Opinion
MDL No. 2187
01-23-2018
IN RE: C. R. BARD, INC., PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEM PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO C. R. BARD WAVE 4 & WAVE 5 CASES
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
(Daubert Motion re: Maureen Reitman, Sc.D.)
Pending in In re C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:10-md-2187, MDL 2187, is the plaintiffs' Daubert motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Maureen Reitman, Sc.D. [ECF No. 4547]. The motion is now ripe for consideration because the briefing is complete. As set forth below, the plaintiffs' motion is DENIED.
Rather than refile, the plaintiffs entered a "notice" adopting prior Daubert motions that incorporate the parties positions previously formulated in Waves 1 and 2. --------
I. Background
These groups of cases reside in one of seven MDLs assigned to me by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") 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 29,000 cases currently pending, approximately 3,000 of which are in the C. R. Bard, Inc. MDL, MDL No. 2187.
In an effort to manage the massive Bard MDL efficiently and effectively, the court decided to conduct pretrial discovery and motions practice on an individualized basis. To this end, I selected certain cases to become part of a "wave" of cases to be prepared for trial and, if necessary, remanded.
Upon the creation of a wave, I enter a docket control order subjecting each active case in the wave to the same scheduling deadlines, rules regarding motion practice, and limitations on discovery. See, e.g., Pretrial Order ("PTO") # 236, In re C. R. Bard, Inc., Pelvic Repair Sys. Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 2:10-md-02187, Jan. 27, 2017, https://www.wvsd.uscourts.gov/MDL/2187/orders.html. Included among the discovery rules imposed by the court is the obligation of the parties to file Daubert motions seeking to limit or exclude the testimony of general experts in the main MDL, MDL 2187, and to identify which cases the motion would affect.
Before plunging into the heart of the Motion, I am compelled to comment on the manner in which the parties filed the instant Daubert motions. Nearly all of the identified motions before the court are presented on the docket as a "Notice," wherein a party adopts and incorporates the entirety of a motion filed in a previous wave - sometimes several years old. As such, the grounds upon which the parties challenge the proffered expert are sometimes inapplicable to the cases grouped in Wave 4 or Wave 5. As I have previously lamented, recycling expert testimony, objections, and the court's prior rulings, creates the perfect storm of obfuscation. The parties' practice of adopting and incorporating dated materials only compounds the issue as the briefing suffers from antiquation. With this in mind, the following analysis involve the parties' efforts to exclude or limit the general opinions and testimony of the experts so identified.
II. Legal Standard
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, expert testimony is admissible if it will "help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue" and (1) is "based upon sufficient facts or data" and (2) is "the product of reliable principles and methods" which (3) has been reliably applied "to the facts of the case." Fed. R. Evid. 702. A two-part test governs the admissibility of expert testimony. The evidence is admitted if it "rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant." Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993). The proponent of expert testimony does not have the burden to "prove" anything. However, he or she must "come forward with evidence from which the court can determine that the proffered testimony is properly admissible." Md. Cas. Co. v. Therm-O-Disc, Inc., 137 F.3d 780, 783 (4th Cir. 1998).
The district court is the gatekeeper. It is an important role: "[E]xpert witnesses have the potential to be both powerful and quite misleading"; the court must "ensure that any and all scientific testimony . . . is not only relevant, but reliable." Cooper v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 259 F.3d 194, 199 (4th Cir. 2001) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 588, 595; Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB, 178 F.3d 257, 261 (4th Cir. 1999)). I "need not determine that the proffered expert testimony is irrefutable or certainly correct" - "[a]s with all other admissible evidence, expert testimony is subject to testing by '[v]igorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof.'" United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 431 (4th Cir. 2006) (alteration in original) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596 (alteration in original)); see also Md. Cas. Co., 137 F.3d at 783 ("All Daubert demands is that the trial judge make a 'preliminary assessment' of whether the proffered testimony is both reliable . . . and helpful.").
Daubert mentions specific factors to guide the overall relevance and reliability determinations that apply to all expert evidence. They include (1) whether the particular scientific theory "can be (and has been) tested"; (2) whether the theory "has been subjected to peer review and publication"; (3) the "known or potential rate of error"; (4) the "existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation"; and (5) whether the technique has achieved "general acceptance" in the relevant scientific or expert community. United States v. Crisp, 324 F.3d 261, 266 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593-94).
Despite these factors, "[t]he inquiry to be undertaken by the district court is 'a flexible one' focusing on the 'principles and methodology' employed by the expert, not on the conclusions reached." Westberry, 178 F.3d at 261 (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594-95); see also Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 150 (1999) ("We agree with the Solicitor General that '[t]he factors identified in Daubert may or may not be pertinent in assessing reliability, depending on the nature of the issue, the expert's particular expertise, and the subject of his testimony.'" (citation omitted)); see also Crisp, 324 F.3d at 266 (noting "that testing of reliability should be flexible and that Daubert's five factors neither necessarily nor exclusively apply to every expert").
With respect to relevancy, Daubert also explains:
Expert testimony which does not relate to any issue in the case is not relevant and, ergo, non-helpful. The
consideration has been aptly described by Judge Becker as one of "fit." "Fit" is not always obvious, and scientific validity for one purpose is not necessarily scientific validity for other, unrelated purposes. . . . Rule 702's "helpfulness" standard requires a valid scientific connection to the pertinent inquiry as a precondition to admissibility.Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591-92 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
III. Analysis
Bard offers Dr. Maureen Reitman to opine on the issue of polypropylene and its purported degradation. The plaintiffs seek to preclude Dr. Reitman from offering testimony entirely on the ground that her conclusions ignore or so intentionally misrepresent the data upon which she relies as to render her opinions unreliable.
As discussed below, the plaintiffs' motion to exclude certain opinions expressed by Dr. Reitman is DENIED.
1. SEM/EDS Testing
Dr. Reitman reports that studies reveal that the surface morphology of the mesh explants permanently change following a cleaning of the mesh. Dr. Reitman explains that she reached this conclusion by comparing images produced by a scanning electron microscope ("SEM") before and after a round of cleaning. According to Bard, Dr. Reitman's opinion is contrary to the plaintiffs' position that the cracking seen in the SEM imagery is oxidized polypropylene.
In her deposition testimony, however, Dr. Reitman acknowledges that a natural byproduct of SEM imagery is heat produced by the electron beam, which can permanently modify the morphology of the test sample. See Notice of Adoption of Prior Daubert Mot. of Maureen T.F. Reitman, M.D. for Waves 4 & 5 Cases, Ex. 1 at 8-9 (citing Reitman Dep. 207:12-209:6) [ECF No. 4547-1]. Dr. Reitman did not disclose the principle of "beam effect" and its impact on any sample in her expert report.
The plaintiffs argue that Dr. Reitman cannot differentiate her discussion on the morphological impact of cleaning the mesh from the acknowledged impact of the "beam effect." In response, Bard argues that the plaintiffs' argument is flawed in many respects. First, Bard states that the area impacted by the "beam effect" is only 0.1% of the sample's surface area, and well recognized in the scientific community to have a localized effect that does not render the results unreliable. Second, only a small fraction of the SEM images produced were taken after the potential for any "beam effect" occurred. Third, Bard states that Dr. Reitman can easily delineate the areas impacted by "beam effect" from the unadulterated surrounding area, and derive her opinions therefrom. Last, Bard concludes that Dr. Reitman's SEM methodology did not influence any subsequent tests.
In light of the foregoing, the evidence indicates that Dr. Reitman's SEM testing is a well-accepted methodology in the scientific community. In light of Dr. Reitman's testimony that the principle of the "beam effect" is well documented and negligibly influential, I FIND Dr. Reitman's SEM testing reliable. Therefore, the plaintiffs' motion on this point is DENIED.
2. FTIR Testing
Both parties conducted Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy ("FTIR") examinations of explanted mesh material. FTIR is a technique that permits the collection of data on a spectrum, which scientists use to identify the existence of certain chemical groups in a sample. Both parties completed FTIR tests on mesh explants, and the parties agree that certain "peaks" on its spectrum represent the existence of a carbonyl group. The parties' experts dispute, however, what the presence of a carbonyl group in the FTIR of the explanted mesh represents.
The plaintiffs represent that the carbonyl group is consistent with oxidized polypropylene. Dr. Reitman, Bard's expert, reports that the explants were not oxidized. In moving to exclude the testimony of Dr. Reitman, the plaintiffs contend that Dr. Reitman's opinion is unreliable because it suffers from flawed methodology or is contrary to the data recovered from the testing cited in her report.
Here, nothing in the record permits the inference that Dr. Reitman's opinions are so fundamentally unsupported that they cannot assist the fact-finder. The plaintiffs, in their motion, merely demonstrate that there are two experts reviewing the same data and reaching alternative conclusions. See Wipf v. Kowalski, 519 F.3d 380, 385 (7th Cir. 2008) (stating that "in a case of dueling experts, . . . it is left to the trier of fact, not the reviewing court, to decide how to weigh the competing expert testimony").
As such, the purported inaccuracies of Dr. Reitman's FTIR testing advanced by the plaintiffs go to the weight of the evidence, rather than its admissibility. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' motion is DENIED on this ground.
3. TGA Testing
According to Dr. Reitman's report, the polypropylene material in question decomposes completely during thermal gravimetric analysis ("TGA"), while the explants tested do not. This, together with other findings, is not consistent with the occurrence of oxidation. In moving to exclude Dr. Reitman's testimony on this point, the plaintiffs again believe Dr. Reitman's conclusions are contradicted directly by her own findings. Here, the plaintiffs focus on Dr. Reitman's assertion that she identified no residue following a TGA test of one explanted mesh product. This, the plaintiffs contend, contradicts Dr. Reitman's conclusion that none of the explants decomposed completely. In response, Bard asserts that Dr. Reitman did not conclude that "no residue" existed following the TGA of the explanted mesh product in question, only that she was not able to visualize remaining residue due to the size of the sample until using a SEM analysis.
TGA is a process wherein measurements are gathered while heat is applied to a sample, and the resulting data is used to provide information about the composition of the sample. The presence or absence of residue after the completion of the test is itself a data point. Here, Dr. Reitman did not testify that a sample from an explanted mesh completely decomposed during SEM testing, as suggested by the plaintiffs. Rather, Dr. Reitman testified that the residue in question, "which was not visible with an optical microscope, was, in fact, present and visible using an SEM." Id. at 21 (emphasis added). She further explained that "if the residue from an explant is unable to be viewed under an optical microscope, that does not mean that there is no residue." Notice of Adoption of Bard's Prior Memo. of Law in Opp'n to Pls.' Mot. to Exclude Ops. & Test of Maureen Reitman, Sc.D. for Wave 4 & 5 cases, Ex. B at 20 [ECF No. 4652-2].
In light of Dr. Reitman's testimony, the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that Dr. Reitman's opinions are so fundamentally unsupported that they cannot assist the fact-finder. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' motion on this point is DENIED.
4. Polypropylene Pellet Anti-Oxidant Analysis
Last, the plaintiffs seek to exclude Dr. Reitman from testifying on matters related to experiments completed by K&L Labs, a third party, to determine the presence of antioxidants. According to the plaintiffs, Dr. Reitman could not provide information concerning the testing completed by K&L Labs from which one could assess the reliability of the methodology utilized. See Notice of Adoption of Prior Daubert Mot. of Maureen T.F. Reitman, M.D. for Waves 4 & 5 Cases, Ex. 1 at 20 (citing Reitman Dep. 183:10-184:20) ("I actually don't recall the details of this particular protocol" utilized by K&L Labs.). The plaintiffs' claim that because they cannot verify the protocol or methodologies of the testing performed by K&L Labs, the court must exclude Dr. Reitman from testifying on such matters.
Even having made these arguments, the plaintiffs do not cite relevant authority that supports their contention that this is a basis to exclude Dr. Reitman's opinions entirely. Furthermore, as Bard states, Dr. Reitman played a significant role in the antioxidant testing, directing, guiding, and supervising K&L Labs, and performed an independent verification, analysis, and interpretation of the data. More likely, as Bard contends, Dr. Reitman's failure to answer the plaintiffs' questions during her deposition amount only to a temporary inability to detail the methodologies and protocol from memory of a test completed over eighteen months prior. Thus, the plaintiffs' motion is DENIED on this point.
IV. Conclusion
To summarize, I DENY the plaintiffs' motion concerning Dr. Maureen Reitman, Sc.D. [Docket 4547] consistent with my reasoning above.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to file a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order in 2:12-md-2187, and the Bard Wave 4 and Wave 5 cases identified in the Exhibit attached hereto. The court further DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.
ENTER: January 23, 2018
/s/_________
JOSEPH R. GOODWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Exhibit
"1"
| Wave | Civil Action No. | Case Name |
|---|---|---|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:12-cv-02564 | Richardson et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:12-cv-07570 | Lee v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:12-cv-07578 | Degarmo v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:12-cv-09632 | Skinner v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:13-cv-01524 | Holmes v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:13-cv-01526 | Nall v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:13-cv-10318 | Priddy v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:13-cv-11499 | D'Angelo v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:13-cv-12416 | Speetzen v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:13-cv-15209 | Gardiner v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:13-cv-16405 | Newell v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:13-cv-17989 | Radatz v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| | | |
| Wave | Civil Action No. | Case Name |
|---|---|---|
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:13-cv-19736 | Johnson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:13-cv-20036 | Richardson et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:13-cv-20881 | Long v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:13-cv-24208 | Carnahan v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:13-cv-26574 | Landers v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:13-cv-26748 | Raines et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:13-cv-28084 | Hoffman et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:13-cv-30640 | Smith et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:13-cv-32359 | Hummel v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:13-cv-33690 | Barker et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:13-cv-34058 | Purcell et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:14-cv-00606 | Moore et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:14-cv-00952 | Black v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:14-cv-01027 | Massey v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:14-cv-01411 | Politi-Topal v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:14-cv-02528 | Cuffee et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| | | |
| Wave | Civil Action No. | Case Name |
|---|---|---|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:14-cv-05601 | Sheaffer v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:14-cv-07543 | Cooley et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:14-cv-09878 | Ford v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:14-cv-11940 | Stoddard v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:14-cv-14119 | Wilson et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:14-cv-14209 | Guerrero et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:14-cv-25362 | Stapel v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:14-cv-25366 | Silvia v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:14-cv-27463 | Edwards v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:14-cv-27466 | Stewart et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:15-cv-06997 | Polanco v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:16-cv-03707 | Gritten v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:16-cv-03709 | Drake et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:16-cv-03719 | Jones v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:16-cv-03721 | Keisling et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:16-cv-03778 | Ledwein et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:16-cv-03779 | Henderson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:16-cv-03816 | Toulson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:16-cv-03817 | Struble et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:16-cv-03842 | Moore et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:16-cv-03896 | Pickering v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:16-cv-10807 | Brown v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:16-cv-10995 | Branscome v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:16-cv-11011 | Lackey v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:16-cv-11014 | Miller v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| Wave | Civil Action No. | Case Name |
|---|---|---|
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:16-cv-11016 | Morgan v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:16-cv-11017 | Powell v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:16-cv-11020 | Teeples v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:16-cv-11021 | Swiney v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:16-cv-11035 | Updike v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:16-cv-11040 | Woodard v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:16-cv-11041 | Powers v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:16-cv-11103 | Martin v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:16-cv-11104 | McWilliams v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:16-cv-11105 | Weber v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:16-cv-11106 | Rogers v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:16-cv-11112 | Nadeau v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:16-cv-11113 | Hall v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:16-cv-11114 | Phelps v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:16-cv-11115 | Rodericks v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:16-cv-11116 | Bivens v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:16-cv-11118 | Gilbert v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 4 | 2:16-cv-11135 | Brewer v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| Wave | Civil Action No. | Case Name |
|---|---|---|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:13-cv-33991 | Tyson et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:14-cv-03439 | Kitchen v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:14-cv-12489 | Weilert et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:14-cv-13675 | Levine v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| | | |
| | | |
| Wave | Civil Action No. | Case Name |
|---|---|---|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:14-cv-18151 | Miller v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:14-cv-18442 | D'Andrea et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:14-cv-18890 | McManus v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:14-cv-21874 | McCray v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| Wave | Civil Action No. | Case Name |
|---|---|---|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:14-cv-23591 | Becks v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:14-cv-23627 | Juette v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:14-cv-28943 | Smith et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| Wave | Civil Action No. | Case Name |
|---|---|---|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:15-cv-05716 | Krause v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:15-cv-15582 | Carter v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| | | |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-01855 | Eiffler v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-03989 | Watson et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-04032 | Elrod et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-04037 | Young et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-04536 | Thompson et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-04949 | Prince v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-05003 | Roberts et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-06318 | Bess et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-06360 | Crook v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-06361 | Jasso et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-06362 | Bailey v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-06739 | Collins v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-06740 | Krishnan et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-06741 | Roberts v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-06743 | Knernschield et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-07322 | Donley v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-07402 | Cole v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-07610 | Lingenfelter et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-07655 | Barton v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-07694 | Ellis et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-07705 | Alvey v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-08014 | Mathis v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-10411 | DeTro v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-10809 | Clarke v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-10811 | Corley-Davis v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-10814 | Currie v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-10815 | Dennis v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-10819 | Herrera v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-10821 | Martinez v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-11136 | Crowe v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-11137 | Daily v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-11139 | Davis v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| Wave | Civil Action No. | Case Name |
|---|---|---|
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-11142 | Donovan v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-11144 | Fay v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-11147 | Johnson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-11150 | Hale-Cuellar v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-11158 | Hauber v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-11161 | Hill v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-11163 | Kolodzyk v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-11167 | Mahnke v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-11169 | Miecznikowski v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-11170 | Morrill v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-11175 | Reynolds v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-11186 | Nichols v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-11266 | Frederick v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-11798 | Jeffries v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-11803 | Josey v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-11811 | Piper v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-11817 | Smith v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-11819 | Stephenson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-11820 | Stevens v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |
| 2187 WAVE 5 | 2:16-cv-11821 | Tatum v. C. R. Bard, Inc. |