Defendant's Attorney: Not Available

Description: Los Angeles, California personal injury lawyer represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendant on a product liability theory claiming to have suffered more than $75,000 in damages and/or injuries as a direct result of a defendant and unreasonably dangerous produce designed, manufacture and/or sold by Defendant.


Before the Court are Defendants' fully briefed Motion to Exclude certain expert opinions of Donald Ostergard, M.D., Dionysios K. Veronikis, M.D., and Scott Guelcher, Ph.D. [ECF Nos. 178, 184, 186] and Plaintiff's fully briefed Motion to Exclude certain expert opinions of Peter Rosenblatt, M.D., Robert Rogers, M.D., Edward Stanford, M.D., Douglas Grier, M.D., Shelby Thames, M.D., and Timothy Ulatowski.


Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2327 (S.D. W.Va.). The action stems from the surgical implantation of Defendants' pelvic mesh product Gynemesh/Gynemesh PS in January 2010. ECF No. 1 at 3-4; ECF No. 56-1. Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: (1) negligence, (2) strict liability - manufacturing defect, (3) strict liability - failure to warn, (4) strict liability - defective product, (5) strict liability - design defect, (6) common law fraud, (7) fraudulent concealment, (8) negligent misrepresentation, (9) breach of express warranty, (10) breach of implied warranty, (11) violation of consumer protection laws, (12) loss of consortium, (13) punitive damages, and (14) discovery rule and tolling. ECF No. 1 at 4-5. On October 16, 2020, the Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the following causes of action in their entirety: (1) strict liability - manufacturing defect, (2) strict liability - defective product, (3) strict liability -design defect, (4) loss of consortium, (5) breach of express warranty, and (6) breach of implied warranty. ECF No. 109 at 11-12, 18-19.


Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2327 (S.D. W.Va.). The action stems from the surgical implantation of Defendants' pelvic mesh product Gynemesh/Gynemesh PS in January 2010. ECF No. 1 at 3-4; ECF No. 56-1. Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: (1) negligence, (2) strict liability - manufacturing defect, (3) strict liability - failure to warn, (4) strict liability - defective product, (5) strict liability - design defect, (6) common law fraud, (7) fraudulent concealment, (8) negligent misrepresentation, (9) breach of express warranty, (10) breach of implied warranty, (11) violation of consumer protection laws, (12) loss of consortium, (13) punitive damages, and (14) discovery rule and tolling. ECF No. 1 at 4-5. On October 16, 2020, the Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the following causes of action in their entirety: (1) strict liability - manufacturing defect, (2) strict liability - defective product, (3) strict liability -design defect, (4) loss of consortium, (5) breach of express warranty, and (6) breach of implied warranty. ECF No. 109 at 11-12, 18-19.

Outcome: For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the parties' Motions to Exclude certain expert opinions as follows:

1. The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Exclude the following opinions of Donald Ostergard: (1) FDA regulatory requirements and whether Defendants' warning labels satisfied those requirements, and (2) the adequacy of the warning accompanying Defendants' Gynemesh PS mesh product's Instructions for Use. Dr. Ostergard may testify about (1) the specific risks of implanting the Gynemesh PS, (2) risks that are obvious to pelvic mesh surgeons, and (3) knowledge common within the medical community.

2. The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Exclude Dionysios Veronikis's opinions about the adequacy of the warnings in the IFU for the Gynemesh PS. Dr. Veronikis may testify about (1) the specific risks of implanting the Gynemesh PS, (2) risks that are obvious to pelvic mesh surgeons, and (3) knowledge common within the medical community.

3. The Court DENIES Defendants' Motion to Exclude Dionysios Veronikis's opinions about safer alternative designs.

4. The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion to Exclude Scott Guelcher's alternative design opinions by excluding his opinions as to autologous fascia lata, allografts, and sutures.

5. The Court DENIES Defendants' Motion to Exclude Scott Guelcher's opinions about mesh degradation.

6. The Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Edward Stanford's opinions regarding the adequacy of Defendants' warnings regarding the Prolene Soft mesh.

7. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Robert Rogers's opinions that development of the Ethicon mesh products was done “in earnest” and “with the patient's best interests always at the top of each agenda” (i.e., opinions regarding the general affect, character, or demeanor of the Ethicon staff and its subjective commitment to patient safety).

8. The Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Timothy Ulatowski's opinions related to regulatory issues, but without prejudice should Mr. Ulatowski be substituted in as an expert.

9. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude the following general types of recurring opinions from Defendants' general causation experts: (1) opinions on Ethicon's compliance with design control and risk management standards; and (2) opinions regarding the adequacy of Ethicon's clinical testing and research, physician outreach, or particular product development procedures and assessments, without prejudice to being raised as motions in limine.
Parks v. Ethicon, Inc. (S.D. Cal. 2022)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: