OSHA Updates: You May Be Affected
July 19, 2017 —
Louis “Dutch” Schotemeyer – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPGovernor Brown Signs Legislation Increasing Cal/OSHA Fines
Cal/OSHA has increased its maximum fines for the first time in more than twenty years pursuant to legislation recently signed into law by Governor Brown. The changes nearly double the maximum fines and have brought California in line with the Federal standard. The increase in fines will not be isolated to this year, as fines will now be automatically increased annually based on the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). Additionally, any employer who repeatedly violates any occupational safety or health standard, order, or special order, or Section 25910 of the Health and Safety Code, can no longer receive any adjustment of a penalty assessed based on the good faith or the history of previous violations. Such adjustments were previously commonplace.
Specific increases are listed below (all increases refer to maximum fines, Cal/OSHA has discretion as to the amount of the fine when issuing the citation):
- Section 6427 of the Labor Code was amended to increase fines, not of a serious nature, from $7,000 for each violation to $12,471 for each violation.
- Section 6429 of the Labor Code has increased fines for repeat violations; raising the maximum fine from $70,000 to $124,709 for each violation. Additionally, Section 6429 also raised the minimum fine for repeat violations from $5,000 to $8,908.
- Section 6431 raised fines for posting or recordkeeping violations from $7,000 to $12,471 per violation.
Full text of the penalty section of the labor code may be found
here
California OSHA Emergency Action Plan elements revised; California now more consistent with Federal Standards
Revisions to General Safety Orders section 3220(b) became effective on June 5, 2017 and contain two minor changes for California employers with regards to Emergency Action Plans (EAP).
The first change requires that an employer’s EAP be more detailed in describing the type of evacuation that is to be performed, not just the route for an evacuation. The previous element of the EAP simply required that the plan contain, “[e]mergency escape procedures and emergency escape route assignments.” The current element of the EAP requires that, “[p]rocedures for emergency evacuation, including type of evacuation and exit route assignments,” be identified.
The second change clarifies the language surrounding employees performing rescue or medical duties. Previously the only requirement in the EAP regarding rescue and medical duties was for employees that performed rescue and medical duties. The current version requires that the EAP contain, “[p]rocedures to be followed by employees performing rescue or medical duties. The use of the word and created potential gaps in plans as it is likely that employees may not be performing both rescue and medical duties, instead performing just rescue or medical duties. Plans must now include procedures to be followed by employees who perform either rescue or medical duties.
It is recommended that your EAP be in writing and updated to comply with the revised General Safety Orders section 3220. The full text of General Safety Orders section 3320 can be seen
here. Please contact us if you would like further details regarding your Emergency Action Plan.
Deadline for Electronic Submission of OSHA 300 Log Records for Injuries and Illnesses Delayed
On May 12, 2016, the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published a rule entitled “Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses” which required certain employers subject to Federal OSHA regulations to submit the information from their completed 2016 Form 300A to OSHA via electronic submission no later than July 1, 2017. On June 28, 2017, OSHA, via a
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, has proposed a December 1, 2017 deadline for the electronic reporting; the electronic reporting system is scheduled to be available on August 1, 2017.
Per the California Department of Industrial Relations, California employers are not required to follow the new requirements and will not be required to do so until "substantially similar" regulations go through formal rulemaking, which would culminate in adoption by the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations and approval by the Office of Administrative Law.
Cal/OSHA drafted a proposed rulemaking package to conform to the revised federal OSHA regulations by amending the California Code of Regulations, title 8, sections 14300.35, 14300.36, and 14300.41; these are currently under review with the State.
It is currently unclear what, if any, impact the delay by OSHA will have on the proposed amendments to the California Code.
We will keep you posted as to the changes in California recordkeeping requirements. Please contact Louis “Dutch” Schotemeyer with any questions regarding Cal OSHA or your safety program. Dutch is located at Newmeyer & Dillion’s Newport Beach office and can be reached at dutch.schotemeyer@ndlf.com or by calling 949.271.7208.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Classify Workers Properly to Avoid Expensive Penalties
April 25, 2022 —
Martin C. McCarthy - Construction ExecutiveBusiness owners must carefully consider how the people working for them are classified. There is a fine line between being identified as a contractor or employee on the job. Owners must know the difference to avoid being penalized.
Worker classification determines if an employer must withhold income taxes and pay Social Security, Medicare taxes and unemployment tax on wages paid to an employee. Businesses do not have to withhold or pay any taxes on payments to independent contractors. The earnings of a person working as an independent contractor are subject to self-employment tax.
There are federal and state rules for determining if a person is an employee or contractor. Employers must follow both sets of guidelines when classifying workers.
Reprinted courtesy of
Martin C. McCarthy, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. McCarthy may be contacted at marty.mccarthy@mcc-cpas.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wisconsin Court of Appeals Re-affirms American Girl To Find Coverage for Damage Caused by Subcontractors
September 20, 2021 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe trial court's finding of no occurrence and no property damage due to faulty workmanship was reversed by the appellate court. No. 5 Walworth v. Engerman Contracting, Inc., 2021 Wis. App. LEXIS 401 (Wis. Ct. App, July 30, 2021).
Engerman was the general contractor on a construction project at a residence. Engerman was hired to build a poll complex. Engerman subcontracted the project to Downes Swimming Pool Co., Inc. Downes purchased shotcrete (sprayed concrete) from Otto Jacobs Company LLC for the swimming poll walls and base.
After completion, the pool immediately began leaking. An investigation determined that the shotcrete material was not installed correctly, contributing to cracking in the pool walls and the steel reinforcing bars were not sufficient to prevent cracks in the pool walls. The owner demolished the pool and constructed a new one. Thereafter, the owner sued Engerman, its insurers (General Casualty Company of Wisconsin and West Bend Mutual Insurance Company) and Downes and its insurer. Downes filed a third-party complaint against Jacobs and its insurer (Acuity Mutual Insurance Company) alleging Jacobs negligently provided inferior shotcrete to Downes.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Ninth Circuit Upholds Corps’ Issuance of CWA Section 404 Permit for Newhall Ranch Project Near Santa Clarita, CA
April 11, 2018 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog On April 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a unanimous opinion, rejected the challenges to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) decision to issue a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit to the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall), which is planning a large residential and commercial project in Los Angeles County near Santa Clarita, CA (the Newhall Ranch project). The Newhall Ranch project, which involves the discharge of dredge and fill materials into the Santa Clara River, has been scaled back and modified, and the Ninth Circuit held that it is consistent with the CWA, the Corps’ regulations and procedures, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Ninth Circuit provides an excellent primer on the Section 404 permitting process. The case is
Friends of the Santa Clara River v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLPMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
North Carolina, Tennessee Prepare to Start Repairing Helene-damaged Interstates
October 07, 2024 —
Derek Lacey - Engineering News-RecordDamage from Hurricane Helene to interstates between North Carolina and Tennessee includes washed-out roads and bridges, landslides and extensive flooding—creating a long list of repair work needed for state transportation agencies as they prepare to rebuilding critical highways across the Appalachian Mountains.
Reprinted courtesy of
Derek Lacey, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Lacey may be contacted at laceyd@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Contract And IP Implications Of Design Professionals Monetizing Non-Fungible Tokens Comprising Digital Construction Designs
December 26, 2022 —
Colin C. Holley - ConsensusDocsThere is an emerging market that appears poised to increasingly provide opportunities to monetize architectural and other construction designs through the sale of non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Last year, artist Krista Kim reportedly made the first sale of a digital home design via an NFT marketplace, for over $500,000. With some NFTs selling for millions of dollars, monetizing digital designs is undoubtedly an enticing prospect for architects, engineers, and other design professionals. It is thus critical to understand the application of intellectual property rights to NFTs and to address those rights in contracts involving design professionals.
What is an NFT?
To understand the market for NFTs it is necessary to first understand blockchain technology. A blockchain is a decentralized system of recording information via a digital ledger of transactions duplicated and distributed across many computers. The manner in which each block of the ledger chain is created—using a cryptographic mathematical algorithm tied into the previous block, a timestamp, and transaction data—prevents it from being changed retroactively without a change to all subsequent blocks and consensus of the decentralized network.
An NFT is a ‘token’ secured to a blockchain. It can represent ownership of any item that is non-fungible, i.e., any item that has unique qualities that add value and make the item non-interchangeable. NFTs can take unlimited forms, including, for example, tokens representing unique artwork, music, fashion items, in-game items, essays, collectibles, memorabilia, furniture, and real estate.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colin C. Holley, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)Mr. Holley may be contacted at
cholley@watttieder.com
Insureds' Summary Judgment Motion on Mold Limitation Denied
November 10, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe insureds' motion for partial summary judgment on the applicability of the homeowner's mold limitation was denied. R.W.& R. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 2016 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 131586 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 26, 2016).
The policy imposed a $5,000 limit on losses caused by mold. Plaintiffs discovered that their dishwasher was leaking and reported the loss to Liberty. Liberty's contractor concluded that the bottom of the dishwasher had rusted out, causing water to seep into parts of the kitchen and the laundry/utility room below. The contractor used dehumidifiers to extract moisture from the affected areas and removed damaged cabinetry, drywall and tiling. The contractor discovered mold that it believed predated the dishwasher leak. Although the contractor took steps to remove the mold, its dehumidification efforts exacerbated the problem by dispersing mold spores throughout portions of the house.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
New Jersey Law regarding Prior Expert’s Testimony
April 15, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFMary Pat Gallagher writing for the New Jersey Law Journal reported that “[l]awyers who track down an opposing expert's testimony from prior cases must disclose that fact during discovery but need not say whether they plan to use it in cross-examining the expert at trial, a New Jersey appeals court says.” In Dalton v. Crawley, the Appellate Division held that “[d]ecisions about cross-examination ‘involve the attorney's mental processes, so they are inherently work product.’”
The issue began when “one of the defense lawyers, Michael McGann, figured out from the deposition questions Mahoney directed at one of his experts that he had transcripts of testimony from earlier cases,” according to the New Jersey Law Journal. “Hit with a notice to produce the transcripts, [Plaintiff attorney Brian] Mahoney refused, saying they were ‘attorney work product and we will not be telling you what we have developed regarding this expert.’"
The New Jersey Law Journal declared that the “ruling means both sides will have to indicate what transcripts they have gathered for use—giving the name of each expert as well as the name and docket number of the prior cases where those experts testified. “
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
