Gary Northrup v. Covidien, LP. et al, No. 5:2020cv00355 - Document 100 (C.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT OPINIONS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, 76 , 77 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Dr. Grischkan is not qualified to render an opinion as to the PCOx product design or IFU. Although his qualifications are not at issue with respect to causation, Dr. Grischkans opinion is not the product of a properly conducted differential diagnosis, or any other discernible methodology. For these reasons, and for the reasons stated above, Covidiens Motion to Exclude is GRANTED. In the absence of any admissible expert evidence supporting Plaintiffs claims, Covidiens Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. See order for more information. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (shb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Gary Northrup v. Covidien, LP. et al Doc. 100 1 2 O JS-6 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GARY NORTHRUP, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 COVIDIEN, LP, 15 Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. EDCV 20-00355 DDP (SPx) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT OPINIONS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Dkt. 76, 77] 16 Presently before the court is Defendants Covidien, LP and 17 Medtronic Inc. (collectively, “Covidien”)’s Motion to Exclude 18 Opinions of David Grischkan (Dkt. 76), as well as Covidien’s Motion 19 for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 77). Having considered the submissions 20 of the parties and heard oral argument, the court grants the 21 motions and adopts the following Order. 22 I. Background 23 Plaintiff Gary Northrup underwent abdominal surgery in 2008. 24 He subsequently developed bowel obstructions in 2009 and 2011. 25 Plaintiff underwent a second abdominal surgery in September 2011, 26 during which the surgeon observed that it “looked like a bomb went 27 off” in Plaintiff’s abdomen. The surgeon repaired four or five 28 small hernias. Dockets.Justia.com 1 In December 2012, Plaintiff was diagnosed with another hernia. 2 Dr. Lawrence Kong recommended surgical repair with mesh. 3 the complexity of the repair as a result of Plaintiff’s prior 4 abdominal surgeries, Dr. Kong referred Plaintiff to Dr. Deron 5 Tessier. 6 September 2013. 7 Plaintiff’s bowel to the abdominal wall. 8 Plaintiff’s hernia with a “PCOx” mesh, manufactured by Covidien’s 9 subsidiary. 10 11 Due to Dr. Tessier performed the hernia repair surgery in Dr. Tessier observed “extensive adhesions” of Dr. Tessier repaired PCOx, short for Parietex Optimized Composite Mesh, is made of polyester, with a resorbable collagen coating on one side. In March 2016, Plaintiff presented with abdominal pain and 12 gastrointestinal symptoms. 13 Ex. 28.) 14 testosterone and steroids. 15 surmised that continuing gastrointestinal symptoms and chronic 16 abdominal pain may have been related to Plaintiff’s continued use 17 of narcotic painkillers. 18 Dr. Tessier offered Plaintiff nerve block injections, which only 19 relieved Plaintiff’s abdominal pain temporarily. 20 (Declaration of Jessica Wilson ISO MSJ, A doctor recommended that Plaintiff stop taking (Id.) In June 2017, another doctor (Wilson Decl., Ex. 27.) Later that year, In January 2018, Dr. Tessier performed another abdominal 21 surgery, this time to remove tacks and sutures used during the 2013 22 hernia repair surgery. 23 however. 24 third abdominal surgery to remove the PCOx mesh and all visible 25 tacks and sutures remaining from the 2013 hernia repair surgery. 26 The surgical notes indicate that Plaintiff had “dense, fibrotic, 27 chronically inflamed and scarred down adhesions.” 28 Ex. 36.) Plaintiff’s abdominal pain persisted, Accordingly, on March 24, 2018, Dr. Tessier performed a (Wilson Dec., Surgeons divided the mesh in two, cleared overlying 2 1 fascia and tissue off one half of the mesh, and “sharply excised” 2 the mesh. 3 excised entirely as well.” 4 excision of the mesh was repeated for the [other] half of the mesh 5 . . . in a similar fashion.” 6 that he removed all of the mesh, and that he did not see any 7 problems with the mesh itself. 8 144:5.) 9 (Id.) Tacks in the mesh and abdominal wall “were (Id.) The “meticulous dissection and (Id.) Dr. Tessier later testified (Wilson Decl., Ex. 21 at 43:21- Plaintiff’s abdominal pain persisted. Plaintiff sought 10 medical care seven times in 2019, and filed the instant action in 11 2020. 12 strict liability claim against Covidien on a failure to warn 13 theory, as well as a negligence claims based on failure to warn and 14 alleged defective manufacturing and design of the PCOx mesh. 15 following the exchange of expert witness reports, Covidien seeks to 16 exclude the opinions of Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. David Grischkan. 17 Covidien also seeks summary judgment on all claims. 18 II. 19 (Wilson Dec., Exs. 40-46.) Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges a Now, Legal Standard Where “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge 20 will assist the trier of fact” to understand evidentiary or factual 21 issues, an expert witness who is qualified by “knowledge, skill, 22 experience, training, or education” may “testify thereto in the 23 form of an opinion or otherwise.” 24 experience alone can provide a sufficient foundation for expert 25 testimony, so long as the witness explains “how that experience 26 leads to the conclusion reached, why that experience is a 27 sufficient basis for the opinion, and how that experience is 28 reliably applied to the facts.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. An expert’s Fed. R. Evid. 702 Advisory 3 1 Committee Note to 2000 Amdt. Trial courts, however, have a 2 gatekeeping function regarding expert testimony. 3 Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 n.7 (1993). 4 The two touchstones of admissibility are relevance and reliability. 5 Id. 6 particular case to make determinations regarding the reliability of 7 expert testimony. 8 137, 152 (1999). 9 methodology, not on the conclusions they generate.” Daubert v. Courts employ a flexible inquiry tied to the facts of the Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. The focus should be “solely on principles and Daubert, 509 10 U.S. at 595; see also Fed. R. Evid. 702 Adv. Comm. Note to 2000 11 Amdt. 12 to, “whether the theory or technique employed by the expert is 13 generally accepted in the scientific community; whether it's been 14 subjected to peer review and publication; whether it can be and has 15 been tested; and whether the known or potential rate of error is 16 acceptable.” 17 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 18 The proponent of the expert testimony has the burden of 19 establishing that the relevant admissibility requirements are met 20 by a “preponderance of the evidence.” 21 n.10 (citing Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175 (1987)). 22 Factors relevant to reliability include, but are not limited Wendell v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 858 F.3d 1227, 1232 Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592 Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings, 23 depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, 24 together with the affidavits, if any, show “that there is no 25 genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled 26 to judgment as a matter of law.” 27 seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the 28 court of the basis for its motion and of identifying those portions Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 4 A party 1 of the pleadings and discovery responses that demonstrate the 2 absence of a genuine issue of material fact. 3 Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). 4 the evidence must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party. 5 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 242 (1986). 6 moving party does not bear the burden of proof at trial, it is 7 entitled to summary judgment if it can demonstrate that “there is 8 an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.” 9 Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. 10 See Celotex Corp. v. All reasonable inferences from See If the Once the moving party meets its burden, the burden shifts to 11 the nonmoving party opposing the motion, who must “set forth 12 specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” 13 Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. 14 party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the 15 existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on 16 which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” 17 477 U.S. at 322. 18 that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving 19 party,” and material facts are those “that might affect the outcome 20 of the suit under the governing law.” 21 There is no genuine issue of fact “[w]here the record taken as a 22 whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the 23 nonmoving party.” 24 Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). 25 Summary judgment is warranted if a Celotex, A genuine issue exists if “the evidence is such Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio It is not the court’s task “to scour the record in search of a 26 genuine issue of triable fact.” 27 1278 (9th Cir. 1996). 28 support clearly. Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, Counsel have an obligation to lay out their Carmen v. San Francisco Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 5 1 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001). The court “need not examine the entire 2 file for evidence establishing a genuine issue of fact, where the 3 evidence is not set forth in the opposition papers with adequate 4 references so that it could conveniently be found.” 5 III. Discussion Id. 6 A. 7 Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. David Grischkan, opined that “the Dr. Grischkan’s Causation Opinion 8 post-operative and current abdominal pain experienced by Mr. 9 Northrup was and is to this day directly caused by the Parietex 10 Optimized Composite mesh.” 11 Ex. 1.) 12 of any scientific methodology, and that Dr. Grischkan’s opinion as 13 to causation is inadmissible. 14 (Declaration of Jessica Wilson ISO MTE, Covidien contends that this conclusion was not the product Dr. Grischkan did not identify any methodology in his expert 15 report. 16 he performed a “differential diagnosis.” 17 2.) 18 Plaintiff’s contention that Dr. Grischkan was not required to 19 conduct a differential diagnosis. 20 Dr. Grisckan claimed to have done so, and Plaintiff does not 21 identify any alternative process that Dr. Grischkan employed or 22 claimed to have employed. 23 At his deposition, however, Dr. Grishckan testified that (Wilson Dec. ISO MTE, Ex. As an initial matter, Defendants do not appear to dispute The fact remains, however, that Differential diagnosis has long been recognized in this 24 circuit as a reliable methodology, so long as it is “properly 25 conducted.” 26 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Kennedy v. Collagen Corp., 161 F.3d 1226 27 (9th Cir.1998)); see also Messick v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 747 28 F.3d 1193, 1199 (9th Cir. 2014). Clausen v. M/V NEW CARISSA, 339 F.3d 1049, 1057, 1058 The Ninth Circuit laid out the 6 1 differential diagnosis process in Clausen. First, an expert should 2 “compile a comprehensive list of hypotheses that might explain the 3 set of salient clinical findings.” 4 Failure to consider even a rare potentially explanatory hypothesis 5 may be indicative of unreliability. 6 must eliminate hypotheses until a conclusion is reached as to the 7 most likely cause of the findings at issue. 8 provide reasons for rejecting alternative hypotheses using 9 scientific methods and procedures[,] and the elimination of those Clausen, 339 F.3d at 1057. Id. at 1058. Next, the expert Id. “The expert must 10 hypotheses must be founded on more than subjective beliefs or 11 unsupported speculation.” 12 citation omitted). 13 Id. (internal quotation marks and At his deposition, Dr. Grischkan was asked to explain how he 14 conducted his differential diagnosis in this case. 15 Kristy M. Arevalo IOT MTE, Ex. A at 9.) 16 “By considering various aspects of this case, both in terms of 17 visits to the emergency rooms, the surgical treatments –– all three 18 surgical procedures that he had, indications and so on, all of 19 those were based on differential diagnosis considerations.” 20 When asked to lay out his process “step by step,” Dr. Grischkan 21 testified, “I used a thought process –– for example issues related 22 to pain or any other factors and then arrived at a conclusion . . . 23 .” 24 describe the thought process, Dr. Grischkan replied, “It’s called 25 the brain.” 26 made a list of possible causes of Plaintiff’s abdominal pain, Dr. 27 Grischkan testified that he did not make any such list. 28 20:25.) Dr. Grischkan responded, (Wilson Dec. ISO MTE, Ex. 2 at 16:35-17:4.) “(Id. at 17:9.) (Declaration of (Id.) When asked to When specifically asked whether he (Id. at Dr. Grischkan later stated that he “ruled in all the 7 1 potential causes that [he] felt were appropriate,” but that a “list 2 would be endless.” 3 he did rule in “every factor I could think of,” including prior 4 abdominal surgeries, prior opioid use, prior history of bowel 5 obstructions, and psychosocial issues. 6 (Id. at 21.) He later testified, however, that (Id. at 24, 26.) When asked how he eliminated other possible causes of 7 Plaintiff’s abdominal pain, Dr. Grischkan responded, “This isn’t an 8 elimination game.” 9 his methodology consisted of reviewing records “and then relying on (Id. at 24:23.) Instead, Grischkan agreed that 10 [] training, experience, knowledge of hernia surgery, and 11 literature.”1 12 out Plaintiff’s prior surgeries as the cause of Plaintiff’s current 13 pain, Dr. Grischkan testified, “I did not rule out anything.” 14 at 26:4.) 15 specific details in regards to how I came to those conclusions 16 [listed in the report] or what the conclusions entailed in terms of 17 the factors.” (Id. at 25:6-9.) And, when asked whether he ruled (Id. He further testified that he “cannot give you any (Id. at 2:12-15.) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 A differential diagnosis “grounded in significant clinical experience and examination of medical records and literature” may be admissible. Messick, 747 F.3d at 1199. This does not mean, however, that a particular diagnosis is necessarily “properly conducted” simply by dint of having been undertaken by an experienced clinician who examines medical records and literature. An expert must consider multiple hypotheses and provide a reasoned basis for rejecting alternative hypotheses before arriving at a conclusion. Clausen, 339 F.3d at 1057-58. Nor does Plaintiff appear to dispute that Dr. Grischkan did not review all of Plaintiff’s medical records prior to rendering his opinion as to causation. Dr. Grischkan testified, however, that additional records, which he reviewed prior to his deposition, were not necessary and “would not have made any difference.” (Wilson Dec. ISO MTE, Ex. 2 at 13:7.) As discussed above, however, Dr. Grischkan provides no reasoning that would explain why the additional records would have had little effect on his conclusions. 8 1 Dr. Grischkan’s testimony is not sufficient to establish by a 2 preponderance of the evidence that he conducted a proper 3 differential diagnosis. 4 notwithstanding his failure to compile a “comprehensive list,” did 5 consider all possible causes of Plaintiff’s abdominal pain, there 6 is no evidence of any reasoned basis for the elimination of any 7 potential cause other than the PCOx mesh. 8 to discern how Dr. Grischkan arrived at his conclusion, given his 9 testimony that he did not rule out other potential causes and his Even assuming that Dr. Grischkan, Indeed, it is difficult 10 inability to provide “any specific details in regards to how I came 11 to those conclusions.” 12 Absent any indication that Dr. Grischkan’s causation opinion 13 was the product of a properly conducted differential diagnosis, or 14 any other reliable methodology, his opinion is not admissible. 15 B. 16 Dr. Grischkan criticized the design of the PCOx mesh for not Design Defect Opinion 17 having a permanent collagen barrier and for being made of 18 polyester. 19 respect to his causation opinion, Defendants challenge Dr. 20 Grischkan’s methodology rather than his qualifications, as 21 discussed above. 22 Defendants argue that Dr. Grischkan is not qualified to render an 23 opinion on whether the design of Covidien’s PCOx mesh is defective. 24 (Wilson Dec. ISO MTE, Ex. 2 at 61:6-8, 24-25.) With With respect to design defects, however, It is axiomatic that “[a]n expert in one field . . . cannot 25 express an opinion relying on data that requires expertise in 26 another . . . .” United States v. Santini, 656 F.3d 1075, 1078 27 (9th Cir. 2011). Dr. Grischkan acknowledged that he is not a 28 materials scientist or an expert in biomaterials or in the 9 1 manufacturing of mesh. (Id. at 59:18, 21; 60:9.) Dr. Grishckan 2 stated, however, that “as an end user, having done just about 3 25,000 hernia repairs, I think it qualifies me to be quite 4 knowledgeable in the arena of materials.” 5 Although he has never implanted a polyester mesh, he has removed 6 polyester mesh approximately six times. 7 Grischkan also “worked . . . to develop a prosthesis . . . based on 8 a non-polypropylene formulation,” a study of which was released in 9 1999. (Id. at 59:22-24.) (Id. at 55:18-24.) Dr. (Wilson Dec. ISO MTE, Ex. 1 at 2.) 10 Plaintiff argues that Dr. Grischkan’s experience qualifies him 11 to render an opinion as to the design of PCOx mesh, notwithstanding 12 his lack of expertise in biomaterials or mesh production. 13 “contemplates a broad conception of expert qualifications.” 14 v. Newton Int’l Enterprises, 42 F.3d 1266, 1269 (9th Cir. 1994). 15 Indeed, “the text of Rule 702 expressly contemplates that an expert 16 may be qualified on the basis of experience.” 17 2000 Adv. Comm. Note. 18 not sufficient to render him an expert in polyester mesh product 19 design. 20 polyester meshes he removed over the course of several decades, any 21 were PCOx meshes, and there is no indication whether any of those 22 meshes included a collagen barrier of any sort. 23 MTE, Ex. 2 at 56:3,7.) 24 (somewhat vague) prior experience with the design of a mesh 25 product, that experience was over two decades old, and involved a 26 non-polypropylene (and presumably non-polyester) mesh. 27 despite claiming to be “quite knowledgeable in the arena of 28 materials,” and notwithstanding his opinion that a non-defective Rule 702 Thomas Fed. R. Evid. 702, Here, however, Dr. Grischkan’s experience is First, Dr. Grischkan could not state whether, of the six (Wilson Dec. ISO Second, although Dr. Grischkan had some 10 Third, 1 PCOx design would have included a permanent collagen barrier, Dr. 2 Grischkan was not aware of any mesh that included such a barrier, 3 either in 2013 when Plaintiff’s mesh was installed or in August 4 2021, when Dr. Grischkan was deposed. 5 Grischkan did not know whether “it’s even possible, [] from a 6 material standpoint, to develop a collagen or glycerol barrier that 7 can permanently exist without absorbing into the body.”) 8 143.) 9 polypropylene” and its propensity to cause inflammation appears to (Id. at 61.) Indeed, Dr. (Id. at Further, Dr. Grischkan’s opinion as to “the nature of 10 have been based largely on his experience of having removed 11 polyester meshes.2 12 experience spanned only six instances, the most recent of which was 13 at least five to ten years prior to his deposition, and may have 14 been as many as thirty years in the past. 15 limited experience is insufficient to qualify Dr. Grischkan as an 16 expert in polyester mesh product design. (Id. at 62.) As discussed above, however, that (Id. at 63.) This 17 C. 18 Dr. Grischkan also opined that the instructions for use Instructions for Use Opinion 19 (“IFU”) accompanying the PCOx mesh “fail[] to adequately warn 20 surgeons of the potential for severe chronic pain that would 21 mandate surgical removal of the device.” (Wilson Dec. ISO MTE, Ex. 22 23 2 24 25 26 27 28 Dr. Grischkan’s opinion that COVx is defectively designed, insofar as it is made of polyester and lacks a permanent barrier, is difficult to square with his testimony that a reasonable surgeon might choose to use PCOx even today, and that polyester meshes should not be pulled off the market, even though he is not aware of any product that uses a permanent barrier and does not know whether, as a question of materials science, such a barrier is feasible. (Wilson Decl. ISO MTE, Ex. 2 at 132, 135.) In other words, Dr. Grischkan appears to opine that it is reasonable to use a product that he believes is defectively designed. 11 1 1 at 7.) Covidien argues that Dr. Grischkan lacks the 2 qualifications to render an expert opinion on IFUs. 3 During a deposition in other litigation earlier this year, Dr. 4 Grischkan was asked whether a certain warning should be included in 5 an IFU for another product. 6 Dr. Grischkan responded that he could not comment on what should or 7 should not be included, as that is “the manufacturer’s 8 responsibility.” 9 testified that he has not looked at any IFU in fifteen to twenty 10 11 years. (Wilson Dec. ISO MTE, Ex. 9 at 105.) (Id. at 106:1-3.) In this matter, Dr. Grischkan (Id., Ex. 2 at 34:6-7.) Plaintiff argues that Dr. Grischkan’s admission in another 12 case that he is not qualified to offer an opinion on what should 13 have been included in an IFU does not disqualify him as an expert 14 here because he “is not opining on what warning should have been 15 given to Plaintiff, only that the warnings contained in the PCOx 16 IFU were inadequate.” 17 has no merit. 18 inadequate because it did not adequately warn of the risk of severe 19 chronic pain. 20 IFU should have included a warning regarding the possibility of 21 severe chronic pain. 22 respect to product design, that Dr. Grischkan’s “over 30 years of 23 experience” qualifies him to render an expert opinion on IFUs, that 24 experience is limited. As discussed above, Dr. Grischkan has never 25 implanted a PCOx mesh. He has only removed approximately six 26 polyester meshes, and there is no indication that he reviewed any 27 of the IFUs for those products. 28 he has not, as Dr. Grischkan himself acknowledged that he has not (Opp. to MTE at 19:27-20:1.) This argument Dr. Grischkan opined that the IFU here was In other words, Dr. Grischkan opined that the PCOx Although Plaintiff argues, as he does with Indeed, the evidence suggests that 12 1 reviewed an IFU for fifteen or twenty years. This testimony also 2 undercuts Plaintiff’s argument that Dr. Grischkan has experience 3 with IFUs pertaining to “a host of uncoated and coated 4 polypropylene meshes, ePTFE (Gore-Tex), compressed PTFE, polyester, 5 and absorbable meshes . . . .” 6 contrary, Dr. Grischkan testified that he has not reviewed an IFU 7 in fifteen to twenty years because he has used the same product for 8 that entire period of time. 9 7.) (Id. at 19:18-21.) To the ((Wilson Dec. ISO MTE, Ex. 2 at 34:6- The record does not, therefore, establish that Dr. Grischkan 10 has sufficient experience with IFUs related to a “a host” of mesh 11 products to qualify him as an IFU expert. 12 therefore, inadmissible under Rule 702. His IFU opinion is, 13 D. 14 “A product liability case must be based on substantial Summary Judgment 15 evidence establishing both the defect and causation . . . . [W]here 16 . . . the complexity of the causation issue is beyond common 17 experience, expert testimony is required to establish causation.” 18 Stephen v. Ford Motor Co., 134 Cal. App. 4th 1363, 1373 (2005); see 19 also Reed v. Stryker Howmedica Osteonics, No. CV1210745MWFSHX, 2014 20 WL 12558120, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2014) (“District courts . . 21 . grant summary judgment for defendants[] where the plaintiff has 22 failed to introduce competent expert testimony . . . .”). 23 respect to negligence claims, courts have also concluded that 24 plaintiffs cannot meet their burden to show a violation of the 25 standard of care, let alone causation, without expert proof. 26 e.g., Kamerik v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc., No. CV1106920MMMMANX, 27 2013 WL 12322041, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2013); 28 13 With Sanchez v. See, 1 Stryker Corp., No. 2:10-CV-08832-ODW, 2012 WL 1570569, at *6 (C.D. 2 Cal. May 2, 2012). 3 Here, for the reasons discussed above, the opinions of Dr. 4 Grischkan must be excluded. 5 other expert evidence. 6 support Plaintiff’s strict liability or negligence claims, Covidien 7 is entitled to summary judgment on all claims. 8 IV. 9 Plaintiff has not put forward any Because there is no admissible evidence to Conclusion Dr. Grischkan is not qualified to render an opinion as to the 10 PCOx product design or IFU. 11 issue with respect to causation, Dr. Grischkan’s opinion is not the 12 product of a properly conducted differential diagnosis, or any 13 other discernible methodology. 14 reasons stated above, Covidien’s Motion to Exclude is GRANTED. 15 the absence of any admissible expert evidence supporting 16 Plaintiff’s claims, Covidien’s Motion for Summary Judgment is 17 GRANTED. Although his qualifications are not at For these reasons, and for the In 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 23 Dated: November 24, 2021 DEAN D. PREGERSON United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 14
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
