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 the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert in industrial hygiene, Gerard Baril.
Baril offered opinions that these exposures sustained by Dandry at Avondale significantly increased his risk for mesothelioma, that these exposures exceeded current and historical exposure limits, and that Avondale failed to implement appropriate industrial hygiene safeguards to protect workers from asbestos.
Industrial Hygiene Expert Witness
Gerard L. Baril has worked in the field of occupational safety, industrial hygiene, and environmental health since 1978. Baril has practiced industrial hygiene (starting as an industrial hygiene technician) since 1982.
Over the decades, he has conducted hundreds of industrial hygiene surveys qualifying and quantifying workers’ exposures to a wide array of airborne contaminants including asbestos.
Discussion by the Court
Avondale argued that Baril’s opinions are inadmissible because they rest entirely on counsel-supplied, Avondale-only materials and ignore critical alternative exposures. Avondale has not demonstrated that Baril’s methodology was unreliable. The alleged alternative exposures are part of Avondale’s defense. Avondale is free to cross-examine Baril about these exposures and whether they impact his conclusions.
The Court held that outright exclusion of Baril’s testimony is not warranted.
Held
The Court denied Avondale’s Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Gerard Baril.
Key Takeaway
As a general rule, questions relating to the bases and sources of an expert’s opinion affect the weight to be assigned that opinion rather than its admissibility and should be left for the jury’s consideration.
Please refer to the blog previously published about this case:
Radiation Oncology Expert’s “State of the Art” Opinions Admitted
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