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.
Thacker filed a motion asking the Court to preclude defense expert Dr. Salil S. Khandwala from offering testimony on certain subjects.
Obstetrics and Gynecology Expert Witness
Dr. Salil Siddhartha Khandwala is board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology with a subspecialty board certification in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery. He has been in the practice treating women’s health issues since 2000.
He taught as an Assistant Professor in the Division of Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstruction Surgery department at the University of Maryland from 1998-2002.
Discussion by the Court
Khandwala’s testimony regarding degradation and contraction in the Ethicon mesh devices
Khandwala was expected to testify that Ethicon’s pelvic mesh devices do not degrade or contract. Thacker argued that this testimony should be excluded because it is unreliable. Thacker contended that Khandwala’s opinions are based on (1) his statement that he “does not believe,” in those issues with respect to Ethicon’s mesh devices; and (2) a flawed methodology.
However, Khandwala stated that his opinions on these subjects are based on his review of several studies and his own clinical experience using similar mesh devices. He also made several citations to scientific literature.
For example, with respect to his opinion on degradation, Khandwala stated that “I have never seen [degradation] in my personal experience using this sling in over 300 cases spanning a period of 10 years and recent published scientific literature has found that Prolene mesh in fact does not degrade [citation omitted].”
The Court found Khandwala’s opinions—that Ethicon’s pelvic mesh devices did not degrade or contract—to be reliable.
Khandwala’s testimony regarding mesh porosity and stiffness
Thacker suggested that Khandwala’s opinions on porosity and stiffness are unreliable because he “has never published on the porosity of mesh and has never personally examined the pore size of any of the Ethicon meshes absent observations with the naked eye.” Thacker argued that such gross examinations, on their own, are insufficient to render Khandwala’s opinions on porosity and stiffness reliable.
The Court held that Khandwala’s testimony, however, is not solely based on the occasional examination of Ethicon’s products. Rather, the portion of his report that Thacker challenges demonstrated that Khandwala’s testimony on this subject is based on his knowledge relating to the conditions of Ethicon’s mesh products in cases where they are correctly implanted.
And Khandwala’s knowledge on that subject was derived from both clinical and scholarly review. In fact, his expert report is replete with references to not only his own clinical experience as the basis for his knowledge relating to the conditions of Ethicon’s mesh products after implantation, but it also included numerous references to his review of relevant articles, studies, and other materials.
Held
The Court denied the Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of defense expert Dr. Salil S. Khandwala, M.D.
Key Takeaway:
Khandwala’s opinions regarding degradation and contraction did not rest on unsupported speculation or a flawed methodology. Basically, he stated that his opinions on these subjects are based on his review of several studies and his own clinical experience using similar mesh devices.
As a result, the Court broke no new ground in finding that Khandwala’s testimony was supported by appropriate validation and rested on a sufficient methodology.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Thacker V. Ethicon, Inc. Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 5:20cv50 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Kentucky Eastern |
| Order Date: | July 01, 2025 |
Leave a Reply