UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JUDY L. TEDDER,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv5611-MCR-MJF

ETHICON, INC. and

JOHNSON & JOHNSON,

Defendants.

_______________________/

ORDER1

This case is before the Court on remand from the Southern District of West 

Virginia, In re: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair Sys. Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 2012-MD2327-JRG. On May 15, 2007, and May 25, 2010, respectively, Plaintiff Judy L.

Tedder had two pelvic mesh devices surgically implanted by Dr. Basil D. Fossum—

TVT-Secur (TVT-S) and TVT-Oturator (TVT-O), both of which were manufactured 

and sold by Defendant Ethicon, Inc.2 Tedder alleges she was injured as a result of 

defects in the devices. Currently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Exclude 

Certain Opinions of Daniel Elliott, M.D. (ECF No. 136). 

1 The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the nature of this litigation, the claims and 

defenses, and the current evidentiary record. Thus, this Order sets out only what is necessary to 

explain the Court’s rulings.

2 Ethicon is a part of the Johnson & Johnson Medical Device Companies. See 

https://www.jnjmedicaldevices.com/en-US/companies/ethicon. 

Case 3:20-cv-05611-MCR-MJF Document 176 Filed 03/31/22 Page 1 of 20
Page 2 of 20

Case No. 3:20cv5611-MCR-MJF

Tedder designated Dr. Elliott, a pelvic floor surgeon and urologist, to provide 

general opinions about TVT-S and TVT-O. The MDL court ruled on a number of 

Defendants’ challenges to Dr. Elliott’s testimony but did not rule on the admissibility 

of the following testimony Tedder seeks to elicit from Dr. Elliott at trial: (1) that 

TVT-S and TVT-O are unsafe for the surgical treatment of stress urinary 

incontinence (SUI), (2) testimony regarding certain duties of a medical device 

manufacturer, which Tedder contends Defendants breached, (3) that non-synthetic 

mesh surgeries are a safer alternative to TVT-S and TVT-O, and (4) that a device 

with a lighter-weight, larger-pore mesh would serve as a safer alternative to TVT-S 

and TVT-O.

I. Legal Standard

Rule 702, as explained by Daubert and its progeny, governs the admissibility 

of expert testimony. Rink v. Cheminova, Inc., 400 F.3d 1286, 1291 (11th Cir. 2005). 

Under Rule 702 and Daubert, district courts must act as “‘gatekeepers’” to ensure 

the reliability and relevancy of expert testimony. Id. (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 

589, 113 S. Ct. 2795). Expert testimony is reliable and relevant—and, therefore, 

admissible—when the following criteria are met: (1) the expert is sufficiently 

qualified to testify about the matters he intends to address; (2) the methodology used 

Case 3:20-cv-05611-MCR-MJF Document 176 Filed 03/31/22 Page 2 of 20
Page 3 of 20

Case No. 3:20cv5611-MCR-MJF

is “sufficiently reliable as determined by the sort of inquiry mandated in Daubert; 

and (3) the testimony assists the trier of fact, through the application of scientific, 

technical, or specialized expertise, to understand the evidence or to determine a fact 

in issue.” Id. The Eleventh Circuit refers to these criteria separately as 

“qualification, reliability, and helpfulness,” United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 

1260 (11th Cir. 2004), and has emphasized that they are “distinct concepts that courts 

and litigants must take care not to conflate,” Quiet Tech. DC-8, Inc. v. Hurel–Dubois

UK Ltd., 326 F.3d 1333, 1341 (11th Cir. 2003). The party offering the expert has 

the burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that each of these 

requirements is met. Rink, 400 F.3d at 1292.

To meet the qualification requirement, a party must show that its expert has 

sufficient “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” to form a reliable 

opinion about an issue that is before the court. Hendrix ex. Rel. G.P. v. Evenflo Co.,

Inc., 609 F.3d 1183, 1193 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 702) (“Hendrix

II”), aff’g 255 F.R.D. 568 (N.D. Fla. 2009) (“Hendrix I”). If a “‘witness is relying 

solely or primarily on experience, then the witness must explain how that experience 

leads to the conclusion reached, why that experience is a sufficient basis for the 

opinion, and how that experience is reliably applied to the facts.’” Frazier, 387 F.3d 

Case 3:20-cv-05611-MCR-MJF Document 176 Filed 03/31/22 Page 3 of 20
Page 4 of 20

Case No. 3:20cv5611-MCR-MJF

at 1261 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702 advisory committee’s note to 2000 amendments). 

The qualifications standard for expert testimony is “not stringent,” and “[s]o long as 

the witness is minimally qualified, objections to the level of [his] expertise [go] to 

credibility and weight, not admissibility.” Hendrix I, 255 F.R.D. at 585 (internal 

marks omitted).

To meet the reliability requirement, an expert’s opinion must be based on 

scientifically valid principles, reasoning, and methodology that are properly applied 

to the facts at issue. Frazier, 387 F.3d at 1261–62. The reliability analysis is guided 

by several factors, including: (1) whether the scientific technique can be or has been 

tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review or 

publication; (3) whether the technique has a known or knowable rate of error; and 

(4) whether the technique is generally accepted in the relevant community. Daubert, 

509 U.S. at 593–94, 113 S. Ct. 2786. “[T]hese factors do not exhaust the universe 

of considerations that may bear on the reliability of a given expert opinion, and a 

federal court should consider any additional factors that may advance its Rule 702 

analysis.” Quiet Tech., 326 F.3d at 1341. The court’s focus must be on the expert’s 

principles and methodology, not the conclusions they generate. Daubert, 509 U.S. 

at 595, 113 S. Ct. 2786. The test for reliability is “flexible,” and courts have “broad 

Case 3:20-cv-05611-MCR-MJF Document 176 Filed 03/31/22 Page 4 of 20
Page 5 of 20

Case No. 3:20cv5611-MCR-MJF

latitude” in determining both how and whether this requirement is met. Kumho Tire

Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 141–42 (1999).

Finally, to satisfy the helpfulness requirement, expert testimony must be 

relevant to an issue in the case and offer insights “beyond the understanding and 

experience of the average citizen.” United States v. Rouco, 765 F.2d 983, 995 (11th 

Cir. 1985). Relevant expert testimony “‘logically advances a material aspect’” of 

the proposing party’s case and “‘fit[s]’” the disputed facts. McDowell v. Brown, 392 

F.3d 1283, 1298–99 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591, 113 S. Ct. 

2786). Expert testimony does not “fit” when there is “too great an analytical gap” 

between the facts and the proffered opinion. Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 

146 (1997).

“Because of the powerful and potentially misleading effect of expert evidence, 

sometimes expert opinions that otherwise meet the admissibility requirements may 

still be excluded [under Federal Rule of Evidence] 403.” Frazier, 387 F.3d at 1263 

(internal citation omitted). “Exclusion under Rule 403 is appropriate if the probative 

value of otherwise admissible evidence is substantially outweighed by its potential 

to confuse or mislead the jury, or if the expert testimony is cumulative or needlessly 

time consuming,” or if it is otherwise unfairly prejudicial. Id. (internal citation 

Case 3:20-cv-05611-MCR-MJF Document 176 Filed 03/31/22 Page 5 of 20
Page 6 of 20

Case No. 3:20cv5611-MCR-MJF

omitted). “Indeed, the judge in weighing possible prejudice against probative force 

under Rule 403 . . . exercises more control over experts than over lay witnesses.” Id. 

(internal marks omitted). “Simply put, expert testimony may be assigned talismanic 

significance in the eyes of lay jurors, and, therefore, . . . district courts must take care 

to weigh the value of such evidence against its potential to mislead or confuse.” Id.

When scrutinizing the reliability, relevance, and potential prejudice of expert 

testimony, a court must remain mindful of the delicate balance between its role as a 

gatekeeper and the jury’s role as the ultimate factfinder. Id. at 1272. The court’s 

gatekeeping role “is not intended to supplant the adversary system or the role of the 

jury.” Allison v. McGhan Med. Corp., 184 F.3d 1300, 1311 (11th Cir. 1999). Only 

the jury may determine “where the truth in any case lies,” and the court “may not 

usurp this function.” Frazier, 387 F.3d at 1272. Thus, a court may not “evaluate 

the credibility of opposing experts” or the persuasiveness of their conclusions, Quiet

Tech., 326 F.3d at 1341; instead, the court’s duty is limited to “ensur[ing] that the 

fact-finder weighs only sound and reliable evidence,” Frazier, 387 F.3d at 1272.

Case 3:20-cv-05611-MCR-MJF Document 176 Filed 03/31/22 Page 6 of 20
Page 7 of 20

Case No. 3:20cv5611-MCR-MJF

II. Discussion

A. TVT-S and TVT-O unsafe for the surgical treatment of SUI 

Dr. Elliott opines that the mesh used in TVT-S and TVT-O “‘should not be 

used in the pelvic floor’” or “‘implanted in the human body for use in the treatment 

of SUI.’” ECF No. 136 at 3. Defendants urge the Court to exclude Dr. Elliott’s

testimony in that regard, arguing the opinions directly contradict opinions Dr. Elliott 

gave in published literature. 

The motion is DENIED. According to Tedder, Dr. Elliott was only a 

corresponding author of the 2019 article Defendants cite. In any event, any alleged 

inconsistencies between Dr. Elliott’s current opinions and those set forth in the 

article go more to the weight of the opinions than to their admissibility and can be 

addressed on cross-examination. See, e.g., Ellerbee v. Ethicon, Inc., No. 8:20-cv1514-TPB-AEP, 2021 WL 2010641, at *2 (May 20, 2021); Geery v. Ethicon, Inc., 

No. 6:20-cv-1975-RBD-LRH, 2021 WL 2580144, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 9, 2021).

B. Duties of a medical device manufacturer

Defendants argue the Court should preclude Dr. Elliott from suggesting that 

Ethicon failed to act as a reasonable medical device manufacturer with regard to 

Case 3:20-cv-05611-MCR-MJF Document 176 Filed 03/31/22 Page 7 of 20
Page 8 of 20

Case No. 3:20cv5611-MCR-MJF

research/testing and physician outreach because the opinions are beyond his 

expertise, unreliable, and do not fit the facts of this case. 

1. Research/Testing

Dr. Elliott criticizes Ethicon for failing to perform certain studies and testing

before placing the products on the market. Defendants argue that a lack of research 

and testing, or a flaw in the design process, does not alone constitute a design defect 

and that, in asserting such a claim, Tedder is attempting to shift the burden to 

Defendants to prove the absence of a design defect. Defendants also argue the 

opinions, which they contend are of questionable relevance, should be excluded 

because Dr. Elliott is not competent to testify about the level of testing a 

manufacturer should have performed, particularly considering that his opinions in 

that regard are contradicted by the 2019 article. 

With regard to reliability, Defendants point out that Dr. Elliott has never 

manufactured or designed a medical device, much less had any involvement with 

FDA clearance, and has not identified a single rule or regulation that would require 

Ethicon to conduct additional research or testing. Dr. Elliott also has not identified 

any basis for his opinions regarding research and testing, which Defendants assert 

are based solely on “unscientific personal belief.” ECF No. 136 at 8. According to 

Case 3:20-cv-05611-MCR-MJF Document 176 Filed 03/31/22 Page 8 of 20
Page 9 of 20

Case No. 3:20cv5611-MCR-MJF

Defendants, when asked about how certain studies or testing should be conducted, 

Dr. Elliott responded that he did not know. Moreover, according to Defendants, Dr. 

Elliott can only speculate as to what the results of further studies or testing would 

have shown. Finally, Defendants argue Dr. Elliott’s testimony regarding research 

and testing should be excluded because Dr. Elliott’s criticisms of studies relative to 

the devices at issue in this case are unreliable given that they are directly refuted by 

the 2019 article, which states that “‘[s]ynthetic midurethral sling placement is the 

most extensively researched surgical treatment of SUI, with more than 2000 

published studies establishing the effectiveness and describing their safety profile.’” 

ECF No. 136 at 10–11. Dr. Elliott also references “‘high-quality evidence’” 

supporting the efficacy of synthetic mid-urethral slings, “including ‘multiple 

randomized trial[s] describing [the] safety and efficacy, with results out to 5 years.’” 

ECF No. 136 at 11. 

According to Tedder, Defendants misunderstand the opinions Dr. Elliott seeks

to offer regarding duties of a medical device manufacturer. Dr. Elliott does not 

intend to offer opinions regarding the legal adequacy of Ethicon’s testing; instead,

he intends to testify about whether the factual circumstances dictated that additional 

testing was needed to ensure the safety and efficacy of the devices at issue in this 

Case 3:20-cv-05611-MCR-MJF Document 176 Filed 03/31/22 Page 9 of 20
Page 10 of 20

Case No. 3:20cv5611-MCR-MJF

case before placing them on the market. Specifically, Dr. Elliott intends to testify, 

based on his review of the literature and internal Ethicon documents, that when 

safety issues arose—including through reports about mesh degradation—Ethicon 

did not conduct additional testing and should have. Tedder argues that Dr. Elliott’s 

opinion in that regard relates to the safety of the devices, not the legal or regulatory 

requirements surrounding a medical device manufacturer’s duty to conduct testing. 

Tedder also urges that Dr. Elliott should be allowed to state the facts on which he 

relied in determining the scope and prevalence of certain complications associated 

with polypropylene mesh products. Tedder asserts Dr. Elliott is more than qualified 

to opine on testing that was or was not conducted by a medical device manufacturer 

considering that, over the course of his career, he has reviewed hundreds of journal 

articles, published more than sixty articles in peer reviewed publications, and been 

an investigator in seven industry studies.

The motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Dr. Elliott may 

not testify about regulatory research or testing requirements or what research or 

testing he contends Ethicon should have conducted. Whether Ethicon should have 

researched or performed tests after becoming aware of complications, however, is a 

factual matter that does not implicate Rule 702. See, e.g., Geery, 2021 WL 2580144, 

Case 3:20-cv-05611-MCR-MJF Document 176 Filed 03/31/22 Page 10 of 20
Page 11 of 20

Case No. 3:20cv5611-MCR-MJF

at *6 & n.4; Williams v. Ethicon, Inc., No. 5:20cv234(MTT), 2021 WL 1087808, at 

*6 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 22, 2021). 

2. Physician training

Defendants also seek to exclude Dr. Elliott from suggesting that Ethicon failed 

to properly train physicians to use TVT-S and TVT-O, arguing that Dr. Elliott’s 

opinions in that regard do not fit the facts of this case because no expert has opined 

that Tedder’s implanting surgeon, Dr. Fossum, was not properly trained and, in fact, 

Tedder’s case-specific expert, Dr. Zipper, opines that Dr. Fossum’s “‘care of Ms. 

Tedder was within the standard of care.’” ECF No. 136 at 11. Defendants also argue

Dr. Elliott is not qualified to opine about the level of training a manufacturer is 

required to provide and that testimony regarding physician training is irrelevant 

under Florida law, which does not recognize a duty to train physicians. 

Tedder responds that Dr. Elliott intends to offer opinions regarding training 

from a surgical perspective, which the jury otherwise will not have. Specifically, 

Tedder points to the following opinion set forth in Dr. Elliott’s report:

“Ethicon refused to formally address the problem [of sheath 

removal/tensioning issues] through changes to the [Instructions for Use 

(IFU)] or Procedural steps (for example by adding the Babcock 

technique used by the inventor of TVT-O) leaving many physicians in 

the dark about why the sheath removal problems were occurring and 

what they could do about it.”

Case 3:20-cv-05611-MCR-MJF Document 176 Filed 03/31/22 Page 11 of 20
Page 12 of 20

Case No. 3:20cv5611-MCR-MJF

ECF No. 146 at 11. Tedder says Dr. Elliott seeks to testify to the adequacy of the 

IFU and Ethicon’s method of explaining the procedure to surgeons, rather than 

opinions on industry or company training requirements. 

The MDL court found that “[w]hile an expert who is a urogynecologist may 

testify about the specific risks of implanting mesh and whether those risks appeared 

on the relevant IFU, the same expert must possess additional expertise to offer expert 

testimony about what information should or should not be included in an IFU.” In 

re: Ethicon, Inc. Pelvic Repair Sys. Prod. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2327, 2016 WL 

4536885, at *2 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 30, 2016). There is no indication Dr. Elliott has 

the expertise to offer expert testimony regarding information that should or should 

not be included on an IFU in general. However, to the extent Dr. Elliott’s opinions 

pertain to complications he has encountered in his practice that were not included 

among the risks identified on the IFU, Dr. Elliott would be competent to testify. 

Nevertheless, the Court is not persuaded that evidence of Ethicon’s failure to 

adequately train physicians is relevant in this case given that Tedder does not appear 

to allege that her implanting surgeon was not properly trained. See Geery, 2021 WL 

2580144, at *4. The motion is GRANTED. 

Case 3:20-cv-05611-MCR-MJF Document 176 Filed 03/31/22 Page 12 of 20
Page 13 of 20

Case No. 3:20cv5611-MCR-MJF

C. Non-synthetic mesh surgeries as a safer alternative to TVT-S and 

TVT-O

Defendants also seek to exclude testimony from Dr. Elliott that traditional 

surgical procedures not involving a medical device, such as autologous slings and 

Burch colposuspension, are safer alternatives than TVT-S and TVT-O for the 

surgical treatment of SUI. Defendants argue the opinions are irrelevant to a design 

defect claim. Defendants also argue the opinions are unreliable because Dr. Elliott 

does not address complication rates and testified that the true complication rate is 

unknown. 

Defendants further argue that Dr. Elliott’s opinions regarding alternative 

treatments should be excluded because Dr. Elliott “improperly relies on a personally 

perceived lack of data as a basis for his opinions,” rather than medical studies and 

other sound scientific methodology. ECF No. 136 at 14 (emphasis in original). 

Defendants point to Dr. Elliott’s testimony that “‘[t]he data overall with all sling 

products is very poor,’ including studies relating to autologous slings, ‘[a]nd that’s 

why we’re in the situation we’re in now.’” Id. Defendants say Dr. Elliott stated that 

he disagrees with the conclusion of the American Urological Association (AUA)

that synthetic polypropylene mesh has minimal morbidity compared to alternatives, 

but the basis for Dr. Elliott’s disagreement is simply his belief that “‘there have been 

Case 3:20-cv-05611-MCR-MJF Document 176 Filed 03/31/22 Page 13 of 20
Page 14 of 20

Case No. 3:20cv5611-MCR-MJF

very few randomized control trials, none which are long-term, comparing head-tohead autologous pubovaginal slings versus TVT.’” Id. Defendants argue that aside 

from the fact that Dr. Elliott has a misperception about the literature, he improperly 

infers that this perceived lack of studies demonstrates that the AUA is wrong and 

that TVT-S and TVT-O are less safe than alternative surgical approaches. 

Defendants argue “[t]his approach is far from trustworthy scientific methodology.” 

ECF No. 136 at 15.

As an example, Defendants cite the fact that when asked about mesh-related 

pain, Dr. Elliott responded “‘[t]he true incidence, unfortunately, is not known.’” Id. 

Defendants say Dr. Elliott could not reconcile his testimony with the AUA guideline 

and Society of Gynecological Surgeons’ meta-analysis and systematic review, both 

of which reported higher rates of dyspareunia, pain, and sexual dysfunction with the 

autologous sling and Burch procedure than with a mid-urethral mesh device. 

According to Defendants, even Dr. Elliott’s employer, the Mayo Clinic, recognizes 

that “‘[u]sing surgical mesh is a safe and effective way to treat stress urinary 

incontinence,’” and Dr. Elliott’s 2019 article states that devices such as TVT-S and 

TVT-O are the “‘standard of care,’” “a ‘great advance,’” and “‘provide excellent’ 

outcomes.” Id. Defendants further aver that Dr. Elliott has arbitrarily discounted 

Case 3:20-cv-05611-MCR-MJF Document 176 Filed 03/31/22 Page 14 of 20
Page 15 of 20

Case No. 3:20cv5611-MCR-MJF

literature he cites in his report, including a Cochrane review, in which the authors 

concluded

“[m]id-urethral sling operations have been the most extensively 

researched surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in 

women and have a good safety profile. Irrespective of the routes 

traversed, they are highly effective in the short and medium term, and 

accruing evidence demonstrates their effectiveness in the long term. 

This review illustrates their positive impact on improving the quality of 

life of women with SUI.” 

ECF No. 136 at 16–17. 

Finally, Defendants urge the Court to find that Dr. Elliott’s experiences, which 

Defendant argue are unsupported by any reliable studies or trustworthy scientific 

methodology, fall far short of setting forth a reliable foundation for his opinions. 

Defendants note that Dr. Elliott testified about a basic unfamiliarity with autologous 

sling literature and the experiences of other physicians, saying “‘I can’t speak to 

those. I can speak to my own experience.’” ECF No. 136 at 17 n.5. 

Tedder urges the Court to reject Defendants’ arguments regarding Dr. Elliott’s 

testimony about treatment options, arguing availability of alternative procedures is 

highly relevant to the issue of whether Ethicon acted with reasonable care. The 

Court agrees. “In Florida, a plaintiff need not demonstrate the existence of a 

Case 3:20-cv-05611-MCR-MJF Document 176 Filed 03/31/22 Page 15 of 20
Page 16 of 20

Case No. 3:20cv5611-MCR-MJF

reasonable alternative design for a strict liability design defect claim.”3 Geery, 2021 

WL 2580144, at *5 (citing Aubin v. Union Carbid Corp., 177 So. 3d 489, 511 (Fla. 

2015)). “In proving strict liability, Florida courts use both the consumer 

expectations test and the risk utility test.” Id. (citing Aubin, 177 So. 3d at 511; 

Messina v. Ethicon, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-1170-Orl-40LRH, 2020 WL 7419586, at *4 

(M.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2020)). “Under the consumer expectation test, a product is 

defectively designed if it fails to perform as safely as the ordinary consumer would 

expect.” Id. “And under the risk utility test, a ‘product is considered unreasonably 

dangerous” when “the risk of danger in the design outweighs the benefits.’” Id. 

(quoting Pierre v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 476 F. Supp. 3d 1260, 1271 (S.D. Fla. 

2020)). 

The Court finds that Dr. Elliott’s opinions regarding alternative treatments are 

relevant to the risk utility test because they will assist the jury in determining whether 

the risks of TVT-S and TVT-O outweighed the benefits given the safety of 

alternative procedures and products. See, e.g., Geery, 2021 WL 2580144, at *5; see 

also Jackson v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 1:11-CV-3903-TWT, 2022 WL 110422, at 

3 The Court is exercising diversity jurisdiction over this matter, so it applies state substantive law. 

See Bravo v. United States, 577 F.3d 1324, 1325 (11th Cir. 2009). 

Case 3:20-cv-05611-MCR-MJF Document 176 Filed 03/31/22 Page 16 of 20
Page 17 of 20

Case No. 3:20cv5611-MCR-MJF

*6 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 12, 2022); Mason v. Ethicon, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-1078-RBD-DCI, 

2021 WL 2580165, at *4–5 (M.D. Fla. June 10, 2021); Dotson v. Am. Med. Sys., 

Inc., No. 1:20-CV-00788-LMM, 2020 WL 2844738, at *3 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 11, 2020). 

Moreover, based on his clinical experience and review of the medical literature, the 

Court finds Dr. Elliott competent to offer testimony in that regard. See, e.g., Mason, 

2021 WL 2580165, at *5; Ellerbee, 2021 WL 2010641, at *2; Geery, 2021 WL 

2580144, at *7; Williams, 2021 WL 1087808, at *6. The motion is DENIED.

D. Device with a lighter-weight, larger-pore mesh as a safer 

alternative to TVT-S and TVT-O

Finally, Defendants seek to exclude Dr. Elliott from testifying that a device 

with a lighter-weight, larger-pore mesh would have been a safer alternative to TVTS and TVT-O. First, Defendants argue that Dr. Elliott’s opinions regarding mesh 

materials are not supported by testing or medical literature. According to 

Defendants, none of the eleven sources Dr. Elliott cites in support of his opinions 

regarding alternative materials support the statement that a lighter weight and/or 

larger pore mesh is safer for the treatment of SUI than the Prolene mesh used in 

TVT-S and TVT-O. Second, Defendants argue that Dr. Elliott’s opinions are not 

supported by his personal experience because Dr. Elliott has never treated a patient 

for SUI with a lighter weight, larger pore mesh than Prolene. Defendants state that

Case 3:20-cv-05611-MCR-MJF Document 176 Filed 03/31/22 Page 17 of 20
Page 18 of 20

Case No. 3:20cv5611-MCR-MJF

a device with mesh lighter than Prolene has never been cleared by the FDA or made 

available by any manufacturer to treat SUI. In fact, Ethicon attempted to launch a 

SUI product using lighter-weight Ultrapro mesh, but its lab tests failed, and the FDA 

rejected its 510k application. 

Last, Defendants argue that even if Dr. Elliott could reliably testify that a 

TVT-S or TVT-O device with a different mesh would be safer than a device with

Prolene mesh, his opinions are improper because there is no evidence that any such 

alternative device would be as efficacious for the treatment of SUI. According to 

Defendants, because neither Dr. Elliott nor any other expert can identify any reliable 

studies demonstrating that some other mesh device is as efficacious as TVT-S or 

TVT-O for the surgical treatment of SUI, Dr. Elliott’s opinions in that regard lack a 

reliable methodology and should be excluded. 

Tedder counters that Dr. Elliott is competent to determine the adverse effects 

of a medical drug or device based on his observations in practice and his review of 

studies and medical literature. Tedder says Dr. Elliott has cited extensive data from 

multiple studies showing that lighter weight, larger pore mesh leads to fewer 

complications, including less chronic pain, less contraction, less shrinkage, less 

foreign body reaction, and less folding of the mesh. According to Tedder, Dr. Elliott 

Case 3:20-cv-05611-MCR-MJF Document 176 Filed 03/31/22 Page 18 of 20
Page 19 of 20

Case No. 3:20cv5611-MCR-MJF

explains in detail in his report why heavier weight, smaller pore mesh causes the 

“cascade of complications resulting in life-altering harm to a woman.” ECF No. 146 

at 17. In fact, Tedder says, even Ethicon’s own personnel agree that lighter weight, 

larger pore mesh reduces complications. Finally, Tedder argues that the type of 

mesh Dr. Elliott proposes has been studied in the treatment of hernias and pelvic 

organ prolapse and has proven effective. Even if there is some decrease in efficacy, 

which Tedder says has not been established, Dr. Elliott believes that alleviation of 

the risks involved with small pore, heavy weight mesh would far outweigh the loss 

of efficacy. 

The MDL court found Dr. Elliott competent to “‘testify about the alleged 

benefits of mesh that is lighter-weight and has larger pores, and in general found him 

qualified to testify about whether one mesh is safer than another.’” Ellerbee, 2021 

WL 2010641, at *3 (quoting Wiltgen v. Ethicon, Inc., No. 12-cv-2400, 2017 WL 

4467455, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 6, 2017)). And this Court agrees with the Ellerbee

court that “Defendants’ attacks on Dr. Elliott’s opinions here go toward the weight 

of the evidence rather than admissibility.” Id. (citing Herrera-Nevarez by Springer 

v. Ethicon, Inc., No. 17 C 3930, 2017 WL 3381718, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 6, 2017); 

Case 3:20-cv-05611-MCR-MJF Document 176 Filed 03/31/22 Page 19 of 20
Page 20 of 20

Case No. 3:20cv5611-MCR-MJF

see also Mason, 2021 WL 2580165, at *5; Geery, 2021 WL 2580144, at *7–8;

Williams, 2021 WL 1087808, at *7. The motion is DENIED. 

 SO ORDERED this 31st day of March 2022.

M. Casey Rodgers M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05611-MCR-MJF Document 176 Filed 03/31/22 Page 20 of 20