Opinion
MDL No. 2187
01-31-2018
IN RE: C. R. BARD, INC., PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEM PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO C. R. BARD WAVE 4 & WAVE 5 CASES ATTACHED HERETO
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
(Daubert Motion re: Robert H. Young, M.D.)
Pending in In re C. R. Bard, Inc., No. 2:10-md-2187, MDL 2187, is the plaintiffs' Daubert Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Robert H. Young, M.D. [ECF No. 4554]. The Motion is now ripe for consideration because the briefing is complete. As set forth below, the plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
I. Background
These groups of cases reside in one of seven MDLs assigned to me by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") concerning the use of transvaginal surgical mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse ("POP") and stress urinary incontinence ("SUI"). In the seven MDLs, there are more than 24,000 cases currently pending, approximately 3,000 of which are in the C. R. Bard, Inc. ("Bard") MDL, MDL No. 2187.
In an effort to manage the massive Bard MDL efficiently and effectively, the court decided to conduct pretrial discovery and motions practice on an individualized basis. To this end, I selected certain cases to become part of a "wave" of cases to be prepared for trial and, if necessary, remanded.
Upon the creation of a wave, I enter a docket control order subjecting each active case in the wave to the same scheduling deadlines, rules regarding motion practice, and limitations on discovery. See, e.g., Pretrial Order ("PTO") # 236, In re C. R. Bard, Inc., Pelvic Repair Sys. Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 2:10-md-02187, Jan. 27, 2017, https://www.wvsd.uscourts.gov/MDL/2187/orders.html. Included among the discovery rules imposed by the court is the obligation of the parties to file Daubert motions seeking to limit or exclude the testimony of general experts in the main MDL, MDL 2187, and to identify which cases the motion would affect.
Before plunging into the heart of the Motion, I am compelled to comment on the manner in which the parties filed several of their recent general Daubert motions. Rather than file a motion, the parties filed a "Notice" to adopt and incorporate the entirety of a motion filed in a previous wave - sometimes several years old. As such, the grounds upon which the parties challenge the proffered expert are sometimes inapplicable to the cases grouped in Wave 4 or Wave 5. With this in mind, the following analysis involves the parties' efforts to exclude or limit the general opinions and testimony of the experts so identified.
II. Legal Standard
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, expert testimony is admissible if it will "help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue." Fed. R. Evid. 702. Furthermore, the expert testimony must be (1) "based upon sufficient facts or data" and (2) "the product of reliable principles and methods" that (3) have been applied reliably "to the facts of the case." Id. A two-part test governs the admissibility of expert testimony. The evidence is admitted if it "rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant." Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993). The proponent of expert testimony does not have the burden to "prove" anything. However, he or she must "come forward with evidence from which the court can determine that the proffered testimony is properly admissible." Md. Cas. Co. v. Therm-O-Disc, Inc., 137 F.3d 780, 783 (4th Cir. 1998).
The district court is the gatekeeper. It is an important role: "[E]xpert witnesses have the potential to be both powerful and quite misleading"; the court must "ensure that any and all scientific testimony . . . is not only relevant, but reliable." Cooper v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 259 F.3d 194, 199 (4th Cir. 2001) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 588, 595; Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB, 178 F.3d 257, 261 (4th Cir. 1999)). I "need not determine that the proffered expert testimony is irrefutable or certainly correct" - "[a]s with all other admissible evidence, expert testimony is subject to testing by '[v]igorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof.'" United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 431 (4th Cir. 2006) (alteration in original) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596); see also Md. Cas. Co., 137 F.3d at 783 ("All Daubert demands is that the trial judge make a 'preliminary assessment' of whether the proffered testimony is both reliable . . . and helpful.").
Daubert mentions specific factors to guide the overall relevance and reliability determinations that apply to all expert evidence. They include (1) whether the particular scientific theory "can be (and has been) tested"; (2) whether the theory "has been subjected to peer review and publication"; (3) the "known or potential rate of error"; (4) the "existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation"; and (5) whether the technique has achieved "general acceptance" in the relevant scientific or expert community. United States v. Crisp, 324 F.3d 261, 266 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593-94).
Despite these factors, "[t]he inquiry to be undertaken by the district court is 'a flexible one' focusing on the 'principles and methodology' employed by the expert, not on the conclusions reached." Westberry, 178 F.3d at 261 (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594-95); see also Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 150 (1999) ("We agree with the Solicitor General that '[t]he factors identified in Daubert may or may not be pertinent in assessing reliability, depending on the nature of the issue, the expert's particular expertise, and the subject of his testimony.'" (citation omitted)); see also Crisp, 324 F.3d at 266 (noting "that testing of reliability should be flexible and that Daubert's five factors neither necessarily nor exclusively apply to every expert").
With respect to relevancy, Daubert also explains:
Expert testimony which does not relate to any issue in the case is not relevant and, ergo, non-helpful. The consideration has been aptly described by Judge Becker as one of "fit." "Fit" is not always obvious, and scientific validity for one purpose is not necessarily scientific validity for other, unrelated purposes. . . . Rule 702's "helpfulness" standard requires a valid scientific connection to the pertinent inquiry as a precondition to admissibility.Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591-92 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
III. Analysis
In this case, Bard offers Dr. Young to testify as a general expert witness on gynecological surgical pathology issues related to the mesh products that are the subject of this pending litigation. See Notice of Adoption of Prior Daubert Mot. of Robert H. Young, M.D., for Waves 4 & 5, Ex. 1 ("Young Report"), at 4 [ECF No. 4554-1]. Among other things, Dr. Young specializes in the area of diagnostic surgical pathology, with a subspecialty interest in gynecological and urological pathology, and is an active professor of pathology at Harvard Medical School. Id. at 3. In addition to more than 350 peer-reviewed contributions, Dr. Young has co-authored five books. Id. His clinical experience includes prior service as the head of the gynecological and urological pathology units at Massachusetts General Hospital, and he continues to review approximately 6000 pathology cases a year. Id.
The plaintiffs argue that Dr. Young is not qualified to opine generally on four matters: (A) biocompatibility of polypropylene; (B) the adequacy of Bard's testing to determine biocompatibility; (C) pore size; and (D) vaginal mesh contraction and shrinkage. In addition, the plaintiffs challenge the reliability of each of these opinions on the ground that they are unreliable ipse dixit opinions. I will address each argument in turn.
A. Opinions Regarding the Biocompatibility of Polypropylene
As stated in his report, Dr. Young reached the following conclusions:
Polypropylene is biocompatible and commonly used for surgical mesh in the United States. Polypropylene mesh does not degrade and is chemically inert.See Notice of Adoption of Prior Daubert Mot. of Robert H. Young, M.D., for Waves 4 & 5, Ex. 1 ("Pls.' Br. in Supp."), at 8 [ECF No. 4554-1] (quoting Young Report 7).
The plaintiffs argue that Dr. Young's background in pathology does not qualify him under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to render an opinion on the biocompatibility of polypropylene, or opine on whether polypropylene mesh does not degrade and is chemically inert. See id. The plaintiffs also challenge the reliability of his opinions that consist entirely of ipse dixit statements.
As it relates to the reliability of Dr. Young's opinions on the biocompatibility of polypropylene, Bard contends that Dr. Young "reviewed pathological slides, compared his observations to published literature, and provided diagnostic interpretations of what he saw." Bard's Opp'n 10. Bard further claims that even a cursory review of Dr. Young's deposition testimony supports such a finding. Id. at 11. I disagree.
During his deposition testimony, counsel for the plaintiffs questioned Dr. Young on the independence of his research. Initially, Dr. Young acknowledged that counsel for Bard provided each document cited as supporting scientific literature in his report. When asked if he did any independent research to identify relevant literature, Dr. Young admitted that he had not. Then, when questioned on his opinions concerning the biocompatibility of polypropylene, Dr. Young stated:
Young Dep. 48:19-49:6.
Young Dep. 49:2-4.
Young Dep. 49:5-7.
I have concluded based on my being educated as part of this process on this whole area, which I admit before I didn't have much knowledge of — well, much knowledge of the mesh aspect of it, that is, that polypropylene is — biocompatibility, meaning by that appropriate for usage in the human body, perhaps is the simplest way to put it.Young Dep. 111:7-13 (emphasis added).
Next, discussing his opinions regarding whether polypropylene mesh degrades, Dr. Young stated:
Q. On Page 7 of your report, Doctor, you write: "I have not seen evidence of polypropylene mesh degrading in the materials made available to me in this matter." . . . . What materials are you referring to in that statement?
A. The pathology slides.
Q. Anything else?
A. No.
. . .
Q. On the next page, Page 8, Doctor, you write: "For example, polypropylene features have been used clinically for decades and I have reviewed pathology containing sutures." Would you agree with me that polypropylene sutures are not routinely used in the vagina?
A. I think we touched upon this, this morning. I have no knowledge base of any note on the different type of sutures they use in the vagina, outside the vagina. I mean, it's not an area that's of any relevance to my daily
practice. So therefore I don't - I have no comment on it other than I'm not an expert on it.Young Dep. 122:11-19 (emphasis added).
Read together, and in the absence of any objective evidence beyond the conclusory defenses argued by Bard, Dr. Young's opinions regarding the biocompatibility of polypropylene are unreliable, as they appear formulated entirely in the context of this litigation. See Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharm., Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1317-18 (9th Cir. 1995) ("If the proffered expert testimony is not based on independent research, the party proffering it must come forward with other objective, verifiable evidence that the testimony is based on 'scientifically valid principles.'"). In sum, after admitting that he does not base his expert testimony on independent research, Dr. Young later acknowledges that his conclusions on the biocompatibility of polypropylene required academic supplementation - which he relied solely on counsel for Bard to supply. Then, Dr. Young concedes that his entire experience with polypropylene mesh derives entirely from seven cases of pathology slides supplied to him during the course of this litigation. When pressed to extrapolate on his methodologies - specifically, his attempt to correlate his observations from the slides provided from the seven explanted mesh devices to his acknowledged pathology qualifications - Dr. Young admits that he cannot state with any scientific certainty how his discussion of polypropylene sutures relates to his conclusions on polypropylene mesh in vivo.
Based on incomplete and therefore unreliable information, Dr. Young's opinions with respect to the biocompatibility of polypropylene, the presence or absence of degradation, and the inertness of polypropylene are EXCLUDED. The plaintiffs' Motion on this point is GRANTED.
B. Qualifications to Opine on the Adequacy of Bard's Testing to Determine Biocompatibility
The plaintiffs next challenge the qualifications of Dr. Young to offer the following opinion:
In the United States, the FDA put out a guidance document for medical companies to follow related specifically to 510(k) submission for surgical meshes. The FDA guidance document recommended the following biocompatibility tests be performed on surgical meshes: cytotoxicity, sensitization, irritation/intracutaneous reactivity, systemic/acute toxicity, genotoxicity (if positive, carcinogenicity), implantation, hemolysis, pyrogenicity, subchronic toxicity, and chronic toxicity. My review of the Avaulta Solo, Avaulta Plus, and Align 510(k) documents along with my background, training, and experience revealed that Bard's testing conducted on the mesh products and their predecessors was adequate to determine biocompatibility.Pls. Br. in Supp. 9 (quoting Young Report 8-9).
According to the plaintiffs, Dr. Young cannot opine on biocompatibility testing because he acknowledged that he has never consulted with the FDA on biocompatibility testing of a medical device and he does not have any academic experience on the biocompatibility of medical devices. Id.
Though not raised by the plaintiffs expressly, I have repeatedly excluded evidence regarding the FDA's section 510(k) clearance process in these MDLs, and will continue to do so in these cases, a position that has been affirmed by the Fourth Circuit. See, e.g., In re C. R. Bard, Inc., 810 F.3d 913, 921-23 (4th Cir. 2016) (upholding the determination that the probative value of evidence related to section 510(k) was substantially outweighed by its possible prejudicial impact under Rule 403). Because the section 510(k) clearance process does not speak directly to safety and efficacy, it is of negligible probative value. See id. at 920 ("[T]he clear weight of persuasive and controlling authority favors a finding that the 510(k) procedure is of little or no evidentiary value."). Delving into complex and lengthy testimony about regulatory compliance could inflate the perceived importance of compliance and lead jurors "to erroneously conclude that regulatory compliance proved safety." Id. at 922. Accordingly, expert testimony related to the section 510(k) process, including subsequent enforcement actions and discussion of the information Bard did or did not submit in its section 510(k) application, is EXCLUDED.
For the same reasons, insofar as this Motion challenges the FDA-related testimony discussed here, the Motion is GRANTED. In addition to representing inappropriate legal conclusions, such testimony is not helpful to the jury in determining the facts at issue in these cases and runs the risk of misleading the jury and confusing the issues. Furthermore, qualifications to proffer expert testimony on the biocompatibility of polypropylene generally does not render an opinion on the adequacy of certain biocompatibility testing procedures equally qualified. Here, Dr. Young's opinions — aside from his comments on the FDA's guidance documents — are otherwise limited to his "background, training, and experience." Pls. Br. in Supp. 9 (quoting Young Report 8-9).
I FIND that without additional expertise, a pathologist is not qualified to opine on the adequacy of biocompatibility testing based merely on his "general experience as an educated physician." Notice of Adoption of Prior Daubert Mot. of Robert H. Young, M.D., for Waves 4 & 5 Cases, Ex. 2, Ex. D, at 95:11-16 ("Young Dep.") [ECF No. 4554-2]. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' Motion on this point is GRANTED.
C. Qualifications to Opine on the Pore Size of Bard's Mesh Products
The plaintiffs also challenge Dr. Young's qualifications to proffer opinions about pore size and tissue integration. Specifically, the plaintiffs challenge Dr. Young's qualifications to offer the following opinions:
The Avaulta Solo, Avaulta Plus, and Align have primary pore sizes of 1,000 to 1,300 microns. It is generally accepted that the lower limit of pore size for tissue integration is in the order of 50 to 100 microns. Thus, pore sizes ranging above 1000 microns, like the Bard products, are more than sufficient to permit tissue ingrowth with normal wound healing and foreign body reactions. Pore sizes greater than 75 microns allow penetration by macrophages, fibroblasts, blood vessels and collagen fibers. It is generally understood that if pore size is greater than 75 microns, which the Bard products are in all pores, the pore is large enough for adequate tissue integration and will function effectively;Pls. Br. in Supp. 9-10 (citing Young Report 9-12).
Measuring pore size in mesh products does not have an accepted or established methodology. The 1999 FDA Guidance document does not provide a methodology for how pore size measurements should be conducted. The methodology employed by Bard in measuring pore size was reasonable as it is in line with approaches used in the literature whereby the longest dimensions of the pore are measured; and
The concept of effective pore size is one that was introduced by Muhl et al. in 2008 to describe the dimensions of the pore of a mesh under load. However, there is no direct evidence in the literature that an effective pore size of 1 mm is necessary for the efficacious performance of pelvic meshes or suburethral slings, or that it is a widely recognized or adopted approach to characterize meshes.
The plaintiffs assert that Dr. Young is not qualified to offer these opinions because he acknowledges that he is not an expert in pore size. Id. (citing Young Dep. 145:16-146:1). In Wise v. C. R. Bard, Inc., I assessed a similar argument. No. 2:12-cv-01378, 2015 WL 570070, at *4-5 (S.D. W. Va. Feb. 11, 2015). In Wise, the moving party sought the exclusion Dr. Marshall Austin, a pathologist proffered to testify on the gynecologic surgical pathology and cytopathology. The parties raise the same arguments here. Specifically, I stated:
Dr. Austin, however, does not purport to be an expert in pore size, nor is expertise in pore size necessary for him to provide the opinions set forth in his expert report. Rather, Dr. Austin limits his opinions to an explanation of how tissue responds to the pore size of mesh. (See Austin Report [Docket 203-1], at 6 ("[P]ore sizes ranging above 1,000 microns, like the Bard products, are more than sufficient to permit tissue ingrowth with normal wound healing and foreign body reactions."); id. at 10 ("[T]he pore size of the Bard products was adequate for sufficient tissue growth.")). As explained above, Dr. Austin's background and experience in the field of gynecological pathology provide the requisite expertise needed to testify about the reaction between mesh and tissue. He has observed vaginal tissue ingrowth through various mesh products, and he has reviewed numerous publications and studies on how pore size can affect the integration of polypropylene with the surrounding tissue. (See Austin Report [Docket 203-1], at 2-3 ("Throughout my pathology career, I have encountered implanted medical devices in routine specimens submitted for pathologic evaluation, including, for example, pelvic mesh, ...."); id. at 6 n.6 (listing the relied-upon literature)). Accordingly, I FIND that he is qualified to testify about the ways in which pore size can affect the biocompatibility of polypropylene.Id.
Relying in part on Wise, Bard represents that Dr. Young is not offering an opinion on the optimum pore size or the design implications of pore size; rather, Bard states that Dr. Young "simply opined that the pore size [of] Bard's mesh products was large enough to allow for sufficient tissue ingrowth." Notice of Adoption of Bard's Prior Opp'n to Pls.' Mot. to Exclude Ops. & Test. of Robert H. Young, M.D., and Br. in Supp. for Wave 4 & Wave 5 Cases, Ex. B ("Bard's Opp'n"), at 6 [ECF No. 4651-2]. While the parties in this case have not relied on precisely the same arguments, my reasoning and conclusions from Wise still govern. Furthermore, to the extent that there are differences in fact and exhibits, the court does not find them sufficiently material. Particularly in light of Bard's representation, acknowledging certain limitations on the scope of Dr. Young's opinions on pore size, I ADOPT the reasoning articulated in Wise and FIND that Dr. Young is qualified to offer expert testimony on the ways in which pore size can affect the biocompatibility of polypropylene. The plaintiffs' Motion is DENIED on this point.
D. Qualifications to Opine on the Purported Contraction or Shrinkage of Bard's Mesh Products
Next, the plaintiffs assert that the court should preclude Dr. Young from offering opinions related to mesh shrinkage or contracture. Specifically, the plaintiffs challenge Dr. Young's opinion that:
Wound contraction is a normal part of the wound healing process and occurs as part of the evolving granulation tissue phase of the healing response. Generally, wound contraction occurs in large surface wounds and is facilitated by the transient presence of myofibroblasts that have contractile properties. It is important to note that even when contraction occurs, the mesh device itself does not shrinkPls. Br. in Supp. 11.
The plaintiffs point to extracted statements from his deposition in support of their argument, where Dr. Young testified that he is not an expert on the contraction properties of mesh. Id. at 14 (citing Young Dep. 145:20-146:12). In Wise, I considered the same argument and held that:
This single statement from hundreds of pages of deposition does not overcome Dr. Austin's undeniable expertise as a pathologist. His training and experience in this field equips him to examine tissue and to opine about the tissue's pathology, including its reactions with other present substances, such as mesh. See, e.g., 33 Am. Jur. Trials 467, § 17 (1986) ("Clinical pathology is the area of pathology that deals with testing of various body fluids and excreta in an attempt to correlate changes found in those fluids with the presence and development of disease processes."); id. § 27 ("Upon receipt of the specimen it is necessary to begin a series of steps that will eventually allow the [] pathologist to establish or confirm a diagnosis based on the specific pathology of the tissue.").Wise, 2015 WL 570070, at *5. Again, to the extent there are differences in fact and exhibits, the court does not find them sufficiently material. I therefore ADOPT the reasoning articulated in Wise and FIND that Dr. Young is qualified to opine on the pathology of mesh explants, which includes an analysis of the foreign body response and how a wound heals around mesh. Any "self-contradiction" or inconsistencies in these opinions can be challenged during cross-examination. See McReynolds v. Sodexho Marriott Servs., Inc., 349 F. Supp. 2d 30, 40 (D.D.C. 2004) (stating that the inconsistencies or misstatements in an expert's testimony "go to credibility, rather than Daubert's standard of admissibility"). Accordingly, I DENY the plaintiffs' Motion on this matter.
E. Reliability of Dr. Young's Opinions
As stated above, the plaintiffs challenge the reliability of each of the aforementioned opinions proffered by Dr. Young on the ground that Bard provided all of the literature cited in his report and based on his limited clinical experience working with the mesh products subject in this litigation. Given the limitations conceded by Bard and the exclusion of other opinions as described above, it appears that the remaining narrow scope of testimony Dr. Young is permitted to offer flows naturally from scientific principles regularly encountered in his extensive line of scientific research and technical work. See Johnson v. Manitowoc Boom Trucks, Inc., 484 F.3d 426, 434 (6th Cir. 2007). Therefore, except as stated above, the plaintiffs' Motion seeking the exclusion of Dr. Young's remaining opinions as unreliable is DENIED.
See discussion supra Section III.A. --------
IV. Conclusion
To summarize, I GRANT in part and DENY in part the plaintiffs' Motion concerning Dr. Young, M.D. [ECF No. 4554], consistent with my reasoning above.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to file a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order in 2:10-md-2187, and the Bard Wave 4 and Wave 5 cases identified in the Exhibit attached hereto. The court further DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.
ENTER: January 31, 2018
/s/_________
JOSEPH R. GOODWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Exhibit
A
17 Wave Civil Action No. Case Name 2187 - COVIDIEN WAVE 1 2:13-cv-29220 Miller et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:11-cv-00904 Ward et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:12-cv-00619 Dickson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:12-cv-00812 Smith et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:12-cv-01725 Lambrecht v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:12-cv-02118 Cook v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:12-cv-02505 Gomez v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:12-cv-02564 Richardson et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:12-cv-02725 Moore et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:12-cv-04481 Fine v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:12-cv-05465 Azbill et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:12-cv-06391 Jacoby v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:12-cv-06470 Wilson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:12-cv-06841 Chrastecky et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:12-cv-07079 Hubner et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:12-cv-07570 Lee v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:12-cv-07578 Degarmo v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:12-cv-09632 Skinner v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:12-cv-09670 Summers v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-01025 Perez et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-01028 Warbutton et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-01524 Holmes v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-01526 Nall v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-02139 Moubray et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-03291 Sciulla et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-04813 Gabler et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-06629 Nicholson et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-08256 Crase et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-08365 Magers et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-08607 Zephro v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-08983 Davison v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-09324 Johnson et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-09635 Noll et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-10318 Priddy v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-10496 Santiago v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-11499 D'Angelo v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-11655 Smith v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-11811 LeBeau et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-11949 Slate et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-12390 Wheeler v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-12416 Speetzen v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-12622 Cox et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-13234 Bennett et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-13245 Graciano et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-15209 Gardiner v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-16405 Newell v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-17989 Radatz v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-18752 Spencer v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 18 Wave Civil Action No. Case Name 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-19575 Swarts et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-19736 Johnson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-20036 Richardson et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-20881 Long v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-23388 Athans et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-23391 Baker v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-24208 Carnahan v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-24515 Chirino et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-24844 Steffy v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-24849 Martinez v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-24853 Sanborn et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-25041 Clothier v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-26000 Davidson et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-26011 Dunklebarger v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-26100 Moize v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-26574 Landers v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-26748 Raines et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-26796 Justice et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-28084 Hoffman et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-29220 Miller et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-29823 Robbins et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-29841 Carrillo et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-30640 Smith et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-30814 Hannig et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-30975 Alexander et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-30998 Cassada v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-31106 Price et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-31141 Zurinsky v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-31242 Howard v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-32049 Utter et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-32187 Thomasson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-32359 Hummel v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-32972 Wilson et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-33474 Armintrout v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-33590 Garcia et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-33628 Hunt et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-33690 Barker et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-33757 Mealor v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:13-cv-34058 Purcell et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:14-cv-00161 Schreiber Hester et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:14-cv-00404 Gilbert v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:14-cv-00606 Moore et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:14-cv-00807 George et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:14-cv-00952 Black v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:14-cv-01027 Massey v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:14-cv-01411 Politi-Topal v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:14-cv-02528 Cuffee et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:14-cv-02847 Izatt v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 19 Wave Civil Action No. Case Name 2187 WAVE 4 2:14-cv-02877 Robbins et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:14-cv-04536 Sanders v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:14-cv-04542 Solis v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:14-cv-05601 Sheaffer v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:14-cv-06478 Wright et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:14-cv-07543 Cooley et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:14-cv-08261 Shattuck v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:14-cv-08612 Stamey et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:14-cv-09878 Ford v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:14-cv-11940 Stoddard v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:14-cv-14119 Wilson et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:14-cv-14209 Guerrero et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:14-cv-15114 Marney et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al 2187 WAVE 4 2:14-cv-19736 Fuller v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:14-cv-23928 Griffith v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:14-cv-24747 Pickard et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:14-cv-25362 Stapel v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:14-cv-25366 Silvia v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:14-cv-26473 Eilf v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:14-cv-27463 Edwards v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:14-cv-27466 Stewart et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:14-cv-31139 Salgado et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:14-cv-31156 Springman et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:15-cv-00620 Hammel v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:15-cv-02461 Schoneman et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:15-cv-04297 Preator et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:15-cv-04353 Brulatour v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:15-cv-06997 Polanco v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:15-cv-08436 Fake et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:15-cv-11694 Kellar v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:15-cv-13199 Holbrooks et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-01279 Mendez v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-01610 Spence et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-01999 Belstad v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-03707 Gritten v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-03709 Drake et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-03719 Jones v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-03721 Keisling et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-03778 Ledwein et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-03779 Henderson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-03816 Toulson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-03817 Struble et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-03842 Moore et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-03896 Pickering v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-10807 Brown v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-10995 Branscome v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-11011 Lackey v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-11014 Miller v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 20 Wave Civil Action No. Case Name 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-11016 Morgan v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-11017 Powell v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-11020 Teeples v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-11021 Swiney v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-11035 Updike v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-11040 Woodard v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-11041 Powers v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-11103 Martin v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-11104 McWilliams v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-11105 Weber v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-11106 Rogers v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-11112 Nadeau v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-11113 Hall v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-11114 Phelps v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-11115 Rodericks v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-11116 Bivens v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-11118 Gilbert v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-11135 Brewer v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-11633 Madsen et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 4 2:16-cv-12677 Baugh v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-13614 Leslie v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-13620 Smallwood v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-13663 Gonzalez v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-13900 Leas v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-13901 Yancey et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-13903 Pierce et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-13904 Pate et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-13905 Nus et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-13926 Kinlaw Williams et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-14028 Crouch et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-14030 Whitaker et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-14672 Epstein v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-14675 Williamson Johnson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-14745 McClinock, et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-15055 Doyle et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-15056 Gliem et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-15067 Foster et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-15352 Acuna v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-15354 Duffitt et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-15641 Murray et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-15918 Eads et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-16068 Pierson et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-16401 Leyba v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-18852 Silva et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-19713 Westhoff v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-20235 Robertson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-20236 Showalter et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-20396 Berlt v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 21 Wave Civil Action No. Case Name 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-20766 Gonzales et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-21345 Walton v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-21538 Cespedes v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-21713 Woods v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-21732 Dailey et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-23175 Clisante King v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-23801 McElfresh et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-24323 Nguyen v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-25280 McClenny et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-25316 Barlar v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-25321 Goodreau v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-29271 Preston et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-30030 Meador v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-30032 Spencer v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-31643 Cooper v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-31646 Brewer et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-31652 Frew v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-33156 Riddle et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-33991 Tyson et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-34034 Miller v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:13-cv-34036 Wilder v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-01412 Cole et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-03436 Clanin v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-03439 Kitchen v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-09564 Williams et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-09569 Cook v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-11138 Darrow v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-11363 McCarthey v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-11891 Beneke et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-11906 Heathcock et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-11919 Linder v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-12030 Hitchcock et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-12152 Tieman v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-12262 Pemberton v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-12283 Dressler et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-12426 Bilbrey et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-12489 Weilert et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-12526 Gagel v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-12532 Grillo v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-12673 Turonek et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-12759 Harris et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-13251 Nelson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-13261 Smith v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-13444 Mullen v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-13574 Novak v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-13675 Levine v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-13682 Mings et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-13922 Cortez et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 22 Wave Civil Action No. Case Name 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-13934 Esquivel v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-16367 Brooks v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-16823 Andersen et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-17354 Burton v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-17388 Drake v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-18018 Young et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-18139 Bailey et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-18151 Miller v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-18154 Peacock v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-18442 D'Andrea et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-18890 McManus v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-19474 Gerwe v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-19478 Mathis et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-19481 Oglesby v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-21507 Gunderman v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-21512 Hayes v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-21874 McCray v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-22373 Weber et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-22823 Carnley et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-22836 Coles et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-22900 Hinklin et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-22961 Musgrove v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-22966 Rajk v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-22970 Ross v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-22971 Ruiz Bernal et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23267 Armijo et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23282 Garcia v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23284 Hersh v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23289 Blodgett v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23290 Czernienko v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23292 Norgah v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23298 Zielicke v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23301 Stewart v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23312 Neal et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23328 Cox v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23329 Banks v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23333 Dewitt v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23336 Foushee v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23337 Cowick et al. v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23339 Ray v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23385 Williams v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23387 Martin et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23391 Doane et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23392 Rivera et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23395 Peacock et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23396 Rogers et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23399 Powell et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23401 Barber v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al 23 Wave Civil Action No. Case Name 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23413 Smith v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23414 Jansson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23418 Raia et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23425 Smith et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23434 Stone v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23436 Upchurch v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23437 Petrovich v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23486 Surgenor v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23497 Brennan et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23591 Becks v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23627 Juette v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-23638 Hinojosa et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-24638 Gonzalez v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-25083 Smith v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-26372 Case v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-26375 Ely et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-26383 Williams v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-28940 Seedorff et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-28941 Williams v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-28943 Smith et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-28944 Barnett v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-29690 Dotson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-29730 Nelson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-29781 Earhart v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-29786 Lamoreaux v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-29793 LePage et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-29808 Casstevens et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-29833 Pearson et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-29856 Hart v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-29930 Martinez v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-29980 Rosemond v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-29991 Robbins et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-30039 Nolden et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-30046 Ouellette et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-30055 Rector v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-30199 Lytle et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-30226 Caskey et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-30239 Mace et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-30303 Cullum et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-30504 Carter et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-30561 Allison v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-30591 Spiker v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-30717 Moser v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-30725 Mooney v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-30812 Griffin v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-30833 Walker et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:14-cv-31203 Laabs et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:15-cv-01205 Elliott et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 24 Wave Civil Action No. Case Name 2187 WAVE 5 2:15-cv-01370 Keener v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:15-cv-01571 Bockmon v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:15-cv-01847 Harville v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:15-cv-03487 Arnold v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:15-cv-04148 Eyer v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:15-cv-04518 Heffran v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:15-cv-05716 Krause v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:15-cv-07218 Pedersen et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:15-cv-07220 Russell et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:15-cv-09659 Key et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:15-cv-12622 Juarez v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:15-cv-13246 Adams v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:15-cv-14679 Keithley et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:15-cv-14963 Tomac et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:15-cv-15582 Carter v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:15-cv-16402 Smith et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-01855 Eiffler v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-03989 Watson et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-04032 Elrod et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-04037 Young et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-04536 Thompson et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-04949 Prince v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-05003 Roberts et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-06318 Bess et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-06360 Crook v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-06361 Jasso et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-06362 Bailey v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-06739 Collins v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-06740 Krishnan et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-06741 Roberts v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-06743 Knernschield et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-07322 Donley v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-07402 Cole v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-07610 Lingenfelter et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-07655 Barton v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-07694 Ellis et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-07705 Alvey v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-08014 Mathis v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-10411 DeTro v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-10809 Clarke v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-10811 Corley-Davis v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-10814 Currie v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-10815 Dennis v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-10819 Herrera v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-10821 Martinez v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-11136 Crowe v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-11137 Daily v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-11139 Davis v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 25 Wave Civil Action No. Case Name 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-11142 Donovan v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-11144 Fay v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-11147 Johnson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-11150 Hale-Cuellar v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-11158 Hauber v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-11161 Hill v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-11163 Kolodzyk v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-11167 Mahnke v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-11169 Miecznikowski v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-11170 Morrill v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-11175 Reynolds v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-11186 Nichols v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-11266 Frederick v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-11798 Jeffries v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-11803 Josey v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-11811 Piper v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-11817 Smith v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-11819 Stephenson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-11820 Stevens v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2187 WAVE 5 2:16-cv-11821 Tatum v. C. R. Bard, Inc.