Boston Scientific Corp. and plaintiffs accusing it in the multidistrict litigation over its pelvic mesh products on Friday argued for the exclusion of each others’ experts, with plaintiffs targeting those including the inventor of the Uphold Pelvic Floor Repair Kit.
In separate filings in West Virginia federal court, the plaintiffs targeted Boston Scientific’s experts, including Roger Goldberg, who they claim has earned more than $1.4 million in royalties for the mesh device he invented. They argue that Goldberg has himself admitted a conflict of interest in a past study of the Uphold Pelvic Floor Repair Kit, and that he has not followed a rigorous enough methology in supporting his conclusion about the safety of the product.
“The opinions of Dr. Goldberg, no doubt strongly held by someone who has made over a $1,000,000 from its sale, do
not satisfy a reliability or relevance review under the Daubert standard and should be excluded,” the plaintiffs said in a filing Friday.
The plaintiffs have also sought to exclude the testimonies of urogynecologist James Rice, whose opinions on certain pelvic products including Boston Scientific’s Solyx Single-Incision Mini-Sling product they claim are not based on sound enough methodology.
They argued also that his deposition testimony shows that he lacks expertise in the design of the transvaginal mesh or Solyx device, according to their filing.
“Dr. Rice’s opinions are unreliable because they are based on his admitted incomplete review of the medical literature regarding polypropylene transvaginal mesh and the Solyx Single-Incision Mini- Sling,” the plaintiffs said in their filing. “It is well established that an expert must take contrary scientific literature and evidence into account and may not simply disregard it.”
Boston Scientific meanwhile urged the court to exclude the testimony from certain suits in the litigation, of plaintiffs’ expert, pelvic surgeon Jerry Blavais, arguing similarly that his opinions on the safety of polypropylene mid-urethral slings are unreliable. The device maker argued that his testimony does not adequately address conflicting scientific views, and that his opinions are not backed by peer-reviewed literature, according to its filing.
Tens of thousands of cases involving mesh products manufactured by Boston Scientific, Johnson & Johnson and C.R. Bard Inc. have been consolidated in multidistrict litigation pending before U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in West Virginia federal court.
Credit: Law360 & David Siegel