West Virginia Court Strikes Pathology Expert’s Opinion In Transvaginal Mesh MDL

ByWendy Ketner, M.D.

|

Updated onAugust 22, 2019

Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Charleston Division
Jurisdiction
: Federal
Case Name
: Armstrong v. Boston Sci. Corp.
Citation
: 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135067

In one of the seven Multidistrict Litigations (MDLs) concerning the use of transvaginal surgical mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI), the district court dealt on multiple motions to exclude or limit expert witness testimony.

The plaintiffs retained an anatomical pathology expert to provide general causation opinions based on his examination of the mesh explant samples in his personal data pool. The expert witness served as the Director of Cytopathology in the Department of Laboratory Medicine at a hospital in Canada.

The defendants moved to exclude the pathology expert’s opinion under Daubert, arguing that any opinion based on specimens other than the plaintiff’s would be scientifically unreliable and hence, inadmissible.

The court noted that the expert did not provide any information on how the mesh explants were chosen or prepared for examination. He testified that the plaintiff’s counsel provided approximately 70% of the transvaginal mesh explants, but did not provide any explanation as to how the explants were chosen or what methodology was applied.

It was also not clear whether the pathology expert intended to offer a specific causation opinion in the case because he did not provide any report specific to the plaintiff.

The court held that the pathology expert’s opinions regarding general causation were not acceptable due to his unreliable data pool. There was no evidence to support whether the expert examined the plaintiff’s explanted mesh or performed a physical examination of the same. The specific causation opinions which the expert sought to offer were not sufficiently reliable under Daubert and thus, his opinions were excluded.

Boston Scientific Corporation’s motion to strike and exclude the opinions and testimony of the plaintiff’s pathology expert was granted.

About the author

Wendy Ketner, M.D.

Wendy Ketner, M.D.

Dr. Wendy Ketner is a distinguished medical professional with a comprehensive background in surgery and medical research. Currently serving as the Senior Vice President of Medical Affairs at the Expert Institute, she plays a pivotal role in overseeing the organization's most important client relationships. Dr. Ketner's extensive surgical training was completed at Mount Sinai Beth Israel, where she gained hands-on experience in various general surgery procedures, including hernia repairs, cholecystectomies, appendectomies, mastectomies for breast cancer, breast reconstruction, surgical oncology, vascular surgery, and colorectal surgery. She also provided care in the surgical intensive care unit.

Her research interests have focused on post-mastectomy reconstruction and the surgical treatment of gastric cancer, including co-authoring a textbook chapter on the subject. Additionally, she has contributed to research on the percutaneous delivery of stem cells following myocardial infarction.

Dr. Ketner's educational background includes a Bachelor's degree from Yale University in Latin American Studies and a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) from SUNY Downstate College of Medicine. Moreover, she is a member of the Board of Advisors for Opollo Technologies, a fintech healthcare AI company, contributing her medical expertise to enhance healthcare technology solutions. Her role at Expert Institute involves leveraging her medical knowledge to provide insights into legal cases, underscoring her unique blend of medical and legal acumen.

Find an expert witness near you

What State is your case in?

What party are you representing?