Western Union Tel'g Co. v. Bibb

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an expert’s testimony that TVT was “less efficacious for certain types of women,” which did not include the plaintiff, was not relevant
• finding that Dr. Rosenzweig is “qualified to testify generally on the adequacy of the [] product warnings and marketing material.”
• finding that Dr. Rosenzweig is qualified to offer general 19 causation opinions that mesh used in an Ethicon device degrades, frays, and loses 20 particles
• finding that Dr. Rosenzweig was “not qualified to opine that Ethicon’s testing was insufficient” because he lacked “any experience and knowledge on the appropriate testing a medical device manufacturer should undertake”
• holding urologist's opinions were not “unreliable simply because he relied on internal Ethicon documents” instead of medical literature for his opinion that a method of implanting medical devices increased the risk of health complications
• finding urologist qualified to testify about risks of implanting product and whether those risks were adequately expressed on product’s IFU

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).