11th Cir. Poised to Limit Safety Orders as Product Defect Proof

The Eleventh Circuit is set to limit the use of an occupational safety administrative law judge’s opinion as evidence in a products liability case against a machine manufacturer, a move that could open new risks for employers.

Tyler Wallace, a former mill worker, asked judges to set precedent Thursday by rejecting the use of the opinion as evidence and overturning a jury verdict in favor of TSI Inc., which made the equipment that left him severely injured after he got his arm caught in one of their conveyors.

Most of the judges’ inquiries centered on whether the evidence presented to the jury was prejudicial towards Wallace or if it contained hearsay.

“I don’t think it’s a prejudicial objection, I think a hearsay objection would make more sense,” said Judge Britt C. Grant during one exchange with Wallace’s counsel.

If OSHRC opinions can be used as evidence in civil lawsuits, employers would face the risk of new liabilities for themselves or other companies when they challenge OHSA fines.

The judges for the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit weren’t convinced the use of an opinion by an ALJ of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission at the trial substantially prejudiced the jury against Wallace. Wallace’s attorneys argued that opinion unfairly influenced the jury.

“Prejudice is undue influence,” responded Stephen Mulherin, of Beasley Allen Law Firm. “There’s no way to say it didn’t improperly sway the jury.”

Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum sought clarity from Mulherin of Wallace’s position on allowing the admission of findings from an OSHA investigation, but not of an ALJ opinion that included many of the same information.

An OSHRC ALJ vacated an Occupational Safety and Health Administration citation against Wallace’s former employer, Louisiana-Pacific Corp., and found that OSHA failed to show the equipment at issue violated federal safety rules.

A district court denied Wallace’s initial motion to exclude the ALJ’s opinion before trial, and TSI asserted he waived this argument as a result since he introduced his own expert that opined about the ALJ decision and OSHA’s machine guard standard.

Wallace argued he didn’t get a fair trial because the district court allowed the ALJ’s opinion containing legal conclusions as well as a testimony by a corporate representative from LP. Wallace also asserted the OSHRC decision was irrelevant to his case and substantially prejudiced the jury against him.

Unlike federal courts, OSHRC proceedings generally allow for the introduction of hearsay testimony with ALJs alone assessing whether the statements are trustworthy and reliable. Reliable hearsay can be considered substantial evidence in supporting a final OSHRC decision, which are challenges to OSHA fines.

TSI claimed the OSHRC decision qualifies as a public record and that Wallace’s own expert testimony made the ALJ’s conclusion and OSHA regulations relevant to the trial.

The company also said Wallace didn’t raise his objections in time.

The case also highlights a strategy employed by a party to introduce OSHA citations, settlement agreements, and final OSHRC decisions as evidence in civil lawsuits for a tactical advantage.

Judge Nancy G. Abudu also comprise the panel for the Eleventh Circuit.

Beasley Allen Law Firm and Stewart Howard PC represent Wallace. Lightfoot, Franklin & White LLC represent TSI.

The case is Wallace v. TSI Inc., 11th Cir., No. 24-13981, 12/11/25.