Dimock v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Filing
151
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Daubert Motion re: E. Stanton Shoemaker, M.D.) denying 117 MOTION by Carol Jean Dimock to Exclude Certain Case Specific Opinions and Testimony of Defense Expert E. Stanton Shoemaker, M.D., as more fully set forth herein. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 11/23/2016. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (ts)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
IN RE:
ETHICON, INC.
PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEMS
PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION
MDL No. 2327
______________________________________________________________________________
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
Carol Jean Dimock v. Ethicon, Inc., et al.
Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00401
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
(Daubert Motion re: E. Stanton Shoemaker, M.D.)
Pending before the court is the Motion to Exclude Certain Case Specific
Opinions and Testimony of Defense Expert E. Stanton Shoemaker, M.D. [ECF No.
117] filed by the plaintiff. The Motion is now ripe for consideration because briefing
is complete.
I.
Background
This case resides in one of seven MDLs assigned to me by the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation concerning the use of transvaginal surgical mesh to treat
pelvic organ prolapse (“POP”) and stress urinary incontinence (“SUI”). In the seven
MDLs, there are more than 58,000 cases currently pending, approximately 28,000 of
which are in this MDL, which involves defendants Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon,
Inc. (collectively “Ethicon”), among others.
In this MDL, the court’s tasks include “resolv[ing] pretrial issues in a timely
and expeditious manner” and “resolv[ing] important evidentiary disputes.” Barbara
J. Rothstein & Catherine R. Borden, Fed. Judicial Ctr., Managing Multidistrict
Litigation in Products Liability Cases 3 (2011). To handle motions to exclude or to
limit expert testimony pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
509 U.S. 579 (1993), the court developed a specific procedure. In Pretrial Order
(“PTO”) No. 217, the court instructed the parties to file specific causation Daubert
motions, responses, and replies in the individual member cases. To the extent that
an expert is both a general and specific causation expert, the parties were advised
that that they could file a general causation motion in the main MDL 2327 and a
specific causation motion in an individual member case. PTO No. 217, at 4.
II.
Legal Standard
By now, the parties should be intimately familiar with Rule 702 of the Federal
Rules of Evidence and Daubert, so the court will not linger for long on these
standards.
Expert testimony is admissible if the expert is qualified and if his or her expert
testimony is reliable and relevant. Fed. R. Evid. 702; see also Daubert, 509 U.S. at
597. An expert may be qualified to offer expert testimony based on his or her
“knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. Reliability
may turn on the consideration of several factors:
(1) whether a theory or technique can be or has been tested;
(2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and
publication; (3) whether a technique has a high known or
potential rate of error and whether there are standards
controlling its operation; and (4) whether the theory or
technique enjoys general acceptance within a relevant
scientific community.
Cooper v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 259 F.3d 194, 199 (4th Cir. 2001) (citing Daubert,
2
509 U.S. at 592–94). But these factors are neither necessary to nor determinative of
reliability in all cases; the inquiry is flexible and puts “principles and methodology”
above conclusions and outcomes. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595; see also Kumho Tire Co.
v. Carmichael, 525 U.S. 137, 141, 150 (1999). Finally, and simply, relevance turns on
whether the expert testimony relates to any issues in the case. See, e.g., Daubert, 509
U.S. at 591–92 (discussing relevance and helpfulness).
In the context of specific causation expert opinions, the Fourth Circuit has held
that “a reliable differential diagnosis provides a valid foundation for an expert
opinion.” Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB, 178 F.3d 257, 263 (4th Cir. 1999).
A reliable differential diagnosis typically, though not invariably, is
performed after ‘physical examinations, the taking of medical histories,
and the review of clinical tests, including laboratory tests,’ and generally
is accomplished by determining the possible causes for the patient’s
symptoms and then eliminating each of these potential causes until
reaching one that cannot be ruled out or determining which of those that
cannot be excluded is the most likely.
Id. at 262 (citations omitted). “A differential diagnosis that fails to take serious
account of other potential causes may be so lacking that it cannot provide a reliable
basis for an opinion on causation.” Id. at 265. However, an expert’s causation opinions
will not be excluded “because he or she has failed to rule out every possible alternative
cause of a plaintiff's illness.” Id. “The alternative causes suggested by a defendant
‘affect the weight that the jury should give the expert’s testimony and not the
admissibility of that testimony,’ unless the expert can offer ‘no explanation for why
she has concluded [an alternative cause offered by the opposing party] was not the
sole cause.’” Id. at 265 (citations omitted).
3
At bottom, the court has broad discretion to determine whether expert
testimony should be admitted or excluded. Cooper, 259 F.3d at 200.
III.
Discussion
The plaintiff argues that Dr. Shoemaker did not conduct a proper differential
diagnosis. I disagree.
Dr. Shoemaker is an obstetrician and gynecologist, who has extensive
experience working with transvaginal mesh [ECF No. 124-1]. Dr. Shoemaker’s expert
report and deposition testimony show that he conducted a detailed review of the
plaintiff’s medical records and performed a physical examination of the plaintiff. Dr.
Shoemaker considered numerous alternative causes for the plaintiff’s injuries and
explained his reasons for ruling out some alternative causes and not others.
As discussed above, an expert’s causation opinions will not be excluded
“because he or she has failed to rule out every possible alternative cause of a plaintiff's
illness.” Westberry, 178 F.3d. at 265. The plaintiff’s assertion the Dr. Shoemaker
failed to properly consider a particular alternative cause affects the weight—not the
admissibility—of an expert’s testimony, unless the expert can provide no explanation
for ruling out such alternative causes at trial. See id. at 265. To the extent that the
plaintiff believes that Dr. Shoemaker failed to properly consider other alternative
causes or address specific pieces of evidence, the plaintiff is free to address those
issues on cross-examination.
The plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED, and any remaining issues are RESERVED
for trial.
4
IV.
Conclusion
The court DENIES the Motion to Exclude Certain Case Specific Opinions and
Testimony of Defense Expert E. Stanton Shoemaker, M.D. [ECF No. 117]. The court
DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.
ENTER:
5
November 23, 2016
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?