{"id":307,"date":"2026-02-22T17:57:45","date_gmt":"2026-02-22T17:57:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ntsaexperts.com\/NTSA-articles\/?p=307"},"modified":"2026-02-22T18:01:25","modified_gmt":"2026-02-22T18:01:25","slug":"how-a-misunderstood-standard-can-sink-your-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ntsaexperts.com\/NTSA-articles\/?p=307","title":{"rendered":"How a Misunderstood Standard Can Sink Your Case"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Silicosis Article #6 \u2014 By Gil Chotam & Greg Andrews | National Tile and Stone Authority (NTSA)<\/em><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

When we’re brought in to support\u00a0silicosis or construction-related litigation<\/strong>, one of the first things we ask is, “What standard is being cited, and is it being applied correctly?”<\/span><\/p>

It’s a simple question. But too often, the answer is a problem.<\/span><\/p>

Misunderstanding, misquoting, or misapplying\u00a0technical standards<\/strong>, whether from OSHA, ASTM, ANSI, or industry-specific guidelines, can derail even the strongest case. And worse, it hands the opposing side an easy way to undermine your credibility in court.<\/span><\/p>

In this article, we break down how this mistake happens, and how we help attorneys avoid it.<\/p>

  1. The Standard Isn’t Always What You Think It Is
    <\/strong>Many lawyers rely on documents like OSHA exposure limits or manufacturer SDS sheets, thinking they reflect the latest and most relevant guidance.
    But in reality:
    • Some standards have been updated without industry adoption<\/li>
    • Others vary depending on the jurisdiction or trade<\/li>
    • Many only apply under certain use conditions (e.g. dry vs. wet cutting)<\/li>
    • And often, manufacturers reference outdated or vague benchmarks<\/li><\/ul>

      Using a single source, especially one pulled from Google, without context is a dangerous shortcut.<\/p><\/li>

    • Citing a Standard You Don’t Fully Understand Can Backfire
      <\/strong>We’ve seen deposition transcripts where an attorney or expert cited a clause from a standard \u2026 and opposing counsel pulled up the full document to show it was taken out of context, not applicable, or outright wrong.
      That moment kills credibility.
      Even worse, it can open the door to a motion in limine weakening the expert’s influence or discrediting the attorney’s theory altogether.
      We prevent that by:
      • Verifying the correct version of the standard<\/li>
      • Clarifying whether it’s mandatory, advisory, or outdated<\/li>
      • Ensuring it fits the actual conditions of the site or fabrication shop<\/li><\/ul><\/li>
      • Experts Need to Do More Than Name Standards, They Must Apply Them
        <\/strong>In\u00a0silicosis\u00a0cases, for example, citing the\u00a0OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) for respirable silica<\/strong>\u00a0isn’t enough.\u2028
        We ask::
        • Were the measurements taken properly?<\/li>
        • Was the exposure time-weighted and representative?<\/li>
        • Did the site meet requirements for ventilation, PPE, and monitoring?<\/li>
        • Were alternative methods (e.g. wet cutting) viable at the time?<\/li><\/ul>

          Without that analysis, the standard is just a number\u2014and the case floats instead of landing.<\/p><\/li>

        • Defense Lawyers: Don’t Let the Other Side Misuse the Standard
          <\/strong>This cuts both ways.\u2028
          We’ve worked defense cases where the plaintiff’s expert cited an ANSI or OSHA clause that looked bad, but didn’t actually apply.\u2028
          Sometimes:
          • The standard referenced didn’t cover that product type<\/li>
          • The guideline was nonbinding or advisory only<\/li>
          • The exposure scenario didn’t fall under that classification<\/li><\/ul>

            This is where early technical review can help dismantle an argument before it becomes a headline.<\/p><\/li>

          • A Smart Standard Strategy Starts Before the Report<\/strong>
            Don’t wait until you’re drafting the expert report to think about the standards that apply.\u2028
            Bring in your technical team early to:
            • Vet which standards actually apply<\/li>
            • Identify which ones your opponent may misquote<\/li>
            • Shape the language in your pleadings or interrogatories<\/li>
            • Avoid “standard shopping” that could blow up under scrutiny<\/li><\/ul>

              We’ve seen entire cases hinge on whether a single paragraph from an ANSI spec was applied correctly. This isn’t trivia, it’s leverage.<\/p><\/li><\/ol>

              Final Thought: Don’t Let the Other Side Weaponize Your Own Citations<\/h2>

              In expert-heavy litigation, how you use technical standards says everything about your preparation.<\/p>

              A misused standard can make even the right facts sound weak.<\/p>

              The right standard, well applied, can make a complex case feel inevitable.<\/p>

              At NTSA, we don’t just name standards, we explain them, apply them, and defend them when challenged. If your case depends on what a clause means, we’ll make sure it’s a clause that holds up.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

              Silicosis Article #6 \u2014 By Gil Chotam & Greg Andrews | National Tile and Stone Authority (NTSA) When we’re brought in to support\u00a0silicosis or construction-related litigation, one of the first things we ask is, “What standard is being cited, and is it being applied correctly?” It’s a simple question. But too often, the answer is…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"elementor_theme","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[8,18,7,19],"class_list":["post-307","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-silicosis-articles","tag-engineered-stone","tag-litigation","tag-silicosis","tag-standards"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ntsaexperts.com\/NTSA-articles\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/307","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ntsaexperts.com\/NTSA-articles\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ntsaexperts.com\/NTSA-articles\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ntsaexperts.com\/NTSA-articles\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ntsaexperts.com\/NTSA-articles\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=307"}],"version-history":[{"count":22,"href":"https:\/\/www.ntsaexperts.com\/NTSA-articles\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/307\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":330,"href":"https:\/\/www.ntsaexperts.com\/NTSA-articles\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/307\/revisions\/330"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ntsaexperts.com\/NTSA-articles\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=307"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ntsaexperts.com\/NTSA-articles\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=307"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ntsaexperts.com\/NTSA-articles\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=307"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}