Thacker v. Ethicon, Inc.

United States District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky · July 8, 2025 · No. 5:20-cv-00050

Summary

This United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky order addresses the plaintiff's motion to exclude or limit the testimony of the defendants' expert, Dr. John Wagner. Applying the Daubert standard under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the court evaluates the reliability of Dr. Wagner's opinions regarding surgical risk knowledge and the properties of pelvic mesh used in the defendants' medical devices. The court finds that Dr. Wagner's clinical training and experience provide a reliable foundation for his testimony and denies the motion in its entirety.

Court
United States District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky
Writing for the Court
KAREN K. CALDWELL
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
Decision date
July 8, 2025
Docket number
5:20-cv-00050
Procedural posture
Plaintiff's motion to exclude or limit expert testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702.
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Disposition
other

Topics

expert testimonydaubert standardevidence

Practice areas

civil procedureproduct liabilityevidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Dr. Wagner's testimony regarding design process and control standards is reliable under Fed. R. Evid. 702.
  2. Whether Dr. Wagner's testimony that certain risks of the Prolift and TVT‑S devices are widely known by other surgeons is reliable under Fed. R. Evid. 702.
  3. Whether Dr. Wagner's testimony regarding the properties of the mesh used in the devices is reliable under Fed. R. Evid. 702.

Holdings

  1. The court denied the motion as moot because the parties agreed the report does not contain opinions on design control; thus the testimony is permitted.
  2. The testimony is reliable and the motion to exclude it is denied.
  3. The testimony is reliable and the motion to exclude it is denied.

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, Inc. alleging product liability over pelvic mesh devices. Defendant retained Dr. John Wagner, an OB/GYN with subspecialty certification, as an expert. Thacker moved to exclude his testimony on design control, common knowledge of device risks, and mesh material properties.

Procedural history

The district court considered Plaintiff Connie Thacker's motion to preclude Defendant's expert Dr. John Wagner from testifying on several subjects. The court denied the motion.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…