In one of many Daubert motions in front of this court, the defendants present the expert witness testimony of Urology Expert Witness Brian Parker, M.D. The plaintiff has filed a motion to exclude, which was granted in part and denied in part by the court.
Facts: This case (IN RE: ETHICON INC. PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEMS -PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION – United States District Court – Southern District of West Virginia – July 19th, 2018) is part of numerous MDL cases involving the use of transvaginal surgical mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. This opinion involves the plaintiff’s motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Urology Expert Witness Brian Parker, M.D.
Discussion: The plaintiff argues that Dr. Parker is not qualified to provide expert witness testimony about product warnings, which includes testimony on Instructions for Use. The plaintiff alleges that Dr. Parker is not an expert on the development of warning labels. The court opines that even though he is a urologist, Dr. Parker must have additional expertise about what information should and should not be included in an Instructions for Use. Thus, this part of the motion to exclude is granted by the court.
The plaintiff also alleges that Dr. Parker should not offer testimony on design opinions. Specifically, that he does not the training or expertise to opine about the process of designing a product. The court opines that Dr. Parker has not expressed any opinions about the process of designing a product and thus, the motion to exclude is denied as moot.
In addition, the plaintiff argues that Dr. Parker’s testimony as it relates to mesh properties should be excluded because he lacks the qualifications to offer these opinions and that he does not provide a reliable basis for his opinions. The court opines that Dr. Parker is a board-certified urologist with a specialization in pelvic floor medicine and reconstructive surgery. Thus, the motion to exclude on this issue is denied.
The court does grant the part of the motion regarding Dr. Parker’s methodology regarding cytoxicity and whether or not polypropylene is inert.
Conclusion: The motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Brian Parker, M.D. is granted in part and denied in part