGING ASSOCIATION VS CITY OF LONG BEACH

Specifically, they argue that: (1) Section 5.49.040 of the Long Beach Municipal Code is not an occupational safety and health standard and, thus, is not subject to Cal/OSHA preemption; (2) the California Health and Safety Act of 1973 and Labor Code § 142.3 do not create field preemption of all local ordinances impacting workplace health and safety; (3) the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board has not impliedly preempted local ordinances that require additional compensation based on the amount of

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2019

JOE ALLEN VS DEHUMIDIFICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC

Plaintiff allegedly filed a complaint with the California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Cal/OSHA”) regarding Defendant’s safety violations and allegedly illegal business practices. On or about March 10, 2017, Plaintiff allegedly refused an order from Defendant to operate a forklift and informed his manager that he would not violate the law.

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

SHREWSBURY VS ATKINSON/WALSH

Plaintiff alleges that, at the time of his accident, Atkinson/Walsh was subject to an investigation by the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Caltrans (“OSHA investigation”) stemming from a bridge deck collapse that injured and killed several Atkinson/Walsh employees a few months prior. Plaintiff alleges that Caltrans and RCTC directed Mintz and others to “whitewash” the incident so that it would not affect the ongoing OSHA investigation or otherwise cause negative publicity.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2019

IAN FLANARY VS 7-ELEVEN., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

The SAC also alleges that Defendants had amply notice of the probable dangerous consequences of taking not steps to remedy the unsafe condition of their store, including through reports of increased violent crime between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. in other nearby convenience stores, including two 7-Eleven stores in West Hollywood, and through numerous complaints, class actions and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) complaints about dangers facing employees and patrons during night

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LEONEL CARRASCO TORRES ET AL VS HARRY J OLEN ET AL

Alternatively, Plaintiffs contend that Alston violated Cal OSHA safety standards, and somehow this violation evidences Alston’s retained control over safety conditions. However, evidence of OSHA violations cannot be admitted in a personal injury or wrongful death action except as between the employee and employer. (Lab. Code 6304.5.) It is undisputed that Torres is not an employee of Alston.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2019

LEONEL CARRASCO TORRES ET AL VS HARRY J OLEN ET AL

OSHA Plaintiffs suggest that Alston retained control over safety conditions because Alston could not have delegated the responsibility of providing safe access or complying with Title 8 California Code of Regulations §§ 1511(b), 1644, 3212(a)(1), or any other applicable Cal. OSHA regulations. (Opp. 17:13.) But, OSHA regulations are delegable. (See SeaBright Ins. Co. v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2019

LIDVIA P MINERO VS COBALT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ET AL

Defendants must specify which information is equally available to the propounding party (CCP § 2030.220) and where it may be obtained, rather than simply stating that the information is in the public record, and generally referring to the corollary OSHA case (Case Number S111-115-15) or the ongoing criminal case (Case Number BA471291). Further responses, where ordered, are due without objection within 20 days.

  • Hearing

    Oct 10, 2019

NATALIE RUBIO , ET AL. VS GENIE INDUSTRIES, INC. , ET AL.

Hays has been able to return to work that subjects him to the same conditions that existed at the time of the incident and that he was able to provide detailed information about the incident to OSHA. (Kalechstein Decl., ¶¶ 16, 18.) Mr. Hays’ return to work does not mean that he will not be emotionally impacted when confronted with the details of the incident. Further, Jeffrey Malek declares in reply that Mr. Hays was sniffling and crying during the OSHA interview, as picked up on an audio recording.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2019

JEFFREY R EICHEL ET AL VS ASHLAND LLC ET AL

“[U]nder strict liability the manufacturer does not thereby become the insurer of the safety of the product’s user.” (Id.) “Strict liability has been invoked for three types of defects—manufacturing defects, design defects, and warning defects, i.e., inadequate warnings or failures to warn.” (Id.) Initially, while Moving Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have not shown evidence that Mr.

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2019

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.