Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Ethicon Inc. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Charleston Division

April 27, 2017

IN RE ETHICON, INC. PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEMS PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: Wave 2 s Identified in Exhibit A Attached Hereto

          ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (DAUBERT MOTION RE: PAUL J. MICHAELS, M.D.)

          ROBERT C. CHAMBERS, CHIEF JUDGE.

         Pending before the court is the Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Paul J. Michaels, M.D. [ECF No. 2436] (“Motion”) filed by the defendants.

         This MDL is one of seven assigned to the Honorable Joseph R. Goodwin 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”). Several cases, including the ones identified on Exhibit A, [1] were reassigned to me. In the seven MDLs, there are more than 60, 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.

         On March 29, 2017, Judge Goodwin addressed this same Motion for cases assigned to him and entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order (Daubert Motion re: Paul J. Michaels, M.D.) [ECF No. 3544] (“Judge Goodwin's Order”), attached hereto as Exhibit B. In Judge Goodwin's Order, he denied in part, granted in part, and reserved in part the Motion. I have reviewed the plaintiffs pending Motion before this court and fully agree with the analysis and conclusions reached in Judge Goodwin's Order. For that reason, and for purposes of judicial consistency and efficiency, the court ADOPTS Judge Goodwin's Order for the cases identified in Exhibit A. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Paul J. Michaels, M.D. [ECF No. 2436] is DENIED in part, GRANTED in part, and RESERVED in part.

         The court DIRECTS the Clerk to file a copy of this Order Adopting Memorandum Opinion and Order in 2:12-md-2327 and in the Ethicon Wave 2 cases identified in Exhibit A attached hereto.

         EXHIBIT A

Case Name

Case Name

Carter, Tamara & David

2:12-cv-01661

Childress, Sandra & Timothy

2:12-CV-01564

Chrysler, Marion

2:12-cv-02060

Sanders, Melissa G. & Charles, Jr.

2:12-CV-01562

Sierra, Ana & Luis

2:12-cv-01819

         EXHIBIT B

         MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (DAUBERT MOTION RE: PAUL J. MICHAELS, M.D.)

          JOSEPH R. GOODWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Pending before the court is the Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Paul J. Michaels, M.D. [ECF No. 2436] filed by the defendants. 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 60, 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 MultidistrictLitigation 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. 206, the court instructed the parties to file only one Daubert motion per ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.