Urogynecology Expert’s Opinion on Continuum of Care Admitted
Posted on July 10, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Connie Thacker is one of tens of thousands of individuals who have filed suit against Ethicon for injuries after treatment with Ethicon’s pelvic mesh devices.
Ethicon filed a motion to exclude or limit certain testimony of Thacker’s expert, Dr. Bruce A. Rosenzweig.
Urogynecology Expert Witness
Dr. Bruce Alan Rosenzweig is currently an Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, Illinois. He received his MD degree in 1984 from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Rosenzweig attended a two year Urogynecology and Urodynamic fellowship at UCLA Harbor General Hospital in Torrance, California. After graduating from the Urogynecology fellowship, he became a faculty member at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Rosenzweig started a Urogynecology program at the University of Illinois and also was the residency program director.
He has published numerous articles and has given numerous lectures on the topics of pelvic organ prolapse, urinary incontinence, and repair of pelvic organ prolapse.
Discussion by the Court
The Defendants asked the Court to block Rosenzweig from testifying about Thacker’s future prognosis.
Additional Surgery
First, the Defendants argued that Rosenzweig’s statement—“Thacker may need additional surgery to remove any remaining mesh as well as the possibility of additional vaginal surgeries for vaginal scarring, pelvic pain, and recurrent infections, and will likely continue to suffer other injuries”—was too speculative. They specifically objected to what they viewed as equivocal language in that portion of Rosenzweig’s report, emphasizing the words “may,” “possibility,” and “will likely” to highlight the uncertain nature of his opinion. In support, the Defendants cited caselaw requiring that an expert’s opinion must rise from merely “possible” to “probable” to be admissible. However, they did not cite any other caselaw or evidence showing that the quoted portion of Rosenzweig’s opinion lacked support.
The Court agreed with the Defendants that an expert’s opinion must move beyond mere possibility to probability, but ultimately rejected their conclusion. Defendants’ lack of citation to the record was noted. The Defendants also conceded that Rosenzweig’s prognosis opinions fell within his area of expertise, and did not respond to Thacker’s arguments on this point. Taken together, these omissions suggested that the dispute was more about semantics than any substantive flaw in Rosenzweig’s testimony. As a result, the Court allowed the challenged portion of his testimony, noting that any perceived equivocation could be addressed through cross-examination or a timely objection at trial.
Continuum of Care
The Defendants next argued that Rosenzweig’s opinion that Thacker required a continuum of care that “could range anywhere from 6 months to 5 years” and that such care would be “socially disruptive, very expensive, and not usually covered by insurance,” is unreliable. They suggested that Rosenzweig’s opinion is baseless and lacks tailoring to this case.
The Court found Rosenzweig’s opinion on Thacker’s required continuum of care to be reliable and therefore admissible. Put plainly, the challenged portion of Rosenzweig’s report was based on a reliable foundation rather than unsupported speculation. He explained that his opinion is based on his education, experience, review of relevant literature, and review of Thacker’s medical records.
Held
The Court denied the Defendant’s motion to exclude certain opinions and testimony of Plaintiff’s expert Bruce Rosenzweig, M.D.
Key Takeaway:
The task for the district court in deciding whether an expert’s opinion is reliable is not to determine whether it is correct, but rather to determine whether it rests upon a reliable foundation, as opposed to, say, unsupported speculation.
Please refer to the blog previously published about this case:
Obstetrics and Gynecology Expert’s Testimony on Mesh Porosity and Stiffness Admitted
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Thacker V. Ethicon, Inc. Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 5:20cv50 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Kentucky Eastern |
| Order Date: | July 08, 2025 |
