Martinez v. Johnson & Johnson et al

Filing 242

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING in part 166 Motion in Limine Motion to Exclude Freeman by Plaintiff Rebecca Martinez as outlined in order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew P Rodovich on 2/17/2022. (mrm)

USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00220-APR document 242 filed 02/17/22 page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
REBECCA MARTINEZ,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
COLOPLAST CORP. & COLOPLAST
MANUFACTURING US, LLC,
Defendants.

Case No. 2:18-cv-220

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of
Benny Dean Freeman, PH.D, P.E. [DE 166], filed by the plaintiff, Rebecca Martinez, on
September 30, 2021. For the following reasons, the Motion [DE 166] is GRANTED in part.
Background
Prior to 2016, the plaintiff, Rebecca Martinez, experienced a series of medical problems
including multiple forms of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). After consulting with two
gynecologists, Timothy Weiss and Andrew Waran, Martinez underwent surgery on March 17,
2016. Dr. Weiss performed a hysterectomy, and Dr. Waran implanted a surgical mesh
manufactured by the defendants. During the same operation, Dr. Waran also implanted a sling
manufactured by Ethicon to support her bladder.
The surgical mesh was made of polypropylene and had the product name of Restorelle Y.
The Restorelle mesh was designated “Y” because of its shape. Because of multiple pregnancies
and age, some of Martinez’s internal organs were sagging and in need of additional support. The

USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00220-APR document 242 filed 02/17/22 page 2 of 6

three ends of the Y shaped mesh were sutured to different parts of the pelvic cavity and were
intended to provide a sling-like support for the sagging organs.
Throughout the pleadings, the parties have drawn a distinction between a surgical mesh
and a sling. Both are intended to correct POP problems in women. The Restorelle Y surgical
mesh is designed to be attached to the woman’s sacrum, to extend downward, and to be attached
to the vagina. It is implanted under the woman’s small bowel. The sling is implanted to provide
support for the woman’s bladder and is not attached to the surgical mesh. (See generally,
Daubert Hearing, Ex. A).
Several months after the implantation, Martinez sought treatment for abdominal, vaginal,
pelvic, back, and leg pain. Dr. Waran found that it was unlikely that the surgical mesh was
causing the pain, but he referred her to a urogynecologist, Dr. Roger Goldberg, who agreed to
perform a partial removal surgery. On September 19, 2017, Dr. Goldberg performed an
exploratory laparotomy and partial excision of the mesh. The parties have used the term
“explanted” to describe both the procedure and the portion of the mesh removed.
Martinez now complains that the surgical mesh was defective and has caused her
additional problems. In particular, she contends that the polypropylene tends to shrink and
harden in the woman’s body and that this leads to inflammation, pressure on nerves, and other
complications. The lawsuit raises both product liability and negligence claims.
The defendants have identified polymer chemist, Dr. Benny Dean Freeman, as an expert
witness in this case. Dr. Freeman opines that the defendants’ surgical mesh implants are suitable
for permanent implantation, and he bases his opinion, in part, on International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) 10993 testing, the worldwide standard for determining biocompatibility.

2

USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00220-APR document 242 filed 02/17/22 page 3 of 6

In this motion, Martinez is requesting that the court exclude Dr. Freeman’s opinion that
polypropylene is suitable for permanent human implant because he bases his findings on
unreliable methodology. She claims that the unreliable methodology consists of the Food and
Drug Administration’s (FDA) regulations, in which he has no expertise, and the results from the
ISO test conducted on the defendants’ mesh. Martinez contends that Dr. Freeman “can report on
ISO 10993 test results,” but she argues that “he does not have a reliable methodology to use that
test to support his opinion[] [that] polypropylene will not degrade for the lifetime of the woman.”
[DE 202 at pg. 4].
Discussion
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), the Supreme
Court interpreted Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and imposed a gatekeeping responsibility on
district court judges when expert testimony is offered. Daubert involved scientific testimony,
and the lower federal courts were divided on whether the Daubert interpretation of Rule 702
applied to all expert testimony. In Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), the
Supreme Court held that the gatekeeping requirement applied to all proposed expert testimony.
The final case in the so-called Daubert trilogy is General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136
(1997). In that case, the Supreme Court held that the abuse of discretion standard should be
applied on appellate review. All three cases discussed factors that the court should consider in
evaluating proposed expert testimony.
Rule 702 provides:
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,
training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise
if:
(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence
or to determine a fact in issue;
3

USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00220-APR document 242 filed 02/17/22 page 4 of 6

(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and
methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to
the facts of the case.
In its current version, Rule 702 attempts to codify the holdings of the Daubert trilogy.
Even when there is no dispute that the proposed witness is an expert, more is required
before the opinion is admissible. Daubert emphasized the need for expert testimony to meet the
twin requirements of reliability and relevancy. In evaluating the proposed testimony, courts also
have referred to a “fit” and an “intellectual rigor” requirement. Kumho Tire Co., 526 U.S. 137,
152; Harman v. EBSCO Industries, Inc., 758 F.3d 810, 819 (7th Cir. 2014).
The “fit” requirement is met if there is a logical connection between the expertise of the
witness, the proposed opinion, and the issues at trial. The “intellectual rigor” inquiry is satisfied
if the expert has applied the same diligence to both the proposed court opinion and an opinion
reached in his other professional endeavors. In Schultz v. AKZO Nobel Paints, LLC, et al., 721
F.3d 426 (7th Cir. 2013), the Seventh Circuit stated:
Although [Daubert] places the judge in the role of the gatekeeper for
expert testimony, the key to the gate is not the ultimate correctness of
the expert’s conclusions. Instead, it is the soundness and care with which
the expert arrived at h[is] opinion …”
721 F.3d at 431.
See also Kirk v. Clark Equipment Company, 991 F.3d 865, 873 (7th Cir. 2021).
Finally, Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a) is the mechanism for resolving a Daubert
challenge. Under Rule 104(a), the court may consider any evidence which is not privileged and
resolve any factual disputes. The court must determine whether the proponent of expert
testimony has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the Daubert requirements
have been met.
4

USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00220-APR document 242 filed 02/17/22 page 5 of 6

As an initial matter, Martinez spends a majority of her motion arguing that Dr. Freeman
is not an FDA expert, so he is not qualified to opine on FDA regulations or the ISO test of the
mesh as it relates to the §510(k) clearance process.1 The court need not address this because it
already has excluded all evidence concerning the FDA’s §510(k) clearance process. [DE 239].
However, there is a difference between a test required by the FDA and the scientific method by
which that test is conducted. Martinez has not challenged the actual biocompatibility test which
was performed to meet the FDA requirements. Therefore, Dr. Freeman may testify that the test
was conducted and the results as he interprets them. The reason why the test was conducted, to
obtain §510(k) clearance, is irrelevant as it pertains to this case.
Next, Martinez has stated that she is not requesting that the following opinions of Dr.
Freeman be excluded: polypropylene is not subject to oxidative degradation, polypropylene does
not degrade, the defendants did biocompatibility testing of its mesh under the ISO, or how
polypropylene’s properties are influenced by a biological environment. She further indicates that
Dr. Freeman “can report on [the] ISO test results.” However, Martinez is challenging his
opinion that the mesh will not degrade during the lifetime of the woman because, she claims, the
ISO test results, upon which he relies, do not support it. She states that the test only established
degradation as it relates to the “shelf life” of the mesh and not as to the oxidation of the mesh
while in the body. Therefore, the ISO test results cannot be a reliable basis for his finding.
The defendants respond by stating that the ISO results are not the only basis for Dr.
Freeman’s opinion regarding the degradation, or lack thereof, of the mesh during the lifetime of
the patient. The defendants state that Dr. Freeman and his laboratory at the University of Texas

The Medical Device Act of 1976 (MDA) exempts from premarket review, any medical device which
has been given §510(k) clearance from the FDA. Kaiser v. Johnson & Johnson, 947 F.3d 996, 1004 (7th
Cir. 2020). The FDA will grant such clearance if the device is “substantially equivalent” to another
device already on the market. Kaiser, 947 F.3d at 1004.

1

5

USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00220-APR document 242 filed 02/17/22 page 6 of 6

“regularly perform many of the underlying analytical type tests of the ISO 10993 standard on
polymers like polypropylene.” [DE 184 at pg. 8] (internal quotations omitted). Specifically, “Dr.
Freeman actually looks to the data from the testing of the finished polypropylene yarn that is
knitted into [the defendants’] surgical mesh implants.” [DE 184 at pg. 8]. The defendants claim
that “these tests and data include a leachable analysis on whether any substances (like the
antioxidants) would leach out of the yarn (also referred to as ‘fibers’) and into the body over the
lifetime of the patient.” [DE 184 at pg. 9]. Lastly, the defendants state that Dr. Freeman’s
opinion also is based on relevant literature.
There is no dispute that Dr. Freeman is an experienced polymer scientist with an
expertise in that field. As mentioned above, Martinez has represented that she does not object to
several of Dr. Freeman’s opinions including his opinion that polypropylene does not degrade.
However, she takes issue with him stating that polypropylene does not degrade in the woman’s
body for the lifetime of the implant because the ISO testing cannot reveal that. The court finds
Martinez’s argument unpersuasive. Dr. Freeman’s opinion regarding the lack of degradation of
the defendants’ mesh, for the lifetime of it, is based on more than just the ISO test results. Dr.
Freeman has conducted various additional tests to support his opinion, as well as relying on
literature in the field. As a result, Dr. Freeman is qualified to offer this opinion that
polypropylene mesh does not degrade during the lifetime of the woman. Any challenge to his
methodology affects the weight, not the admissibility, of his opinion.
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ the Motion [DE 166] is GRANTED in part.
ENTERED this 17th day of February, 2022.
/s/ Andrew P. Rodovich
United States Magistrate Judge

6