What happened in this inspection
Cal/OSHA opened a unprogrammed related inspection of G & F Plastering Inc at 3741 Avocado BLVD, La Mesa (San Diego County) on Feb 6, 2007. It was a partial inspection focused on safety hazards. The record lists 8 employees, a figure the employer reports to the inspector and one that can cover more than the site inspected. Inspectors issued 13 citations (3 serious, 2 repeat) and proposed $15,175 in penalties; after appeal or settlement the current total is $7,645. 13 citations were contested before the Appeals Board. The case closed on Mar 16, 2009. The employer has 1 other inspection on its California record.
Citations
Each citation names the rule, its classification and the penalty as proposed and as it stands now.
Issued Apr 3, 2007. Proposed $225, current $150. Contested May 4, 2007, final order Jul 13, 2007. Abatement due May 18, 2007, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Apr 3, 2007. Proposed $110, current $75. Contested May 4, 2007, final order Jul 13, 2007. Abatement due May 18, 2007, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Apr 3, 2007. Proposed $110, current $75. Contested May 4, 2007, final order Jul 13, 2007. Abatement due May 18, 2007, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Apr 3, 2007. Proposed $110, current $75. Contested May 4, 2007, final order Jul 13, 2007. Abatement due May 18, 2007, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Apr 3, 2007. Proposed $110, current $75. Contested May 4, 2007, final order Jul 13, 2007. Abatement due May 18, 2007, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Apr 3, 2007. Proposed $450, current $350. Contested May 4, 2007, final order Jul 13, 2007. Abatement due May 18, 2007, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Apr 3, 2007. Proposed $450, current $350. Contested May 4, 2007, final order Jul 13, 2007. Abatement due May 18, 2007, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Apr 3, 2007. Proposed $110, current $75. Contested May 4, 2007, final order Jul 13, 2007. Abatement due May 18, 2007, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Apr 3, 2007. Proposed $4,050, current $2,700. Contested May 4, 2007, final order Jul 13, 2007. Abatement due Apr 17, 2007, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Apr 3, 2007. Proposed $4,050, current $270. Contested May 4, 2007, final order Jul 13, 2007. Abatement due Apr 17, 2007, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Apr 3, 2007. Proposed $4,050, current $2,700. Contested May 4, 2007, final order Jul 13, 2007. Abatement due Apr 17, 2007, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Apr 3, 2007. Proposed $450, current $150. Contested May 4, 2007, final order Jul 13, 2007. Abatement due May 18, 2007, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Apr 3, 2007. Proposed $900, current $600. Contested May 4, 2007, final order Jul 13, 2007. Abatement due May 18, 2007, completed. Read the rule.
Your rights
If you worked at this site, the inspection file is a public record once the case closes; request it from the Cal/OSHA district office with activity number 125945055. A worker who reported the hazard, the injury or the inspection and was then fired, demoted or cut has a retaliation claim under Labor Code 6310, one year to file with the Labor Commissioner and longer to sue. Injuries themselves go through workers' compensation. Free, confidential review: (800) 371-3088.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor OSHA enforcement data, inspection 125945055, checked Nov 1, 2026. How to read a record. Back to the safety tracker.
About this data: Records come from the U.S. Department of Labor's OSHA enforcement datasets (inspection, violation, accident and accident injury tables), which carry Cal/OSHA's state-plan inspections alongside federal ones. We load every inspection of a California worksite opened since January 1, 2000 and refresh it weekly. Employer names, addresses and industry codes are as the inspecting office recorded them; similar names are grouped where they clearly refer to the same employer. A citation can be reduced, vacated or withdrawn on appeal, and an inspection can stay open for months, so a record can change. Penalties shown as "current" reflect the latest status in the federal file. This page is public information about the employer's regulatory record, not legal advice and not a statement that any person was harmed or any law broken beyond what the record states.