Edward W. Gerecke

Experience

• Shuker v. Smith & Nephew, PLC, 885 F.3d 760 (3d Cir. 2018). In a case of first impression, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff's negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty claims against our client, a medical device manufacturer, were expressly preempted under the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The plaintiff's claims involved a hip-replacement system that consisted of a number of component parts subject to different categories of federal regulation.
• Grubbs v. DePuy Synthes, No. 8:15-cv-00443, 2016 WL 360610 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 19, 2016) (granting summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to allege the violation of any federal requirement in the PMA device components that he received).
• Marshick v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 5:14-cv-00498, 2015 WL 9266955 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 11, 2015) (granting summary judgment when the plaintiff lacked expert proof of general and specific causation).
• Teva Pharm. Indus., Ltd. v. Ruiz, 181 So. 3d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (reversing denial of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction when general jurisdiction was lacking and the plaintiff failed to establish specific jurisdiction and sufficient minimum contacts to satisfy due process).
• Marmol v. St. Jude Med., 132 F. Supp. 3d 1359 (M.D. Fla. 2015) (dismissing claims against PMA medical device under implied preemption and lack of a remedy to enforce FDA regulations or requirements).
• Ocasio v. C.R. Bard, Inc., No. 8:13-cv-01962, 2015 WL 3496062 (M.D. Fla. June 3, 2015) (granting summary judgment on warnings claim for lack of an expert on inadequacy and rejecting any inference of a manufacturing defect).
• Homaday v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 994 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (M.D. Fla. 2014) (wrongful death claim in third amended complaint related back to original filing for purposes of the statute of limitations).
• Brown v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 978 F. Supp. 2d 1266 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (granting summary judgment under Riegel preemption and Wolicki-Gables for lack of a parallel claim and no nexus between FDA warning letter and alleged injury).
• Kaiser v. DePuy Spine, Inc., 944 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (dismissing claims with prejudice, before discovery, under Riegel preemption and Wolicki-Gables for failing to specify a parallel claim or allege noncompliance with a formal performance standard established by the FDA).
• Layton v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., No. 05-CA-007440, 2012 WL 4983778 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Oct. 16, 2012) (an evidentiary hearing is not required to determine entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs based upon a proposal for settlement).
• Wolicki-Gables v. Arrow Int'l, Inc., 634 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2011 (affirming summary judgment under Riegel preemption and affirming that inference of defect did not apply).