Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: surgeon

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology Expert’s Opinion Regarding the Common Knowledge of Pelvic Surgeons Admitted

    Obstetrics and Gynecology Expert’s Opinion Regarding the Common Knowledge of Pelvic Surgeons Admitted

    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 from offering testimony on certain subjects.

    Obstetrics and Gynecology Expert Witness

    Dr. John Raymond Wagner 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. 

    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

    Obstetrics and Gynecology Expert’s Testimony on Mesh Porosity and Stiffness Admitted

    Urogynecology Expert’s Opinion on Continuum of Care Admitted

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Thacker V. Ethicon Inc.
    Docket Number: 5:20cv50
    Court Name: United States District Court, Kentucky Eastern
    Order Date: July 08, 2025
  • Orthopedic Surgery Expert’s Opinion on Future Damages Admitted

    Orthopedic Surgery Expert’s Opinion on Future Damages Admitted

    This case concerns a motor vehicle accident involving the Plaintiffs, Vanessa Rivera and her minor child K.C., and Joseph Giordano, a driver for Defendants Safway Services, LLC and Brand Safway Services, LLC. The Plaintiffs asserted four counts of negligence against the Defendants and sought damages for the physical, emotional, and financial injuries they allegedly suffered from the accident.

    Defendants filed a motion to exclude the opinions of Dr. Nikhil Thakur and Maryanne Cline. Basically, the Defendants contended that Thakur’s opinions are not founded on a satisfactory level of analytical rigor and are not the product of reliable principles and methods.

    Moreover, Defendants added that Thakur’s conclusions regarding future medical treatment were speculative under Massachusetts law governing future damages. Based on these challenges, Defendants argued that excluding the expert testimony would mean Plaintiffs could not establish the necessary amount in controversy, requiring dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

    As for Cline, the Defendants’ only justification for moving to exclude her medical cost projections hinges on the preclusion of Thakur’s opinions.

    Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness

    Dr. Nikhil Thakur is a Board Certified Orthopaedic Spine Surgeon, who specializes in Adult Reconstructive Spine Surgery. Previously, he was an Assistant Professor at SUNY – Upstate in Syracuse NY, where he performed over 300 elective and traumatic spine surgeries at a Level 1 Trauma Center each year. He also developed and ran the spine program at Upstate University at Community General. He continues to hold an adjunct professorship there and is actively involved in his stem cell lab, which he co-directs.

    Thakur completed his spine fellowship at the prestigious Emory Spine Center in Atlanta, where he was involved in the care of the Atlanta Falcons. He also completed an orthopaedic trauma fellowship at Brown University – Rhode Island Hospital.

    Discover more cases with Nikhil Thakur as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report. 

    Life Care Planning Expert Witness

    Maryanne Cline began her career in nursing in 1985 and specifically, rehabilitation nursing in 1991. She worked with traumatically injured clients at St. Anthony’s Medical Center in Crown Point, Indiana and in the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Inpatient Unit at The Cleveland Clinic.

    Her varied clinical experience includes cardiology, medical/surgical, oncology and hospice. Cline has nearly ten years’ experience in the field of Life Care Planning, first as a research assistant then becoming a Certified Life Care Planner in 2012.

    Get the full story on challenges to Maryanne Cline’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.  

    Discussion by the Court

    Initial Arguments

    Defendants moved to exclude the testimony and opinions of plaintiffs’ experts, Thakur, an orthopedic spine surgeon, and Maryanne Cline, a certified nurse life care planner. They argued Thakur’s opinions were inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Defendants asserted his opinions lacked satisfactory analytical rigor and did not result from reliable methods.

    Methodology

    The Court evaluated Thakur’s methodology for forming his expert opinions. Thakur based his opinions on a physical examination of Rivera. Furthermore, he also took her medical history and interpreted medical records from her other healthcare providers. Ultimately, the Court found this approach constituted a reliable methodology under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

    The Court addressed the Defendants’ specific challenges to alleged “errors and omissions” in Thakur’s report. Specifically, Defendants argued certain points, like the fact that Thakur described the accident as a slip and fall instead of a motor vehicle accident or that Thakur did not reference any medical records contradicting his description of Rivera’s ongoing complications and his diagnosis of a C4-C5 disc herniation, warranted exclusion. Nevertheless, the Court held that these disputes over the factual underpinnings of the report did not evince a “significant ‘analytical ga[p]’” between Thakur’s opinions and the record evidence.

    The Defendants’ only methodological quibble—that Thakur did not wait until two years after the accident to measure Rivera’s maximum medical improvement—is not a significant enough analytical issue to merit wholesale exclusion of his opinions. 

    The Defendants next argued that Thakur’s conclusions regarding Rivera’s future medical treatment are “speculative and precatory” and must be excluded under Massachusetts law governing recovery for future damages.

    A Plaintiff, however, “is not restricted to compensation for suffering and expense” that “will inevitably follow,” because “suffering and expense following an injury cannot be foretold with exactness.” Instead, a Plaintiff may be compensated for expenses “which by a fair preponderance of the evidence [she] has satisfied the jury reasonably are to be expected to follow.” 

    Relevance

    Under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, the Court determined Thakur’s opinions had significant probative value which was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or jury confusion. Moreover, the Court rejected the argument that the jury would improperly rely on Thakur’s credentials alone or become confused by the “stark contrast” between Thakur’s report and Rivera’s deposition testimony.

    Since Thakur’s opinions were admissible under Rules 702, 403, and Massachusetts law, the Court likewise found that Maryanne Cline’s medical cost projections should not be excluded. After all, Cline based her opinions on Thakur’s admissible findings and recommendations.

    Held

    The Court denied the Defendants’ motion to exclude the experts, Dr. Nikhil Thakur and Maryanne Cline.

    Key Takeaways:

    • Ultimately, the “errors and omissions” highlighted by the Defendant did not evince a significant analytical gap between Thakur’s opinions and the record evidence.
    • Because the evidentiary value of Thakur’s opinions is not substantially outweighed by the risk of jury confusion or unfair prejudice, exclusion of his report and testimony is unwarranted.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Rivera V. Safway Servs., LLC
    Docket Number: 1:23cv12184
    Court Name: United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
    Order Date: April 23, 2025