Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to rehabilitate Dr. Croston during deposition by asking him whether, based on his education and experience as a medical doctor and his experience reading IFUs, he believes himself to “have an expert knowledge as to what surgeons expect to be in an IFU regarding one of the medical devices that they use in surgery.” Id. at 148:13–15. However, Daubert and its progeny make clear that an expert’s generalized experience in one field is insufficient to qualify him as an expert in all areas. See, e.g., Robertson, 148 F.3d at 907; Kruszka, 28 F. Supp. 3d at 929. Indeed, “[a]lthough the competence requirement under Rule 702 has always been treated liberally, this does not mean that a witness is an expert simply because he claims to be.” Am. Family Ins. Grp. v. JVC Americas Corp., No. 00-27 DSD/JMM, 2001 WL 1618454, at *2 (D. Minn. Apr. 30, 2001). …show more content…
Croston has no familiarity with industry practices regarding medical device warnings. He admitted that he is not familiar with how other doctors use IFUs—he is only familiar with his own practices:
Q. Do you think that your use of the IFU is pretty much standard for that’s what doctors do?
A.· I don’t think I can tell you what other doctors do.
Croston Dep. at 50:8–10. Dr. Croston also admitted that he has no experience with the FDA or the process for reviewing, approving, or altering IFUs for medical devices:
Q. You’ve indicated that you'd had no contact with the FDA.· I take it that you don’t have any idea of what the FDA requires in order to get an Instruction For Use changed?
A. I don’t.
Q. Or how you go about doing