Allen v. CR Bard, Inc
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS recommending the district court deny 31 MOTION to Exclude Certain Opinions of Plaintiff's Expert Dr. Bartlett filed by CR Bard Inc. Objections to R&R due by 9/29/2017. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge CJ Williams on 9/15/2017. (pac)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
EASTERN (WATERLOO) DIVISION
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
C.R. BARD, INC.,
This cause is before the Court pursuant to defendant’s Motion to Exclude or Limit
the Opinions and Testimony of Dr. Suzanne Bartlett (Doc. 31) and was referred to the
undersigned for a report and recommendation. For the following reasons, I respectfully
recommend that the District Court deny defendant’s motion.
The above-styled action was initially one of many products liability cases
consolidated into a single multidistrict litigation assigned to the Southern District of West
Virginia and has since been remanded back to this Court for trial and any remaining pretrial proceedings. (Docs. 4, 5). The specific motion now before the Court was first
brought in the multidistrict litigation prior to remand. Plaintiff filed a resistance to
defendant’s motion (Doc. 35), and defendant subsequently filed a reply brief (Doc. 36).
The Honorable Joseph R. Goodwin, United States District Judge (Southern District of
West Virginia) reserved ruling on the motion. As such, the motion is now properly
before this Court and ripe for review.
Plaintiff, Jane Allen, was treated by Dr. Suzanne Bartlett for stress incontinence
and pelvic floor prolapse. In 2007, Dr. Bartlett implanted plaintiff with anterior and
posterior Avaulta Plus Biosynthetic Support Systems. (Doc. 31, at 5). Plaintiff alleges
that the Avaulta product was defective and caused plaintiff’s vaginal wall to erode. (Doc.
31-2, at 2). Dr. Bartlett was deposed in 2014 and defendant now seeks “to exclude a
single line of [Dr. Bartlett’s] testimony.” (Doc. 36, at 2).1 Specifically, the question
asked and the answer provided were:
[Question]. Okay. Because it was the polypropylene that was causing the
[Answer (Dr. Bartlett)]. Yes.
[Answer]. And what I was seeing was that it was only the polypropylene
that was eroding into the vagina, and if we could take that part out of it, I
thought this could still be—have potential.
(Doc. 31-1, at 20 67: 13-24). Defendant alleges that Dr. Bartlett’s answer constitutes
improper opinion testimony that the inclusion of polypropylene in the product design
rendered the Avaulta product defective and was the ultimate cause of plaintiff’s injuries.
(Doc. 31, at 5-9).
Under Daubert, expert testimony is admissible if it “rests on a reliable foundation
and is relevant.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993). In
a prior ruling regarding the admissibility of expert witness testimony from treating
physicians in connection with this case, the Southern District of West Virginia held:
(1) Causation opinions, if formed in the course of treatment of the
bellwether plaintiffs, and (2) fact testimony related to the learned
intermediary issue, specifically, whether the treating physicians would have
used the Avaulta products if they were given the warnings that the plaintiffs
Plaintiff was not required to provide a Rule 26(a)(2)(B) expert report for Dr. Bartlett, as Dr.
Bartlett’s opinions were formed during the course of her care and treatment of plaintiff.
contend should have been given, should not be excluded. These opinions
fall within the realm of proper testimony from treating physicians. I further
FIND that (1) expert opinions, if any, on product design, (2) testimony
regarding other patients and complications unrelated to the bellwether
plaintiffs treated by the physician, and (3) other opinions formed outside of
the treating physicians’ care and treatment of the bellwether plaintiffs
should be excluded. These latter opinions are fraught with reliability and
In re C.R. Bard, Inc., 948 F. Supp.2d 589, 616-17 (S.D. W. Va. 2013) (emphasis in
Thus, if defendant is correct that Dr. Bartlett’s testimony constitutes an
improper opinion on the product’s design, that testimony should be excluded.
A close reading of the contested testimony shows that Dr. Bartlett was not
testifying to the existence of a defect with the product; rather, Dr. Bartlett was explaining
her reasoning for providing her patients with a modified course of treatment to the
standard Avaulta product. Although Dr. Bartlett did state that the polypropylene was the
portion of the product that caused harm to her patients, Dr. Bartlett stopped short of
opining that this was a product defect. Merely identifying the cause of an injury for
medical treatment purposes is not synonymous with opining that the cause is actually a
product defect. Thus, Dr. Bartlett’s testimony relates only to her treatment of plaintiff
and should not, therefore, be excluded under Daubert as impermissible expert testimony.
Hendrix v. Evenflo Co., Inc., 255 F.R.D. 568, 604 (N.D. Fla. 2009) (“[T]reating
physicians may offer medical opinion regarding their care and treatment of a patient,
including their diagnoses of a patient’s medical conditions and causes of those conditions,
without production of an expert report.”).
Furthermore, “the treating physician for whom no expert report is supplied is not
permitted to go beyond the information acquired or the opinion reached as a result of the
treating relationship to opine as to the causation of any injury.” Lorenzi v. Pfizer, Inc.,
519 F. Supp.2d 742, 750 n. 6 (N.D. Ohio 2007). This is not to say that Dr. Bartlett
need not be qualified as an expert to testify to her treatment of plaintiff; rather, Dr.
Bartlett need not be qualified on this type of product defect because Dr. Bartlett is simply
not testifying to whether the product was defective. Defendant has not challenged Dr.
Bartlett’s qualifications to testify as to her treatment of plaintiff, and this issue will not
be taken up sua sponte.
Finally, it is notable that the United States Supreme Court has stated “[v]igorous
cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the
burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but
admissible evidence.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596. Hence, if defendant believes Dr.
Bartlett’s testimony is “shaky,” defendant will have the opportunity to present contrary
evidence and attack her testimony by fully cross-examining Dr. Bartlett.
For the reasons set forth herein, I find that Dr. Bartlett’s testimony does not
concern whether the Avaulta product was defective and, therefore, the testimony is not
impermissible under Daubert. As such, I respectfully recommend that the District Court
deny defendant’s motion.
Parties must file objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen
(14) days of the service of a copy of this Report and Recommendation, in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). Objections must specify the
parts of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made, as well as the
parts of the record forming the basis for the objections. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72.
Failure to object to the Report and Recommendation waives the right to de novo review
by the District Court of any portion of the Report and Recommendation as well as the
right to appeal from the findings of fact contained therein. United States v. Wise, 588
F.3d 531, 537 n.5 (8th Cir. 2009).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of September, 2017.
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
Northern District of Iowa
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?