Plaintiff, Edward Montelongo, alleged that he has developed asbestosis due to exposure to asbestos through his work at various facilities, including Avondale Shipyards, Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., and Shell Oil Company’s Norco and Yscloskey facilities.
Defendants Huntington Ingalls Incorporated and Shell USA, Inc.’s (collectively, “Defendants”) retained medical expert Dr. Andrew J. Ghio. Plaintiff asked the Court to preclude Ghio from testifying at trial that Plaintiff has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (“COPD”).
Pulmonary Medicine Expert Witness
Andrew Jonathan Ghio is board certified in both internal medicine and pulmonary medicine.
He is certified by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (“NIOSH”) as a B Reader, meaning that he is certified to interpret radiology and diagnose lung conditions associated with dust exposures, including asbestos. He is widely published in the fields of pulmonary disease and internal medicine.
Discussion by the Court
In this case, Plaintiff did not contest that Ghio is qualified to testify as an expert. Rather, Plaintiff challenged the reliability of Ghio’s opinion that Plaintiff has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (“COPD”), arguing that it is unreliable in light of the uncontested fact that Plaintiff did not meet the American Thoracic Society (“ATS”) and the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (“GOLD”) criteria for a diagnosis of COPD.
However, as Defendants argued, Ghio bases his expert opinion on multiple substantial sources other than the ATS and GOLD diagnostic criteria. The Court cannot determine that Plaintiff’s failure to satisfy the ATS and GOLD diagnostic criteria operates as a full-stop bar on Defendants’ experts testifying reliably that Plaintiff may have COPD.
Held
The Court denied Plaintiff Edward Montelongo’s motion to partially exclude the testimony of medical expert Dr. Andrew Ghio.
Key Takeaway:
The fact that opposing parties do not agree with the facts relied upon by an expert or his interpretation of those facts does not render his opinions unreliable; challenges related to the basis of an expert’s opinions are thus best suited for cross-examination, not exclusion.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Montelongo V. Bayer Cropscience, Inc. |
| Docket Number: | 2:25cv555 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana |
| Order Date: | May 19, 2026 |
Leave a Reply