Expert Testimony Survives Daubert Challenge in Surgical Mesh Injury Case
Posted on August 14, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Connie Thacker (Plaintiff) received two surgical mesh devices, Prolift and TVT-Secur, as implants on May 8, 2009. Both devices were manufactured by Ethicon, Inc. and were designed to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence in women. Later, Thacker sued, alleging damages resulting from the use of these devices and identified Elizabeth Laposata as her “Case-Specific expert.”
The Defendants moved to exclude Laposata’s testimony regarding general principles of tissue reactions to mesh, changes in the mesh after implantation, pain and suffering, and her opinion that Thacker experienced certain complications.
Pathology Expert Witness
Elizabeth Ann Laposata, M.D., F.C.A.P., F.A.S.C.P., is an expert in Anatomic and Clinical Pathology who has served as an expert witness in matters involving negligence, criminal law, and products liability. She has testified in cases before courts including the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, the Southern District of West Virginia, and the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, with judges such as Joseph R. Goodwin, William S. Duffey Jr., and others presiding.
Discussion by the Court
Impermissible General Testimony
The Defendants argued that Laposata’s general opinions exceeded her designation as a case-specific expert and included irrelevant discussion of mesh changes and symptoms not experienced by Thacker. The Court adopted the reasoning in Meade v. Ethicon, Inc., which held that such general background is permissible when used to explain the pathology underlying the plaintiff’s symptoms and to support case-specific opinions. The Court found her opinions consistent with her role and admissible under Rule 702.
Qualification to Opine on Mesh Changes
Defendants claimed Laposata was unqualified to testify about mesh degradation, citing a 2014 deposition where she allegedly admitted she was not a mesh degradation expert. The Court again relied on Meade, finding that her training, work, and literature review qualified her to opine on degraded mesh in human tissue. It emphasized that an expert’s self-description in a prior case is not dispositive and noted her continued education since 2014.
Qualification to Opine on Pain and Suffering
Defendants argued she lacked qualifications to opine on Thacker’s pain and suffering because she does not treat live patients for pain. The Court disagreed, citing Meade, and held that a pathologist’s expertise includes determining causes of injuries and diseases, which encompasses opinions on pain arising from pathological findings.
Reliability of Testimony Without a Control
Defendants contended her testimony on Thacker’s complications was unreliable because she did not compare the plaintiff’s tissue slides with control slides from asymptomatic patients. They relied on MDL precedent that found such methodology insufficient. The Court declined to follow that reasoning, holding that her direct examination of Thacker’s explanted mesh provided adequate validation under Daubert. The absence of a control went to the weight of her testimony, not its admissibility.
Held
Defendants’ motion to exclude testimony from Plaintiff’s expert Elizabeth Laposata was denied.
Key Takeaway
The Court upheld Laposata’s case-specific testimony, finding her qualified to opine on mesh changes, pain, and complications, and ruling her methods reliable despite the lack of control slides.
Case Details
| Case Caption: | Thacker v. Ethicon Inc. |
| Docket Number: | 5:20cv50KKC |
| Court Name: | United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division |
| Order Date | August 11, 2025 |
