Multiple Louisiana Courts Reject Genetic Testing Defenses in Asbestos Cases
A Pattern Is Emerging in Louisiana Courts
Defendants in asbestos cases are increasingly turning to genetics in an effort to avoid responsibility.
When asbestos exposure can’t be denied, companies often argue that a victim’s cancer was caused by genetics instead. Multiple Louisiana courts have now rejected that strategy, drawing clear lines around when — and how — genetics can be used in asbestos litigation.
Recent rulings show that genetic testing and speculative genetics testimony cannot be used to sidestep asbestos accountability.
Landry & Swarr represented the plaintiffs in both of these cases.
Two Different Genetic Strategies. Same Outcome.
Forced Genetic Testing Denied
In one Louisiana case, a defendant attempted to compel a lung cancer patient to submit to genetic testing, claiming her disease might be hereditary rather than asbestos-related.
The court denied the request, ruling that the defense failed to present credible medical evidence and that ordering an invasive medical procedure based on speculation was inappropriate.
The judge emphasized the absence of qualified medical testimony and declined to allow genetic testing as a discovery tool.
Genetic Testimony Strictly Limited
In a separate asbestos mesothelioma case, defendants sought to introduce expert testimony suggesting that genetics caused the plaintiff’s disease.
The court allowed general discussion of genetics but barred the defense from claiming that genetics caused the plaintiff’s cancer. The ruling was based on the experts’ lack of medical qualifications and the absence of specific causation evidence.
As a result, the jury would not hear speculative genetics presented as medical fact.
Why These Rulings Matter to Louisiana Families
These decisions reinforce core principles that protect asbestos victims:
- Genetics cannot replace proof of asbestos exposure
- Experts must stay within their qualifications
- Defendants must address asbestos evidence directly
For families facing asbestos-related disease, these rulings help ensure cases are decided on reliable evidence rather than invasive testing or hypothetical theories.
A Clear Direction from the Courts
Together, these rulings reflect a broader trend.
Louisiana courts are setting firm boundaries on genetics-based defenses in asbestos cases — particularly where those defenses are used to distract from exposure evidence or shift blame away from responsible parties.