In this litigation, Plaintiffs Erica Dandry Constanza and Monica Dandry Hallner (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) alleged that Decedent Michael P. Dandry, Jr. (“Decedent”), while an employee for Defendant Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (“Avondale”), was exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing products manufactured, distributed, sold, and/or handled by Avondale and other parties.
Avondale filed a Dabuert motion to exclude certain testimony of Dr. Stephen Terry Kraus.
Radiation Oncology Expert Witness
Dr. Stephen Terry Kraus is a medical doctor who received his medical degree from the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine in 1970. He is board certified in radiation oncology, and he has treated patients with mesothelioma and other forms of cancer in Louisiana since 1982.
Discussion by the Court
Avondale contended that Kraus is not qualified to testify regarding industrial hygiene topics, including: (1) sources of Decedent’s asbestos exposure; (2) the standard of care for shipyard worker protection; (3) government standards applicable to the Avondale shipyard; (4) industry standards applicable to the Avondale shipyard; (5) permissible exposure limits for asbestos; and (6) state of the art knowledge of Avondale regarding the health hazards of asbestos.
Avondale argued that this testimony should be excluded because Kraus is a medical doctor, rather than an industrial hygiene expert.
Kraus reviewed deposition testimony regarding Decedent’s exposures, Decedent’s medical records, and the report of industrial hygienist Gerard Baril.
Based on Baril’s report and Kraus’ review of the scientific and medical literature, Kraus opined that Decedent would have sustained exposures to asbestos during his work at Avondale Shipyards that exceeded the current and historical permissible exposure limits. Kraus also opined that Decedent’s mesothelioma and death were caused by this occupational exposure to asbestos at Avondale. To the extent Avondale argued that Kraus is not qualified to offer this opinion, the Court found this argument unpersuasive. Kraus’ proposed testimony is based on scientific knowledge of the harmful level of exposure to asbestos and Baril’s opinion that Decedent was exposed to such harmful levels.
Avondale also took issue with references to the 1942 Walsh Healey Public Contracts Act, the 1943 Sanitary Code, and the 1951 Walsh Healey Public Contracts Act contained in Kraus’ report.
Avondale argued that Kraus should not be allowed to give “state of the art” opinions because he is a medical doctor. However, the Court noted that Avondale did not cite any authority for the proposition that only an industrial hygiene expert can give “state of the art” opinions.
Held
The Court denied Avondale’s Daubert motion to exclude certain testimony of Dr. Stephen Terry Kraus.
Key Takeaway
An expert witness is not strictly confined to his area of practice, but may testify concerning related applications; a lack of specialization does not affect the admissibility of the opinion, but only its weight.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Constanza V. Sparta Insurance Company |
| Docket Number: | 2:24cv871 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Louisiana Eastern |
| Order Date: | February 19, 2026 |
Leave a Reply