Health Law Daily Wrap Up, PRODUCTS LIABILITY (DEVICES)—M.D. Fla.: Patient secures dismissal of device maker’s bid to exclude economist’s expert testimony, (Aug 13, 2026)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

Challenges to the economist’s assumptions about work history and retirement age went to the weight of his testimony rather than its admissibility.

A patient suing over alleged injuries from an implanted pelvic mesh device may present an economist’s opinions on lost earning capacity and the present value of her life-care plan, a federal district court in Florida has ruled. Denying medical device manufacturer Coloplast Corp.’s motion to exclude the testimony, the court found that the economist did not offer vocational opinions outside his expertise and that challenges to the factual assumptions underlying his calculations went to the weight of his testimony rather than its admissibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (Dyer v. Coloplast Corp., No. 8:24-cv-2867-VMC-SPF (M.D. Fla. Aug. 11, 2026)).

Pelvic mesh claims. The dispute arose from the December 2020 implantation of an Aris Trans-Obturator Sling System, a pelvic mesh medical device designed, manufactured, and marketed by Coloplast Corp. and Coloplast Manufacturing US, LLC. The patient alleged that neither she nor her health care providers were warned that the Aris was defectively and negligently designed and manufactured and that implantation caused debilitating injuries. She asserted claims for negligence, strict liability design defect, and strict liability failure to warn.

During discovery, the patient retained an economist to calculate her alleged lost earning capacity and the present value of a life-care plan. Coloplast sought to exclude his opinions, arguing that he ventured beyond his expertise as an economist by offering vocational opinions about the patient’s ability to return to work and that his economic calculations rested on unreliable assumptions about her employment history, anticipated retirement age, and future care costs.

Expert qualifications. Coloplast did not dispute the economist’s qualifications to calculate lost earning capacity. Instead, it maintained that he exceeded the permissible scope of economic testimony by offering speculative opinions about whether the patient could return to the workforce.

That argument failed because the economist expressly disclaimed any vocational assessment. He testified that he had not performed a vocational functional-capacity evaluation and would not offer an opinion on whether the patient could work. His lost-earning-capacity calculations instead provided figures for the jury to consider if it accepted the patient’s contention that her injuries prevented her from working. The record therefore did not establish that he intended to testify about matters outside his economic expertise.

Earnings calculations. Coloplast separately challenged the reliability of the economist’s pre-injury earning-capacity analysis, arguing that it relied on an incomplete and inaccurate account of the patient’s employment history.

Relying on Jones v. Otis Elevator Co., 861 F.2d 655 (11th Cir. 1988), the court explained that weaknesses in the factual underpinnings of an expert opinion generally concern the weight and credibility of the testimony rather than its admissibility. Coloplast’s disagreement with the information used to calculate the patient's earning capacity could therefore be explored through cross-examination rather than exclusion of the economic testimony.

The same reasoning applied to the anticipated length of the patient’s working life. The economist calculated lost earning capacity on the assumption that the patient would remain in the workforce until age 72, corresponding to the 75th percentile in statistical work-life tables for women with master's degrees. Coloplast argued that the analysis lacked an individualized basis for placing the patient in that percentile.

The court found no basis for exclusion on that ground. Citing Buland v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 992 F.3d 1143 (11th Cir. 2021), the court noted that calculating lost earning capacity involves estimating lost work life, calculating the lost income stream, determining total damages, and discounting that amount to present value. Coloplast did not challenge the reliability of the statistical work-life table itself; its objection instead concerned the factual basis for applying a retirement age of 72 to this particular patient. That dispute went to the weight of the opinion.

Moreover, the economist had supplied an alternative calculation using a retirement age of 70, corresponding to the 50th percentile in the same work-life table. The jury could therefore consider that calculation if it rejected the assumption that the patient would remain employed until age 72.

Life-care costs. Coloplast also sought exclusion to the extent the economist relied on opinions supplied by the patient's life-care planner. The manufacturer argued that the underlying life-care opinions were themselves unreliable and consequently could not support the economist’s present-value calculations.

That argument was foreclosed by a separate ruling denying Coloplast's motion to exclude the life-care planner's opinions. Because those opinions had not been excluded as unreliable, reliance on them provided no independent basis for barring the economist's testimony.

Ultimately, the court found the economist's methodology sufficiently reliable under Rule 702. Any alleged weaknesses in the assumptions supporting his calculations were matters for cross-examination and competing evidence rather than grounds for excluding the testimony. Quoting Maiz v. Virani, 253 F.3d 641 (11th Cir. 2001), the court emphasized that vigorous cross-examination and contrary evidence are the appropriate means of attacking debatable but admissible expert evidence.

Accordingly, Coloplast's motion to exclude the economist's opinions was denied in full.

The case is No. 8:24-cv-2867-VMC-SPF.

Judge: Covington, V.

Attorneys: Andrew A. Harris (Harris Appeals, P.A.) for Diana Dyer. David J. Walz (Carlton Fields, PA) for Coloplast Corp.

Companies: Coloplast Corp.

Cases: CaseDecisions MDeviceNews PLDeviceNews FloridaNews