JARRETT v. WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC. et al

Filing 104

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY - For the reasons detailed above, Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of John I. Waldrop, M.D. [Dkt. 80 ] and Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of John D. Jarrell, Ph.D., PE [Dkt. 81 ] are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth in this Entry. Defendant's pending motion for summary judgment shall be addressed in due course. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 3/26/2021. (NAD)

Case 1:12-cv-00064-SEB-DML Document 104 Filed 03/26/21 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 1977

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
COLEMAN JARRETT, et al.

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC., )
)
Defendant.
)

No. 1:12-cv-00064-SEB-DML

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY
Plaintiffs Coleman and Paula Jarrett commenced this action in 2012 as part of a
multidistrict litigation styled "CONSERVE® Hip Implant Product Liability Litigation,
MDL 2329," pending before the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia. This case, relating to Mr. Jarrett's receipt of hip implant components from
Defendant Wright Medical Technology Inc.'s ("Wright Medical") CONSERVE® product
line during a July 17, 2006 left total hip arthroplasty, was remanded and transferred to
our court to proceed individually on July 6, 2018. Plaintiffs allege that, based on
purported defects in the CONSERVE® devices generally relating to alleged design
defects that Plaintiffs claim caused excessive metal ion release and loosening of the
CONSERVE® Cup device, Mr. Jarrett was forced to undergo a second "revision" surgery
on July 12, 2010 to remove the CONSERVE® devices.
Now before the Court are Defendant's Motions to Exclude the Expert Testimony
of John I. Waldrop, M.D. [Dkt. 80] and John D. Jarrell, Ph.D., PE [Dkt. 81], who have
been retained by Plaintiffs to testify regarding the alleged propensity of the metal-on1

Case 1:12-cv-00064-SEB-DML Document 104 Filed 03/26/21 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 1978

metal design of the CONSERVE® products to generate high levels of metal ion release
allegedly resulting in the loosening and early failure of the implant. Defendant moves,
pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), to exclude the expert testimony of Drs.
Waldrop and Jarrell on various grounds. Plaintiffs oppose these motions. For the reasons
detailed below, we GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Defendant's Motions to
Exclude.
Applicable Legal Standard
The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by the framework set out in
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc., 509 U.S. 579
(1993). Lewis v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 561 F.3d 698, 705 (7th Cir. 2009). Applying
this framework, courts must undertake:
a three-step analysis: the witness must be qualified "as an expert by
knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education"; the expert's reasoning
or methodology underlying the testimony must be scientifically reliable;
and the testimony must assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or
determine a fact in issue.
Ervin v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., 492 F.3d 901, 904 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting Fed. R.
Evid. 702) (internal citations omitted); see also Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526
U.S. 137, 141 (1999) (extending the Daubert admissibility framework to expert
testimony in the social sciences). “The Daubert standard applies to all expert testimony,
whether it relates to an area of traditional scientific competence or whether it is founded
on engineering principles or other technical or specialized expertise.” Smith v. Ford
2

Case 1:12-cv-00064-SEB-DML Document 104 Filed 03/26/21 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 1979

Motor Co., 215 F.3d 713, 719 (7th Cir. 2000) (citing Kumho, 536 U.S. at 141). The
burden is on the proponent of the expert to demonstrate that the expert's testimony would
satisfy the Daubert standard. Lewis, 561 F.3d 705.
Discussion
I.

Expert Testimony of Dr. Waldrop
John I. Waldrop, M.D. is an orthopedic surgeon whom Plaintiffs have identified as

an expert to offer opinions concerning "the implantation and failure of the Wright
Medical CONSERVE® Total Hip Implant Device associated with" Mr. Jarrett. Waldrop
Rep. at 1. Dr. Waldrop has been practicing medicine for 40 years, maintaining an active
practice performing hip and knee arthroplasties. He estimates that he has performed
more than 5,000 to 6,000 total hip procedures and, since 2010, has revised 64 hips, many
of which were metal-on-metal implants, including five to ten CONSERVE® devices.
Dr. Waldrop's general causation report discusses five general "characteristics" of
metallosis 1 caused by metal-on-metal hip implants that he has observed in his practice:
(1) discolored fluid in the joint; (2) "death or necrosis of local tissue in the hip area"; (3)
"cystic responses" or pseudotumors; (4) other tissue reactions including inflammation,
discoloration, and staining; and (5) elevated cobalt and chromium levels. His expert
report includes photographs of hip replacement revision surgeries involving ten
unidentified patients from his practice, none of whom is Mr. Jarrett. There is no

1

Metallosis is a blood poisoning condition that develops as a result of having high levels of toxic
metals in the blood.
3

Case 1:12-cv-00064-SEB-DML Document 104 Filed 03/26/21 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 1980

information included in Dr. Waldrop's report regarding the manufacturer of the hip
implant components depicted in the photographs, the medical backgrounds of the
patients, the implanting surgeons, or any other background information regarding the
surgeries. Dr. Waldrop testified that he is "[p]retty sure at least one" of the devices
depicted in the photographs is a Wright Medical CONSERVE® device, but that he is
unable to identify which of the depicted devices were manufactured by Wright Medical.
Waldrop Dep. at 67–68.
With regard to Mr. Jarrett's case specifically, Dr. Waldrop states that he "examined
the medical records of Coleman Jarrett including digital x-rays of his prothesis," and
based on his review of these materials and his education, training, and experience, he has
formed the opinion that the failure of Mr. Jarrett's CONSERVE® total hip implant "was
due to the pain associated with metallosis, corrosion, and component loosening
associated with metal-on-metal hip failures," that the findings during Mr. Jarrett's
revision surgery "including the noted pseudotumor, corrosion, and other indicative
findings of a metallosis reaction are consistent with [his] own clinical findings on
revision of metal-on-metal prosthesis," and that Mr. Jarrett's "pain prior to the revision,
necessity of the revision, and injuries after the revision are the result of the defective
metal-on-metal prosthesis." Dr. Waldrop further opines that Mr. Jarrett likely will
experience future injuries, including the potential for an additional revision surgery, and
that the medical billing for Mr. Jarrett's July 12, 2010 revision surgery was reasonable.

4

Case 1:12-cv-00064-SEB-DML Document 104 Filed 03/26/21 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 1981

Wright Medical seeks to have Dr. Waldrop's general and specific causation
opinions excluded because "they are not scientifically derived or based on any
reproducible test, and [they] lack fit with this case." Dkt. 82 at 1. Additionally, Wright
Medical argues that Dr. Waldrop's testimony regarding Mr. Jarrett's potential future
injuries is too speculative to be admissible and that his testimony regarding the
reasonableness of Mr. Jarrett's medical bills should be excluded because he lacks any
special knowledge in the area of billing to support such an opinion. We address these
arguments in turn below.
A.

General Causation Opinions

First, Wright Medical argues that Dr. Waldrop's general causation opinions
concerning other patients and other manufacturers' medical devices, including his use of
and reference to photographs of other patients and devices, should be excluded because
they are not sufficiently tied to the facts of this case. We agree with Defendant that the
details of the photographs (their source and origin and the unspecified connection
between them and this litigation) defeats their relevance. Dr. Waldrop's report depicts
revision surgeries of unknown patients and devices other than the CONSERVE® devices
at issue. Even if relevant, the prejudicial effect and potential to confuse jurors would
likely outweigh the substance of these photographs. Accordingly, any photographs
depicting devices other than the CONSERVE® device at issue shall be excluded.
However, Dr. Waldrop's general causation testimony in its entirety is not inadmissible.

5

Case 1:12-cv-00064-SEB-DML Document 104 Filed 03/26/21 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 1982

One of Mr. Jarrett's primary allegations in this case is that the CONSERVE®
device's metal-on-metal design is defective, and Dr. Waldrop, an experienced and
qualified orthopedic surgeon who has performed approximately 65 metal-on-metal
revision surgeries, including several involving CONSERVE® devices, will be called to
testify as to his general observations regarding medical issues involving such revisions.
Given Dr. Waldrop's extensive experience, such testimony, which we understand to apply
to all metal-on-metal devices in general including the CONSERVE® devices at issue, is
thus "sufficiently reliable, and will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence in
this case and to determine the issue of causation." In re Wright Med. Tech. Inc.,
Conserve Hip Implant Prods. Liab. Litig., 127 F. Supp. 3d 1306, 1337 (N.D. Ga. 2015)
(admitting Dr. Waldrop's testimony in hip implant products liability litigation); accord
Morris v. Biomet, Inc., ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2020 WL 5849482, at *6 (D. Md. Sept. 30,
2020). Accordingly, Dr. Waldrop will be permitted to testify as to his general
observations regarding metal-on-metal revisions but may not rely on or reference
photographs of unknown patients depicting devices other than Wright Medical's
CONSERVE® hip system to illustrate or otherwise support his testimony. Wright
Medical will, of course, be free to challenge Dr. Waldrop's credibility or the substance of
his general causation opinions through cross examination and appropriately interposed
objections at trial.
B.

Specific Causation Opinions

6

Case 1:12-cv-00064-SEB-DML Document 104 Filed 03/26/21 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 1983

Wright Medical also seeks the exclusion of Dr. Waldrop's specific causation
opinions on grounds that they are connected to Mr. Jarrett's particular presentation by
nothing more than the ipse dixit of the expert and must therefore be excluded. See Clark
v. Takata Corp., 192 F.3d 750, 758 (7th Cir. 1999) (holding that "nothing in either
Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district court to admit opinion
evidence which is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert" and
"[w]here the proffered expert offers nothing more than a 'bottom line' conclusion, he does
not assist the trier of fact" and his opinions should be excluded). Plaintiffs rejoin that Dr.
Waldrop's conclusion that Mr. Jarrett's hip revision was necessary "due to pain associated
with metallosis, corrosion, and component loosening associated with metal-on-metal hip
failures," is based, not on ipse dixit, but on a properly conducted differential diagnosis
and is thus admissible under Daubert.
The Seventh Circuit has held that a differential diagnosis "is an accepted and valid
methodology for an expert to render an opinion about the identity of a specific ailment."
Myers v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 629 F.3d 639, 644 (7th Cir. 2010). To conduct a differential
diagnosis, "the doctor rules in all the potential causes of a patient's ailment and then by
systematically ruling out causes that would not apply to the patient, the physician arrives
at what is the likely cause of the ailment." Schultz v. Akzo Nobel Paints, LLC, 721 F.3d
426, 433 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting id. at 641). "Under Daubert, expert opinions
employing differential diagnosis must be based on scientifically valid decisions as to
which potential causes should be 'ruled in' and 'ruled out.'" Ervin, 492 F.3d at 904.

7

Case 1:12-cv-00064-SEB-DML Document 104 Filed 03/26/21 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 1984

Here, while admittedly a close question, we find that Dr. Waldrop's specific
causation opinions are admissible as the fruits of a sufficient differential diagnosis
following his review of Mr. Jarrett's medical records, which included the post-operative
report prepared by Mr. Jarrett's orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Parr, following the revision
surgery, as well as x-rays and other imaging and testing. In reaching his conclusion, Dr.
Waldrop relied primarily on Dr. Parr's observations following Mr. Jarrett's revision
surgery, including Dr. Parr's description of discolored fluid at revision, erosion of the
posterior wall and posterior superior part of the acetabulum, and diagnosis of a
pseudotumor related to metal-on-metal articulation. And in his report, Dr. Waldrop
opines, based on the experience, training and knowledge he has acquired in practicing
orthopedics for over 40 years, his observation of surgeries for the removal of cobalt and
chromium metal-on-metal hip implants, the revisions of cobalt and chromium hip
implants, and conversations and presentations by other orthopedic surgeons, that such
findings are consistent with metallosis and related problems associated with metal-onmetal hip systems.
Dr. Waldrop also appears to have considered and eliminated at least a few
alternative causes of the loosening and failure of Mr. Jarrett's explanted device, including
its positioning and placement by Dr. Parr, the possibility of infection, and potential
trauma, concluding that there were no signs of infection and that the CONSERVE®
device was properly placed, had remained tightly affixed for several years, and would not
have loosened as a result of incidental trauma. This methodology passes scrutiny under

8

Case 1:12-cv-00064-SEB-DML Document 104 Filed 03/26/21 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 1985

Daubert. 2 Although Wright Medical points out several causes Dr. Waldrop failed to
consider or failed to provide reasons for discounting, an expert need not eliminate all
potential alternative causes for his differential diagnosis. Any such perceived
insufficiencies in Dr. Waldrop's testimony can be addressed through vigorous crossexamination as it is well-established that the "soundness of the factual underpinnings of
the expert's analysis and the correctness of the expert's conclusions based on that analysis
are factual matters to be determined by the trier of fact …." Smith, 215 F.3d at 718.
C.

Testimony Regarding Future Injuries

Wright Medical next seeks to have excluded as speculative Dr. Waldrop's
testimony that Mr. Jarrett "likely will experience future injuries including the potential
for an additional revision surgery due to the titanium Profemur neck that remains
unrevised." Rep. at 2. In reaching this conclusion, Dr. Waldrop relies on statements
from Mr. Jarrett's deposition regarding current pain in his hip and back, coupled with
knowledge that the PROFEMUR® titanium neck device that is still implanted in Mr.
Jarrett "has some history of fractures." Waldrop Dep. at 152.
However, Dr. Waldrop conceded at his deposition that he has no information
regarding Mr. Jarrett's current condition with respect to his left hip, whether he has any
treatment planned, or any information regarding the current performance of Mr. Jarret's

2

We acknowledge that several answers given by Dr. Waldrop at his deposition regarding the
basis for his specific causation opinions veer toward ipse dixit, which we assume will be areas
ripe for inquiry on cross-examination. However, Dr. Waldrop's testimony is not so utterly
lacking and superficial that it can provide no reliable basis for an opinion on causation.
9

Case 1:12-cv-00064-SEB-DML Document 104 Filed 03/26/21 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 1986

PROFEMUR® titanium neck device, and thus has no way to know "for sure" whether he
will need to undergo undergo another revision surgery on his left hip. Id. at 151–52.
Given these admissions, we must conclude that Dr. Waldrop's opinions regarding Mr.
Jarrett's future injuries are too speculative to be considered reliable and are therefore
excluded on that basis. See Ammons v. Aramark Unif. Servs., Inc., 368 F.3d 809, 816
(7th Cir. 2004) ("A court is expected to reject any subjective belief or speculation.")
(quotation marks and citation omitted).
D.

Testimony Regarding Reasonableness of Medical Billing

Finally, Wright Medical seeks to have excluded Dr. Waldrop's opinion regarding
the reasonableness of the medical billing in Mr. Jarrett's case. When asked at his
deposition, Dr. Waldrop conceded that he does not know the amount Mr. Jarrett is
claiming in terms of medical bills in this case and that he "has no involvement in medical
billing in his own practice." Waldrop Dep. at 150. Based on these admissions, it is clear
that Dr. Waldrop lacks specialized knowledge in the area of medical billing that would
assist the jury in determining whether Mr. Jarrett was billed a reasonable amount for his
medical treatment nor can we find that Dr. Waldrop's testimony is the result of reliable
principles and methods in this area. Accordingly, his testimony regarding the
reasonableness of Mr. Jarrett's medical bills must be excluded.
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion to exclude Dr.
Waldrop's testimony is granted in part and denied in part. Dr. Waldrop may testify as to
his opinions regarding general and specific causation, but his testimony regarding Mr.

10

Case 1:12-cv-00064-SEB-DML Document 104 Filed 03/26/21 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 1987

Jarrett's potential for future injuries and the reasonableness of his medical bills is
excluded.
II.

Expert Testimony of John D. Jarrell, Ph.D., PE
Wright Medical also seeks to have excluded the opinions and testimony of John D.

Jarrell, Ph.D., PE regarding design defects in the CONSERVE® product line generally,
and as the cause of wear in Mr. Jarrett's device specifically, because "they are not based
upon a reliable and scientifically valid methodology, are entirely speculative, and lack fit
with this case." Dkt. 83 at 1. Plaintiffs have identified Dr. Jarrell as an "experienced
multi-discipline engineer specializing in the analysis of complex designs and failures
involving materials, mechanical and biological systems." Dkt. 88 at 2. Dr. Jarrell is a
licensed Professional Mechanical Engineer dating back to 1996 and actively involved in
engineering analysis, design, product development, and research. He graduated from
Brown University with a B.S. and M.S. in Materials Science and Engineering and a Ph.D.
in Biology, Medical Science and Engineering and has received medical training in
histology, physiology, microbiology, and pathology. Dkt. 88-1.
In his report, based on his experience, training, education, review of Wright
Medical Technology documents, FDA documents, published scientific literature and
inspection and testing of over 100 Wright Medical hip implant components, Dr. Jarrell
opines that Wright Medical's CONSERVE® hip system design is defective. Dr. Jarrell
identifies Wright Medical's use of a large metal cup against a large metal ball for the
articulating bearing surfaces as the major defect in the CONSERVE® hip system, which

11

Case 1:12-cv-00064-SEB-DML Document 104 Filed 03/26/21 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 1988

in his opinion results in metal wear and the release of metal ions into surrounding tissues
that can cause injury, or metallosis, as well as eventual cup loosening and device failure.
Dr. Jarrell also opines that Wright Medical's wear testing was inadequate in that it
was performed "under ideal circumstances, which does not replicate patient use and
clinical results" and failed to "identify the risks associated with exposure to cobalt and
chromium metal wear debris, metal ions and corrosive products of [the] Conserve®
product line in comparison to the traditional small metal head on poly design." Id. at 5.
To support these conclusions, Dr. Jarrell's report sets forth results from wear testing he
performed on CONSERVE® devices, from which he determined that 25% of the thirtythree (33) CONSERVE® hips he tested exhibited more wear than advertised, specifically
14 times more wear than anticipated. Id. at 21.
In reaching his specific causation opinions, Dr. Jarrell relied primarily on his
review of Mr. Jarrett's medical records, particularly the report of Dr. Parr's observations
during Mr. Jarrett's revision surgery. Because the CONSERVE® device explanted from
Mr. Jarrett was not retained following the surgery and no photographs of the device could
be located, Dr. Jarrell was unable to personally examine it for signs of wear and did not
have the opportunity to photograph, microscopically analyze, or perform a visual analysis
of the explant. Jarrell Dep. at 54–55. Instead, relying on Dr. Parr's observations of
discolored tissue, pseudotumor, and osteolysis behind the cup of Mr. Jarrett's
CONSERVE® device, Dr. Jarrell concludes that "[i]t is evident that metal ions and
particles were released from wear and corrosion of the articular surfaces of the
12

Case 1:12-cv-00064-SEB-DML Document 104 Filed 03/26/21 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 1989

[CONSERVE®] hip implant" and that, based on "the presence of metal on metal wear,
that there was a loss of the fluid film formation between the ball and cup," which film the
CONSERVE® device relies upon to "prevent metal on metal contact and wear under test
conditions." Jarrell Report at 8.
Dr. Jarrell's report also states that it was "evident" from his review of Mr. Jarrett's
medical records, based on indications of "tissue staining, grayish material surrounding the
acetabular component, [and] fluid and cup loosening" that Mr. Jarrett "was exposed to
cobalt and chromium metal wear debris, metal ions and corrosion products," and that
such exposure "had a negative impact on the tissue surrounding" the CONSERVE®
acetabular cup." Id. at 9. Dr. Jarrell further notes that Mr. Jarrett's medical records
"reported a left hip pseudotumor related to metal on metal articulation with paraprosthetic
osteolysis and major osseous defect," rendering it obvious that he "experienced metallosis
to the tissues surrounding the cup implant and associated cup loosening and failure." Id.
at 9.
A.

General Causation Testimony

Wright Medical argues that Dr. Jarrell's general causation opinion concluding that
all CONSERVE® devices are defective due to their metal-on-metal design should be
excluded because it is not supported by any valid, scientific methodology. Specifically,
Wright Medical claims that Dr. Jarrell's conclusion that the CONSERVE® device's
design is defective because its large metal ball and cup component produces excessive
metal wear is contradicted by: (1) well-established tribology principles set forth in the
13

Case 1:12-cv-00064-SEB-DML Document 104 Filed 03/26/21 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 1990

scientific literature establishing that, for metal-on-metal devices, a larger diameter metal
head actually creates a lower friction coefficient than a smaller head, and thus results in
less wear, and (2) Dr. Jarrell's own testing, which showed that only 25% of the 33
CONSERVE® devices tested in his study demonstrated wear in excess of that advertised
by Wright Medical, with the remaining 75% of the devices demonstrating wear levels at
or below advertised levels.
These objections by Defendant go to the weight rather than the admissibility of Dr.
Jarrell's general causation testimony. Defendant has not challenged Dr. Jarrell's
qualifications, which establish that he is an expert in the field of biomedical engineering
and has expertise in "the scientific methods for testing and measuring wear" in implants.
In that capacity, Dr. Jarrell is of the view that, while the scientific literature concludes
that a larger diameter metal head is actually required for optimal performance of metalon-metal implants, that conclusion is based on in vitro studies, which do not accurately
represent the conditions encountered when the hip is implanted in a live patient. He
claims that results from his testing of the CONSERVE® devices in which 25% of the
devices showed 14 times more wear than expected support his conclusion that the
CONSERVE® larger head design results in significantly more chromium and cobalt
exposure than other hip systems due to excessive wear. In rendering these opinions, Dr.
Jarrell relies on various studies and data, including surface area calculations, that are set
forth in his report, and adequately explains the methodology employed in reaching his
conclusions.

14

Case 1:12-cv-00064-SEB-DML Document 104 Filed 03/26/21 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 1991

It is clear that Defendant and its experts disagree with Dr. Jarrell's general
causation conclusions and believe that the results from his testing demonstrate errors in
his analysis and opinions, but these areas relate to his credibility and the weight to which
his testimony is entitled, which can be fully explored on cross-examination. "The
question of whether the expert is credible or whether his or her theories are correct given
the circumstances of a particular case is a factual one that is left for the jury to determine
after opposing counsel has been provided the opportunity to cross-examine the expert
regarding his conclusions and the facts on which they are based. It is not the trial court's
role to decide whether an expert's opinion is correct." Smith, 215 F.3d at 718–19
(internal citation omitted). Here, Dr. Jarrell employed sufficiently reliable methodology
in reaching his general causation opinions and his testimony is relevant and probative to
the issues presented in this litigation. Accordingly, Dr. Jarrell's general causation
opinions are admissible under Daubert. Wright Medical can challenge Dr. Jarrell's
credibility and the content of his testimony on cross-examination or during the
presentation of its own experts.
B.

Specific Causation Testimony

Wright Medical also seeks exclusion of Dr. Jarrell's specific causation testimony
on grounds that his opinions are not scientifically derived, are unreliable for failing to
consider potential alternative causes, and could be premised only on clinical medical
issues outside of Dr. Jarrell's expertise. Because we agree with Defendant's first
argument that Dr. Jarrell's specific causation opinions are inadmissible on that ground,
15

Case 1:12-cv-00064-SEB-DML Document 104 Filed 03/26/21 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 1992

we shall not specifically address Defendant's latter two arguments in support of
exclusion.
Dr. Jarrell has testified that his role as an engineer is to apply "scientific methods
for testing and measuring wear" in implants and to "offer [an] opinion as to the most
probable causes" of the issues encountered. Jarrell Dep. at 46. Here, however, the device
explanted from Mr. Jarrett was not retained following the surgery and therefore could not
be examined or tested by Dr. Jarrell. As a result, Dr. Jarrell has conceded that he does
not know the amount of metal that was released by Mr. Jarrett's device or the amount of
wear it showed relative to other devices. Id. at 58. Nor are there metal ion laboratory
values specific to Mr. Jarrett that Dr. Jarrell was able to examine in reaching his
conclusions. Accordingly, we find that Dr. Jarrell has not applied any reliable scientific
methods for testing and measuring wear of Mr. Jarrett's device sufficient to support his
conclusions as an expert in the field of engineering that Mr. Jarrett experienced metallosis
and device loosening as a result of "wear and corrosion of the articular surfaces of the
[CONSERVE®] hip implant." Jarrell Rep. at 9.
We acknowledge, as Plaintiffs argue, that Dr. Jarrell's testimony was deemed
admissible in the lead MDL case, In re Wright Med. Tech. Inc., Conserve Hip Implant
Prods. Liab. Litig., 127 F. Supp. 3d. 1306 (N.D. Ga. 2015). However, in that case, Dr.
Jarrell's report setting forth opinions regarding specific causation almost identical to those
proffered here was based not simply on a review of the treating physician's surgical notes,
but also multiple examinations and tests of the explanted devices. The MDL court
16

Case 1:12-cv-00064-SEB-DML Document 104 Filed 03/26/21 Page 17 of 19 PageID #: 1993

allowed Dr. Jarrell's opinions to be admitted on the basis that he had "twice examined
[the] [p]laintiff's hip implant" using "visual inspection, photodocumentation, [and]
microscopy wear measurements using a sensitive coordinate measuring machine." Id. at
1331. Dr. Jarrell testified in that case that his opinions on the release of metal particles
were based on findings of "the loss of metal" determined from his examination of the
explanted device. Id. at 1332. The MDL court therefore concluded that Dr. Jarrell's
opinions regarding metal loss of the devices and resulting metallosis in the surrounding
tissue were admissible because his inspections independently showed that "metal ions and
particles were released from wear and corrosion of the articular surfaces" of the plaintiff's
hip implant. Id. While the MDL court noted that Dr. Jarrell's conclusion was supported
by the surgeon's post-operative observations, it focused on the fact that he reached his
opinions "based on articulated evidence" gathered from his examinations and tests of the
device. Id.
In contrast, here, as discussed above, Dr. Jarrell was retained by Plaintiffs as an
engineering expert, yet his opinions that Mr. Jarrett experienced metallosis and device
loosening are not based on evaluations of material loss or any other engineering testing.
It is well-established that "[a]n expert's work is admissible only to the extent it is
reasoned, uses the methods of the discipline, and is founded on data." Higgins v. Koch.
Dev. Corp., 997 F. Supp. 2d 924, 931 (S.D. Ind. 2014) (quoting Long v. Kohl's Food
Stores, Inc., 217 F.3d 919, 924 (7th Cir. 2000)). Because Dr. Jarrell has not used
engineering methods to test or examine the specific device that allegedly caused the

17

Case 1:12-cv-00064-SEB-DML Document 104 Filed 03/26/21 Page 18 of 19 PageID #: 1994

injuries in this case, his opinions do not pass muster under Daubert. See In re Mirena
IUD Prods. Liab. Litig., 169 F. Supp. 3d 396, 445–46 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (excluding Dr.
Jarrell's opinions as "not connected to the facts or issues in [the] case" because he drew
conclusions from examinations of other devices and "did not do any testing on the
specific [devices] that allegedly caused the injuries").
Accordingly, Defendant's motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Jarrell is granted
in part and denied in part. Dr. Jarrell may testify regarding his general causation
opinions, but his specific causation opinions are excluded.
III.

Conclusion

For the reasons detailed above, Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Expert
Testimony of John I. Waldrop, M.D. [Dkt. 80] and Motion to Exclude the Expert
Testimony of John D. Jarrell, Ph.D., PE [Dkt. 81] are GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART as set forth in this Entry. Defendant's pending motion for summary
judgment shall be addressed in due course.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3/26/2021
Date: _________________________

_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

18

Case 1:12-cv-00064-SEB-DML Document 104 Filed 03/26/21 Page 19 of 19 PageID #: 1995

Distribution:
Brian K. Brake
THE MILLER FIRM LLC
[e-mail]
Anne A. Gruner
DUANE MORRIS LLP
[e-mail]
Shayne Hodge
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, LLC
[e-mail]
J. Scott Kramer
DUANE MORRIS LLP
[e-mail]
Eric Charles Lewis
LEWIS LEGAL SERVICES, P.C.
[e-mail]
Tayjes Shah
THE MILLER FIRM, LLC
[e-mail]
Blake N. Shelby
FROST BROWN TODD LLC (Indianapolis)
[e-mail]
Robert B. Thornburg
FROST BROWN TODD LLC
[e-mail]

19