--- title: "Obstetrics and Gynecology Expert’s Opinion Regarding the Common Knowledge of Pelvic Surgeons Admitted" meta: "og:description": "The obstetrics and gynecology expert can testify about what was commonly known by other surgeons because it is based on his medical training to become a pelvic surgeon" "og:title": "Obstetrics and Gynecology Expert’s Opinion Regarding the Common Knowledge of Pelvic Surgeons Admitted" author: "Expert Witness Profiler" description: "The obstetrics and gynecology expert can testify about what was commonly known by other surgeons because it is based on his medical training to become a pelvic surgeon" --- # Obstetrics and Gynecology Expert’s Opinion Regarding the Common Knowledge of Pelvic Surgeons Admitted Posted on July 16, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler Connie Thacker is one of tens of thousands of individuals who have filed suit against Ethicon for injuries after treatment with Ethicon’s pelvic mesh devices. Plaintiff Connie Thacker filed a motion asking the Court to preclude defense expert Dr. [John R. Wagner](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/John-Wagner/1539928) from offering testimony on certain subjects. ## **Obstetrics and Gynecology Expert Witness** Dr. [John Raymond Wagner](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/John-Wagner/1539928) is board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology with a subspecialty board certification in pelvic floor medicine and reconstructive surgery. He is a 1987-graduate of The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. While at Icahn, he was honored with the Alan F. Guttmacher Award as well as membership into the Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society. [Want to know more about the challenges John R. Wagner has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1539928&pId=3). ## **Discussion by the Court** #### **_Wagner’s testimony that certain risks of the Prolift and TVT-S devices are widely known by other surgeons_** Thacker argued that Wagner’s testimony that certain risks of the Prolift and TVT-S devices are widely known by other surgeons was unreliable. The parties anticipated that Wagner will testify that certain risks involved with using the Prolift and TVT-S devices were commonly known by other surgeons in his field (and thus did not need to be included in Ethicon’s product warnings). While Thacker acknowledged that Wagner may properly opine on such risks as he understands them, she contended that he went too far by opining on what risks were commonly known by other surgeons. More specifically, Thacker argued that Wagner cannot testify as to what was commonly known by other surgeons because “Wagner did not conduct any empirical research or interview other physicians to verify the veracity of his opinion.” Ultimately, the Court rejected Thacker’s argument and found that Wagner’s testimony that certain risks of the Prolift and TVT-S are widely known by other surgeons is reliable. Wagner’s opinion regarding the common knowledge of pelvic surgeons was reliable because it was based on his medical training to become a pelvic surgeon—which is the same training regimen he represents is common to every pelvic surgeon. This training, along with his review of relevant medical literature, provided “appropriate validation,” for Wagner’s opinion concerning the common knowledge of pelvic surgeons and rendered his testimony reliable. #### **_Wagner’s testimony regarding the properties of the mesh used in the TVT-S and Prolift_** Thacker next argued that Wagner’s testimony regarding the properties of the mesh used in Ethicon’s devices was unreliable. Specifically, Thacker took issue with the reliability of Wagner’s opinion that the mesh involved “is a safe and effective material.” Thacker suggested that this opinion was unreliable because Wagner lacked the appropriate qualifications to form such an opinion: namely, she took issue with his lack of training in biomedical engineering, pathology, epidemiology, or medical device design. The Court found that Wagner’s testimony regarding the properties of the mesh used in Ethicon’s devices was reliable due to Wagner’s “extensive clinical experience, combined with his review of peer-reviewed literature, qualifies [him] to opine on mesh’s reaction to and effect on the human body.” ## **Held** The Court denied the Plaintiff’s motion to exclude or limit the testimony of defense expert John Wagner. ## **Key Takeaway:** Wagner is more than qualified to opine on mesh’s reaction to and effect on the human body considering his extensive clinical experience, combined with his review of peer-reviewed literature. Wagner’s opinion regarding the common knowledge of pelvic surgeons is also reliable because it is based on his medical training to become a pelvic surgeon—which is the same training regimen he represents is common to every pelvic surgeon. 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) ## **Case Details:** --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Radiology Expert was Allowed to Opine on the Extent of the Injuries](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-17T212119.557.jpg) [**Radiology Expert was Allowed to Opine on the Extent of the Injuries**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/obstetrics-and-gynecology-experts-opinion-regarding-the-common-knowledge-of-pelvic-surgeons-admitted/radiology-expert-was-allowed-to-opine-on-the-extent-of-the-injuries)![Radiology Expert Allowed to Opine on Emergency Care](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-17T151703.135.jpg) [**Radiology Expert Allowed to Opine on Emergency Care**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/obstetrics-and-gynecology-experts-opinion-regarding-the-common-knowledge-of-pelvic-surgeons-admitted/radiology-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-emergency-care)![Human Factors Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Warning Cues](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-17T191943.820.jpg) [**Human Factors Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Warning Cues**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/obstetrics-and-gynecology-experts-opinion-regarding-the-common-knowledge-of-pelvic-surgeons-admitted/human-factors-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-warning-cues)![Accident Reconstruction Expert's Testimony on Design Defects Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-16T184712.490.jpg) [**Accident Reconstruction Expert’s Testimony on Design Defects Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/obstetrics-and-gynecology-experts-opinion-regarding-the-common-knowledge-of-pelvic-surgeons-admitted/accident-reconstruction-experts-testimony-on-design-defects-excluded)![Architecture Expert Allowed to Opine on Storm Damage](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-14T214142.934.jpg) [**Architecture Expert Allowed to Opine on Storm Damage**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/obstetrics-and-gynecology-experts-opinion-regarding-the-common-knowledge-of-pelvic-surgeons-admitted/architecture-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-storm-damage)