Emily Everett v. Air Products And Chemicals Inc., Et Al.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
May 26, 2020
Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
EMILY EVERETT
VS.
AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS INC., ET
AL.
No.2019-CC-01975
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: William Everett, Jr., Individually and on behalf of the Deceased, Emily
Everett - Applicant Other; Paula Everett, Individually and on behalf of the Deceased,
Emily Everett - Applicant Other; Applying For Supervisory Writ, Parish of Orleans
Civil, Civil District Court Number(s) 2018-5845, Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit,
Number(s) 2019-C-0980;
_ _ _ _ _ _
May 26, 2020
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Weimer, J., would deny.
Genovese, J., would deny.
Crain, J., would grant and docket.
JHB
BJJ
JDH
SJC
05/26/2020 "See News Release 018 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

05/26/20
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2019-CC-1975
EMILY EVERETT
v.
AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC., ET AL.
ON SUPERVISORY WRIT TO THE CIVIL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF ORLEANS
PER CURIAM
Granted. Based on the limited information presented, we are unable to
determine whether the district court abused its discretion in granting the motion to
exclude Dr. Holstein’s expert opinion on causation and to preclude him from
testifying regarding specific causation. In particular, it is unclear whether the district
court’s ruling was based on concerns about Dr. Holstein’s methodology or the
evidentiary foundation of his testimony pursuant to La. Code Evid. art. 702(A)(2). 1
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is vacated and set aside. The
case is remanded to the district court to make specific findings, after an appropriate
hearing, as to whether Dr. Holstein’s testimony on causation satisfies the
requirements of La. Code Evid. art. 702 as well as the considerations set forth in
Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc ., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and State v.
Foret, 628 So. 2d 1116 (La. 1993). 2
1 In reaching this conclusion, we note the district court’s reasons for judgment suggest
some confusion regarding the distinction between the qualitative and quantitative methods for
establishing asbestos exposure. See generally Robertson v. Doug Ashy Bld. Materials, Inc.,
14-0141 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/23/14), 168 So. 3d 556, writ denied, 15-0365 (La. 4/24/15), 169 So.
3d 364.
2 To the extent there are disputes over the accuracy of the facts relied upon by Dr.
Holstein, the court may find such a challenge goes to the weight of the testimony rather than its
admissibility. Additionally, any challenge over the accuracy or sufficiency of the facts
underlying the expert opinion may be resolved by an appropriate pre-trial motion, such as a

motion for summary judgment, or at trial by the trier of fact. See, e.g., Walashek v. Air Liquid
Systems Corporation, 2016 WL 614030 (S.D.Cal. Feb. 16, 2016) (Not Reported in Fed. Supp.).