Thacker v. Ethicon, Inc.

United States District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division · July 1, 2025 · No. 5:20-cv-50-KKC

Summary

This memorandum opinion and order addresses the plaintiff's motion to exclude or limit the testimony of the defendant's expert witness, Dr. Salil Khandwala, under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The court evaluates the reliability and relevance of Dr. Khandwala's proposed testimony regarding the degradation, contraction, porosity, and stiffness of Ethicon's pelvic mesh devices. Applying the Daubert standard, the court finds that the expert's opinions are based on sufficient data, reliable methodology, and his clinical experience, and therefore denies the motion to exclude.

Court
United States District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
Decision date
July 1, 2025
Docket number
5:20-cv-50-KKC
Procedural posture
Plaintiff's motion to exclude or limit expert testimony filed in district court after summary judgment was reversed by the Sixth Circuit and case remanded.
Standard of review
Daubert reliability standard under Fed. R. Evid. 702
Precedential value
non-precedential
Disposition
other

Topics

expert testimonydaubert standardevidencecivil proceduretorts

Practice areas

civil procedureevidencetorts

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Dr. Khandwala's testimony regarding design process and control standards should be excluded.
  2. Whether Dr. Khandwala's testimony regarding degradation and contraction of the mesh devices is reliable and therefore admissible.
  3. Whether Dr. Khandwala's testimony regarding mesh porosity and stiffness is reliable and therefore admissible.

Holdings

  1. The motion to exclude this testimony is denied as moot because the parties agree the report does not contain opinions on design control standards.
  2. The motion to exclude this testimony is denied; the testimony is found reliable.
  3. The motion to exclude this testimony is denied; the testimony is found reliable.

Key quotations

“The requirement that an expert’s testimony be reliable means that it must be ‘supported by appropriate validation—i.e., “good grounds,” based on what is known.’”
“The task for the district court in deciding whether an expert’s opinion is reliable is not to determine whether it is correct, but rather to determine whether it rests upon a reliable foundation, as opposed to, say, unsupported speculation.”

Factual background

Connie Thacker sued Ethicon over injuries from pelvic mesh devices. The case was consolidated in an MDL, remanded after settlement negotiations failed, and a summary judgment was granted then reversed. The plaintiff seeks to exclude the defendants' expert, Dr. Salil Khandwala, from testifying on design control, degradation, contraction, porosity, and stiffness of the mesh.

Procedural history

The case was consolidated in the Ethicon MDL, placed on an inactive docket, remanded to this court, summary judgment was granted to defendants, the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded, and the parties are now preparing for trial.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…