When Safety Equipment Is “Optional” at the Workplace: A Just Recovery for Industrial Amputation
An industrial lathe lacking mandatory safety guards pulled our client into rotating machinery, resulting in catastrophic amputation—and our understanding of OSHA regulations proved the manufacturer’s liability.
A Routine Day at the Machine Shop
In December of 2017, our client was operating an industrial lathe at a racing parts manufacturing facility in California, grinding a crankshaft—precision work he had performed countless times before.
He was 6’4″, 195 pounds, athletic, and active in sports. As he worked, metal shavings from the grinding operation grabbed his jacket and pulled him into the rotating crankshaft. His left side was dragged against the lathe chuck.
The result: traumatic amputation of his left arm at the upper arm level, bilateral femur fractures requiring surgical rods, fractured shoulder blades on both sides, two vertebrae fractures, rib fracture, collapsed lung, bilateral pulmonary embolisms, traumatic brain injury, and severe blood loss requiring a 9-unit transfusion. He remained hospitalized for 2-3 months undergoing multiple surgeries.
The Lifetime Consequences
One surgical rod caused permanent gait abnormality. A painful neuroma at the amputation site required additional surgery. He experiences chronic severe pain rated at maximum intensity throughout his neck, back, shoulders, hips, and knees, with numbness, tingling, and weakness in all remaining limbs.
He was diagnosed with PTSD, severe depression, adjustment disorder, elevated anxiety, and chronic sleep disorder. He has been unable to work since the accident. His future medical needs include lifetime prosthetic care (valued at nearly $2 million), ongoing pain management, psychological treatment, and orthopedic care. Total economic losses exceeded $6.4 million.
The Critical Question
Catastrophic machinery accidents often focus on what the worker did wrong. We asked a different question: why was it even possible for clothing to grab on rotating machinery and pull a worker into the equipment? What safety features should have prevented this?
The answer required understanding OSHA regulations and industry safety standards.
OSHA Standards and Mandatory Safety Requirements
OSHA incorporated ANSI Standard B11.6-1975 (Safety Requirements for the Construction, Care and Use of Lathes) into federal regulations, making compliance mandatory. When OSHA incorporates a standard by reference, violating it creates “negligence per se”—automatic proof of negligence if the violation caused injury.
ANSI B11.6-1975 specifically requires manufacturers to eliminate pinch points created by moving parts or provide barriers preventing entry into hazardous areas, including chuck shields to prevent material from grabbing clothing and pulling operators into rotating machinery.
The lathe our client operated had no chuck shield, no fixed guards, no movable guards. The manufacturer offered chuck shields as optional equipment, not standard safety features.
Proving the Violation
We retained Pierre Maheu, President of Ferndale Safety, to inspect the lathe. His photographic evidence demonstrated exactly what proper safety guards look like and how they prevent this type of accident. The analysis made clear: ANSI standards explicitly required these guards, OSHA had incorporated those standards into federal regulations, and the manufacturer chose to make required safety equipment optional.
This created multiple liability theories: Negligence per se based on violating ANSI standards incorporated into OSHA regulations; Strict products liability for defectively designed equipment that could pull workers into rotating machinery; and Chain of distribution liability extending to the manufacturer, importer, and distributor under California law.
We also sought punitive damages for conscious disregard of safety, as the industry had known since 1946 that machinery accidents cause high rates of permanent disability, yet the manufacturer made safety equipment optional despite mandatory standards.
Policy Limits Strategy
By May 2021, our economic expert had calculated total losses at $6,400,747—exceeding the manufacturer’s $5 million policy limit before accounting for pain, suffering, permanent disability, PTSD, and loss of quality of life.
When case value clearly exceeds available coverage, California law requires insurers to seriously consider settling within policy limits or risk bad faith liability. We served a policy limits demand on May 19, 2021, giving the insurer until May 26 to tender the full $5 million or face exposure beyond the policy limits.
Why Understanding OSHA Regulations Matters
This case demonstrates why understanding OSHA regulations and industry safety standards is essential in industrial accident cases. Without knowledge of ANSI B11.6-1975 and its incorporation into OSHA regulations, this might have been seen as simply a workplace accident with recovery limited to workers’ compensation.
Instead, our understanding of the regulatory framework revealed mandatory safety requirements the manufacturer violated, negligence per se claims, product defect liability, chain of distribution liability, and punitive damages exposure—transforming the case from a workers’ compensation claim into a $5 million settlement providing lifetime security.
Workers’ Compensation and Third-Party Claims
Our client’s case involved workers’ compensation, which had paid approximately $365,000 in benefits. California law allows injured workers to pursue third-party claims against parties other than their employer—such as equipment manufacturers whose defective products caused the injury. The settlement demand included our client assuming responsibility for the workers’ compensation lien, ensuring clean resolution while maximizing his recovery from the responsible manufacturer.
When Manufacturers Make Safety “Optional”
At Adamson Ahdoot, we handle catastrophic workplace injury cases throughout California, particularly those involving defective industrial equipment and OSHA violations. These cases require understanding the intersection of product liability law, OSHA regulations, industry safety standards, and workers’ compensation.
When manufacturers make mandatory safety equipment “optional,” they must be held accountable. This requires deep knowledge of OSHA regulations, understanding negligence per se claims, ability to prove product defects through expert testimony, strategic use of policy limits demands, skill in structuring settlements for lifetime security, and coordination of workers’ compensation and third-party claims.
Our client will never get his arm back or walk normally again. But the $5 million settlement provides resources and guaranteed lifetime income to address his substantial medical needs despite his inability to work.
Your Workplace Injury May Involve Third-Party Liability
If you’ve been catastrophically injured at work by defective equipment, you may have claims beyond workers’ compensation. Equipment manufacturers and distributors can be held liable when their products violate OSHA standards, lack required safety features, or are defectively designed.
These cases require thorough investigation into what safety standards applied, whether the manufacturer complied with OSHA requirements, whether required safety guards were made “optional,” and the full value of your injuries. When defective equipment causes catastrophic workplace injuries, the responsible manufacturers must be held accountable.
About Adamson Ahdoot LLP
Adamson Ahdoot LLP is a personal injury law firm based in Los Angeles, serving clients throughout California. Our attorneys handle catastrophic workplace injuries, industrial accidents, defective equipment cases, and OSHA violation matters requiring deep understanding of safety regulations and strategic advocacy for permanently disabled clients.
Contact us for a free consultation:
Phone: (866) 645-4992
Website: aa.law
Address: 1122 S. La Cienega Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90035
