Skip to main content
W.D. Pennsylvania· 3/14/2012

Gross v. Stryker Corp.

Citations

  • 858 F. Supp. 2d 466
  • 2012 WL 876719
  • 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34071

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that plaintiffs breach of implied warranty claim was expressly preempted because it imposed requirements different than, or in addition to, applicable federal requirements
  • holding that Comment k applies to medical device strict liability claims
  • finding that the parallel claims exception is inapplicable when “(1) [p]laintiff fails to adequately plead a sufficient, specific basis for his purported parallel claims, and (2
  • finding that the GMPs are too vague to establish a parallel claim
  • dismissing breach of implied warranties claim because Pennsylvania imposes requirements that are additional to federal requirements for medical devices
  • “[A] device receiving premarket approval cannot be separated into its component parts to avoid application of express preemption.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Fischer

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

23 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

75 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.