Williams v. Mast Biosurgery USA, Inc.
644 F.3d 1312
11th Cir.2011Background
- Williams pursued Georgia strict liability claim against Mast for a SurgiWrap product used in abdominal surgery; foreign plastic-like fragments were later found in her colon and pelvis.
- The district court limited treating-physician testimony, barring some opinions as expert under Daubert, and allowed only Dr. Yared’s causation testimony.
- Dr. Adcock testified about defect but was barred from stating SurgiWrap failed to perform as intended or that the material was SurgiWrap.
- Dr. Yared testified causation based on differential diagnosis; he could testify about injury causation but not confirm the foreign body’s identity as SurgiWrap.
- Dr. Brown and Dr. Nelms provided lay or limited testimony, with key reliability concerns about labeling as SurgiWrap.
- Summary judgment was granted for Mast: no admissible evidence showed the SurgiWrap was defective at sale or that defect caused Williams’s injuries.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred in limiting treating-physician testimony | Williams argues all treating physicians should be admitted as lay witnesses | Mast contends Daubert rules apply to expert testimony and limit admissibility | Yes, but the court did not abuse discretion as to Daubert analysis for specific opinions |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence of a manufacturing defect to go to trial | Williams asserts admissible evidence shows defect at sale | Mast contends record lacks admissible defect evidence under Georgia law | No; no admissible evidence shows SurgiWrap defect at sale or proximate causation by defect |
Key Cases Cited
- Davoll v. Webb, 194 F.3d 1116 (10th Cir.1999) (treating physician may testify based on personal knowledge; not necessarily expert)
- Weese v. Schukman, 98 F.3d 542 (10th Cir.1996) (physician may offer lay opinion based on experience if helpful)
- Henderson, 409 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir.2005) (distinguishes lay vs. expert physician testimony; Rule 702 applicability)
- Williams v. American Medical Systems, 248 Ga.App. 682, 548 S.E.2d 371 (Ga.App.2001) (treating physician testimony can establish defect-operating-not-as-intended)
- McDonald v. Mazda Motors of America, Inc., 269 Ga.App. 62, 603 S.E.2d 456 (Ga.App.2004) (lay evidence can establish defect for some products; not always require expert)
- Chicago Hardware & Fixture Co. v. Letterman, 236 Ga.App. 21, 510 S.E.2d 875 (Ga.App.1999) (defect elements; jury may infer defect from nonconformity)
- Center Chem. Co. v. Parzini, 234 Ga.868, 218 S.E.2d 580 (Ga.1975) (defect and proximate cause framework under Georgia law)
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. King, 145 Ga.App. 840, 244 S.E.2d 905 (Ga.App.1978) (circumstantial evidence may show defect in some contexts)