Relevant History
On December 29, 2023, the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board instituted an emergency regulation to address occupational exposure to respirable crystalline silica. This regulation addressed additional safety requirements for businesses involved in cutting engineered stone, improved monitoring for workplace sites, and increasing the ability for workers to report non-compliant employers. These emergency regulations became permanent in February 2025.
There have been recent growing concerns regarding the inhalation of crystalline silica dust in the California stone countertop industry, with attempts by the California State Legislature to enact regulations improving the occupational safety of workers fabricating stone slab products.1, 2 As this proposed legislation has developed, multiple studies have been conducted regarding safety measures that can be implemented for stone fabrication workers. Notably, some of those studies have revealed that effective methods to reduce occupational exposure to silica dust during fabrication exist and are feasible to implement by employers. While the research in the California stone countertop industry is still ongoing, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (“NIOSH”) has found that combining engineering controls and safer work practices would help greatly reduce the risk of harmful exposure to respirable silica dust.3, 4 Employers following this combination suggested by NIOSH in 2024 should make it feasible to safely work with stone slab products in California.
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) issued a notice of proposed amendments to Proposition 65 in October 2023 that significantly modify the information businesses are required to provide in short-form warnings.1 The proposed amendments were approved in November 2024 and took effect on January 1, 2025.2 3
Released yearly in December, the American Tort Reform (ATR) Foundation publishes its annual “Judicial Hellhole” rankings for the upcoming year. The Hellholes represent the worst of the worst jurisdictions to defend tort lawsuits in the United States. The 2024-2025 Judicial Hellhole rankings crown a new #1 Judicial Hellhole (thanks in large part to a 10-figure nuclear verdict that sealed the crown) and also welcome a new member (King County, Washington) to the ranks.
California Proposition 65, officially known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, has long been a significant regulatory framework for businesses operating within the state. Over the summer, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) proposed amendments to its safe harbor warning requirements for consumer products which have sparked considerable discussion among business owners and industry stakeholders.
In July, a proposed bill named the Silicosis Prevention Act was withdrawn from consideration in California. This proposed bill would have substantially affected the manufactured stone industry by banning dry fabrication activities, imposing licensing requirements for employers and workers, and implementing a public database for violations and other state enforcement actions. Even though this version of the proposed bill was withdrawn, further legislative efforts targeting the manufactured stone industry are anticipated in the future.
An Alameda County Judge set a hearing on a motion for protective order in a pending asbestos case in which the plaintiffs sought to prevent the defendants of unapproved genetic testing. In the case of John C. Lohmann and Suzanne L. Lohmann vs. Aaon, Inc., et al., the plaintiffs filed suit in Alameda Superior Court against several defendants alleging that Mr. Lohmann developed mesothelioma as a result of his career working in the refrigeration maintenance field from 1970 to 2021 in California. The defense experts sought to use the plaintiff’s medical data for non-litigation purposes without the plaintiffs’ permission because they believed the information will advance science and no pathologist/associated scientist would ethically agree to limitations. As part of the case, defense counsel moved for discovery of Mr. Lohmann’s original pathology material and subpoenaed the providers. The court ordered production of those materials. The plaintiffs contend that production of pathology and genetic material in litigation does not permit outside, personal research and analysis. Multiple defendants, on the other hand, argue that evidence produced in litigation enters the public domain and is not protected by discovery law.
About a year ago, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) proposed to amend the short form warning rules for Proposition 65. Proposition 65 requires businesses to warn Californians about exposure to certain chemicals through “clear and reasonable” warnings. There are currently two forms of “safe harbor” warnings, one of which is the short form warning. The short form warning requires less detail, takes up less label space, and does not require the listing of any chemical names, which has made it a popular choice.
On October 1, 2021, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed California Senate Bill No. 447 into law, which permits a deceased individual’s personal representatives or successors-in-interest to recover damages for the decedent’s pain, suffering, or disfigurement in a lawsuit. Prior to this law, those suing on behalf of a deceased individual were limited solely to damages for the decedent’s injuries and punitive damages, if warranted. They could not previously recover for the decedent’s pain and suffering.
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has proposed further amendments to clarify the new Prop 65 regulations that went into effect August 30, 2018, which focused on how to provide “clear and reasonable” warnings under Prop 65. Under the new regulations, manufacturers, producers, packagers, importers, suppliers, and distributors have primary responsibility for complying with Prop 65 requirements; and retail sellers have responsibility for placement and maintenance of consumer product exposure warnings only in limited situations. OEHHA’s latest proposed amendments clarify parties’ responsibilities along the often complex supply chain: