--- title: "Expert Testimony Survives Daubert Challenge in Surgical Mesh Injury Case" meta: "og:description": "The testimony about mesh changes, pain, and complications survives the Rule 702 challenge because it is grounded in pathology expertise, supported by relevant experience, and based on a reliable methodology." "og:title": "Expert Testimony Survives Daubert Challenge in Surgical Mesh Injury Case" author: "Expert Witness Profiler" description: "The testimony about mesh changes, pain, and complications survives the Rule 702 challenge because it is grounded in pathology expertise, supported by relevant experience, and based on a reliable methodology." --- # 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](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Elizabeth-Laposata/1518341) 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](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Elizabeth-Laposata/1518341), 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. [Get the full story on challenges to Elizabeth Ann Laposata’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1518341&pId=2) ## **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](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arkansas/aredce/4:2020cv00694/122431/102/)._, 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](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/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](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard&ved=2ahUKEwiexdTLo4qPAxUKTmwGHTwvMKwQFnoECEYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3SYCMPiihxmj_61iFPw7QQ)_. 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. Please refer to the blogs previously published about this case: [Urogynecology Expert Witness Testimony about inadequate risk disclosure admitted in medical device product liability action](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/urogynecology-expert-witness-testimony-about-inadequate-risk-disclosure-admitted-in-medical-device-product-liability-action) [Obstetrics and Gynecology Expert’s Testimony on Mesh Porosity and Stiffness Admitted](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/obstetrics-and-gynecology-experts-testimony-on-mesh-porosity-and-stiffness-admitted) [Urogynecology Expert’s Opinion on Continuum of Care Admitted](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/urogynecology-experts-opinion-on-continuum-of-care-admitted) [Obstetrics and Gynecology Expert’s Opinion Regarding the Common Knowledge of Pelvic Surgeons Admitted](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/obstetrics-and-gynecology-experts-opinion-regarding-the-common-knowledge-of-pelvic-surgeons-admitted) [Biomedical Engineering Expert’s Testimony on Product Warnings Admitted](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/biomedical-engineering-experts-testimony-on-product-warnings-admitted) [Biomaterials Expert Barred from Testifying About Corporate Knowledge and Intent](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/biomaterials-expert-barred-from-testifying-about-corporate-knowledge-and-intent) ## **Case Details** --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Human Resources Expert Allowed to Opine on Termination](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-22T200052.311.jpg) [**Human Resources Expert Allowed to Opine on Termination**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-testimony-survives-daubert-challenge-in-surgical-mesh-injury-case/human-resources-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-termination)![Neuropsychology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Cognitive Decline](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-22T144728.528.jpg) [**Neuropsychology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Cognitive Decline **](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-testimony-survives-daubert-challenge-in-surgical-mesh-injury-case/neuropsychology-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-cognitive-decline)![Human Factors Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Tile](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-21T191749.960.jpg) [**Human Factors Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Tile**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-testimony-survives-daubert-challenge-in-surgical-mesh-injury-case/human-factors-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-tile)![Insurance Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Legal Duties](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-21T155751.487.jpg) [**Insurance Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Legal Duties**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-testimony-survives-daubert-challenge-in-surgical-mesh-injury-case/insurance-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-legal-duties)![Law And Legal Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Contract Formation](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-20T213123.718.jpg) [**Law And Legal Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Contract Formation**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-testimony-survives-daubert-challenge-in-surgical-mesh-injury-case/law-and-legal-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-contract-formation)