The family of a former Avondale shipyard worker who died of mesothelioma won an important argument recently when a federal judge in New Orleans refused to throw out air monitoring evidence they plan to use at trial. U.S. District Judge Nannette Brown denied motions from Bayer CropScience and Avondale’s successor company Huntington Ingalls. The companies had filed a motion to strike testimony from the family’s air monitoring expert.
Mesothelioma Lawsuit Centers on Shipyard Asbestos
Michael P. Dandry Jr. died of mesothelioma after many years of working at the Avondale shipyard. His family blames asbestos exposure at the shipyard for his illness and death. Both Bayer CropScience and Huntington Ingalls argued that his exposure may have come from other locations, including contaminated soil near his childhood home and near a different workplace in Marrero, Louisiana.
Avondale hired a consultant to test soil around Marrero for asbestos, but then they destroyed the samples after testing. This prevented the mesothelioma victim’s family from examining the samples themselves. As a result, last February, Judge Brown excluded that consultant’s report and any expert opinions that were based on its data. She then postponed the trial so new soil samples could be collected under a strict court-supervised protocol, with both sides receiving samples to test.
Mesothelioma Victim’s Family Introduces Air Testing
In response to the judge’s order, Mr. Dandry’s family went beyond the prescribed soil sample examination and hired an environmental firm to conduct air monitoring at the former Dandry family property in June, hoping to counter the defense’s new soil findings. The companies argued that when the family arranged for this testing, it broke the rules by pursuing it without court permission and without giving the companies notice or a chance to observe.
In weighing the evidence, Judge Brown accepted the family’s explanation that they only saw the need for air testing after reviewing the defense’s soil results. Though she agreed that they should have asked her permission first, she also ruled that there was no justification for excluding the evidence. She noted that the air data bears directly on the central argument over where Dandry was exposed and that the defendants were given the report months before trial, that they were given the opportunity to depose the expert, and that they’d never challenged his methods. She also pointed out that, unlike the defense’s soil expert, the plaintiff’s expert had preserved his samples and provided photographs of the testing.
The ruling means that Mr. Dandry’s family will be able to use their own expert’s testimony and evidence when the case goes to trial. If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with mesothelioma, the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net are here to help. Contact us today at 1-800-692-8608 to learn more.
