Products Liability Appeal Raises Stakes for Safety Panel Rulings

A former mill worker is attempting to break new ground at the Eleventh Circuit, seeking to throw out the use of an occupational safety administrative law judge’s opinion as evidence in his products liability case against a machine manufacturer.

Tyler Wallace wants the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to overturn a jury verdict in favor of TSI Inc., which made the wood processing equipment that left him severely injured after he got his arm caught in one of their machines.

He argues in what he believes is an issue of impression that opinions from ALJs for the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission shouldn’t be admissible as evidence in products liability cases. An ALJ had 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.

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, attorneys say.

“The outcome might impact our client’s desire to vigorously challenge citations, particularly where there has been death or injury and the potential for exposure to litigation,” said John Surma, a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ Houston office who represents employers in workplace safety and health matters.

Wallace asked the Eleventh Circuit, which will hear oral arguments Thursday, to order a new trial that excludes the OSHRC judge’s decision.

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.

Evidence Rules

The appeals court judges will likely try to unpack how a jury could be excessively influenced by an opinion of a judge with special expertise, such as the OSHRC ALJs, attorneys say. An employer’s compliance with work safety standards and the separate responsibility of a manufacturer to ensure its product is safe are materially different legal questions, they said.

“There are issues with allowing the ALJ’s decision to serve as evidence, given compliance with OSHA standards does not mean there isn’t a legitimate produce liability suit,” said Surma. “Conversely, proof of a violation of an OSHA standard doesn’t necessarily mean there was a defective product.”

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 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.

It’s likely that a jury would be influenced by the OSHRC decision if there isn’t a clear breakdown between employer compliance and product safety, according to Lawrence P. Halprin, a partner at Keller & Heckman.

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.

“Parties will learn from the outcome in this case, and will continue to attempt to introduce OSHA citations, OSHA settlement agreements—where not prohibited by their provisions—and final OSHRC decisions into tort actions when it is to their advantage,” said Halprin.

“And the other side will continue to object where the OSHRC decision is viewed as infringing on the role of the judge or jury, prejudicial, hearsay or confusing,” he said.

Judges Robin S. Rosenbaum, Britt C. Grant, and Nancy G. Abudu will 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, oral argument scheduled 12/11/25.