Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon, Inc. v. Linda Batiste, 05-14-00864-CV

Linda Batiste, with a complex medical history, received a transvaginal tape (TVT‑O) polypropylene mesh sling in January 2011 to treat stress urinary incontinence.
After implantation she reported groin, pelvic, vaginal, and urethral pain; a small vaginal mesh erosion was removed in June 2012 and a portion of the sling was removed in September 2013.
Batiste sued Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon for strict product liability (design and marketing defects); she nonsuited manufacturing and negligence claims; jury found a design defect and awarded $1.2 million.
Defendants appealed, arguing the evidence was legally insufficient to show a specific defect in the TVT‑O was a producing cause of Batiste’s injuries (and raising evidentiary objections about excluded/ admitted materials).
The court reviewed whether plaintiffs offered more than a scintilla of evidence linking identified alleged defects (mechanically cut mesh causing fraying/ curling/ roping, heavyweight small‑pore mesh, and polypropylene degradation/particle loss) to Batiste’s specific injuries.
Holding: the Court of Appeals reversed and rendered judgment that Batiste take nothing, finding legally insufficient evidence that any alleged defect was a producing cause of her injuries.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Causation — whether a specific defect in the TVT‑O produced Batiste’s injuries	Batiste: she need only show the TVT‑O was defective and caused her injuries; experts tied known failure modes (fraying, particle loss, degradation, heavy/small‑pore mesh) to her symptoms	Defendants: plaintiff failed to prove a case‑specific causal link; evidence shows only that complications can arise from the device generally, not that an identified defect caused these injuries; experts did not exclude other plausible causes	Court: Reversed — evidence legally insufficient. Experts’ opinions were conclusory or failed to exclude alternative causes; no proof defects existed in vivo at relevant times or that degradation/particle loss reached clinically significant levels.
Evidentiary rulings (FDA/ association statements; other lawsuits/issue reports)	Batiste argued exclusion of FDA/position‑statement evidence and admission of other complaints was erroneous	Defendants challenged both evidentiary rulings on appeal	Court did not reach these issues after resolving insufficiency of causation; they were mooted by reversal and rendition.

Exxon Corp. v. Emerald Oil & Gas Co., L.C., 348 S.W.3d 194 (Tex. 2011) (legal‑sufficiency standard when appellant did not bear burden)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standard for reviewing legal‑sufficiency and crediting favorable evidence)
BMC Software Belg., N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (more than a scintilla rule)
Kia Motors Corp. v. Ruiz, 432 S.W.3d 865 (Tex. 2014) (expert must exclude other plausible causes presented by the evidence)
Genie Indus., Inc. v. Matak, 462 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2015) (elements of design‑defect claim: defect, safer alternative, producing cause)
E.I. DuPont Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995) (expert must carefully consider and exclude alternative causes)
Burrow v. Arce, 997 S.W.2d 229 (Tex. 1999) (ipse dixit of an expert is insufficient)
City of San Antonio v. Pollock, 284 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. 2009) (conclusory or unsubstantiated expert opinion is legally insufficient)