As is often true in mesothelioma claims, Felton Robichaux’s lawsuit names multiple defendants whose actions or inactions contributed to his fatal illness. Last week brought resolutions to two separate motions filed by defendants seeking action on aspects of the claims against them: One defendant sought to preclude expert testimony based on the lateness of submitted documentation and the other was a motion for summary judgment that asserted that the claim was not properly pled or supported by evidence.
Mesothelioma Victim Claims First- and Second-Hand Exposure to Asbestos
Before Mr. Robichaux died of mesothelioma, he filed a claim asserting primary exposure to asbestos in his job as a land-based carpenter and insulator in a shipyard, as well as secondary exposure to asbestos carried home on his brother’s clothing and while riding a bus with asbestos-exposed laborers to and from his home and work each day. The shipyard argued that the plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden of proof of this exposure, as well as that it was improperly described in their amended filing.
In response to this claim, U.S. District Judge Darrel Pappillion of the Eastern District of Louisiana disagreed both with the assertion about the amended filing and regarding the evidence presented. The judge said that the amended filing had made plain that the mesothelioma victim had been exposed to “injurious levels of asbestos” throughout his employment and by exposure to asbestos carried into his home on his brother’s closing. As for the sufficiency of the evidence, the judge noted that the plaintiff had provided deposition testimony, employment records, information on the work he had done, and more. The motion for summary judgment was denied.
Judge Denies Request to Block Expert Witness Testimony in Mesothelioma Claim
Separately, the shipyard attempted to block testimony from an expert witness submitted by the mesothelioma victim based on an assertion that the information about the witness had not been submitted by the required deadline. The judge noted that the failure to disclose expert reports promptly is permitted under certain circumstances, including the importance of the testimony, the delay being harmless, or having been justified by circumstances beyond their control.
In this case, the reason that the information was delayed was a matter of the mesothelioma victim trying to get information from the defendant and the defendant delaying the release of that information. Based on this, the judge noted that there was good cause and substantial justification for the delay and denied the motion to suppress the data.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net are here to support you. For information on our services, contact us today at 1-800-692-8608.
