What happened in this inspection
Cal/OSHA opened an accident inspection of Phil Richardson Construction at 5752 Las Palomas, Rancho Santa Fe (San Diego County) on Jul 31, 2002. It was a partial inspection focused on safety hazards. 1 employees were recorded at the site. Inspectors issued 18 citations (2 serious) and proposed $34,050 in penalties; the current total is $34,050. The case closed on Sep 13, 2010.
Citations
Each citation names the rule, its classification and the penalty as proposed and as it stands now.
Issued Jan 15, 2003. Proposed $600, current $600. 3 workers exposed. Abatement due Dec 10, 2002, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 15, 2003. Proposed $600, current $600. 3 workers exposed. Abatement due Jan 24, 2003, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 15, 2003. Proposed $600, current $600. 3 workers exposed. Abatement due Jan 24, 2003, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 15, 2003. Proposed $600, current $600. 3 workers exposed. Abatement due Jan 24, 2003, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 15, 2003. Proposed $600, current $600. 3 workers exposed. Abatement due Jan 24, 2003, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 15, 2003. Proposed $600, current $600. 3 workers exposed. Abatement due Jan 24, 2003, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 15, 2003. Proposed $600, current $600. 3 workers exposed. Abatement due Jan 24, 2003, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 15, 2003. Proposed $600, current $600. 3 workers exposed. Abatement due Jan 24, 2003, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 15, 2003. Proposed $600, current $600. 3 workers exposed. Abatement due Jan 24, 2003, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 15, 2003. Proposed $600, current $600. 3 workers exposed. Abatement due Jan 24, 2003, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 15, 2003. Proposed $300, current $300. 3 workers exposed. Abatement due Jan 24, 2003, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 15, 2003. Proposed $150, current $150. 3 workers exposed. Abatement due Jan 24, 2003, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 15, 2003. Proposed $600, current $600. 3 workers exposed. Abatement due Jan 24, 2003, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 15, 2003. Proposed $600, current $600. 3 workers exposed. Abatement due Jan 24, 2003, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 15, 2003. Proposed $600, current $600. 3 workers exposed. Abatement due Jan 24, 2003, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 15, 2003. Proposed $600, current $600. 3 workers exposed. Abatement due Jan 24, 2003, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 15, 2003. Proposed $12,600, current $12,600. 3 workers exposed. Abatement due Jan 24, 2003, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 15, 2003. Proposed $12,600, current $12,600. 3 workers exposed. Abatement due Jan 24, 2003, 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 300791050. 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 300791050, 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.