Skip to Main Content
Overview

Matt concentrates his practice in the areas of healthcare and commercial litigation.

He has experience handling all stages of litigation, including bench and jury trials, preliminary injunctions, and arbitration, and he regularly advises clients on negotiations, discovery issues and litigation strategies.

Matt frequently defends healthcare clients in lawsuits related to privacy issues and commercial disputes. He has extensive experience litigating class actions brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Matt has successfully defended both large Fortune 500 companies as well as small, privately-held businesses accused of allegedly sending unsolicited text messages, facsimiles and calls to cellular and residential phones. He has also assisted in petitioning the FCC on behalf of his clients. He regularly advises healthcare and non-healthcare clients about compliance with privacy laws and regulations, including the TCPA.

Matt also has experience representing pharmacies, pharmacy benefit managers and healthcare companies in pharmaceutical tort, negligence and various other types of commercial disputes. Matt has represented large and small healthcare clients in civil litigation proceedings, government investigations and contract disputes and has experience both prosecuting and defending trade secret and unfair competition claims, including claims for injunctive and other extraordinary relief. 

Additionally, Matt has experience prosecuting and defending government contract awards, including work successfully defending a bid protest related to a multi-billion dollar state contract award to a healthcare industry client.

Matt is an alumni of Teach for America and also handles pro-bono cases for juveniles.

A leader in innovation collaborations
See how we lower costs and improve outcomes for clients 

Industries

Services

Recognition

Education

  • J.D., Saint Louis University School of Law
    • magna cum laude
      • Saint Louis University Law Journal, staff, 2007-2008; Executive Board, 2008-2009
  • M.S., Pace University
    • Teaching
  • B.A., Washington University in St Louis
    • with honors
    • English Literature

Admissions

  • Missouri
  • U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida
  • Illinois
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri

Professional Associations and Memberships

  • American Health Lawyers Association
  • American Society for Pharmacy Law
  • The Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis 
  • The Missouri Bar
Experience
  • Obtained summary judgment in nationwide putative class action filed against pharmacy client accused of initiating prerecorded calls to consumers in violation of the TCPA. In the first federal decision to apply the TCPA’s emergency purpose exception, the court held that because the calls involved the health and safety of consumers, they were not subject to TCPA penalties. Roberts v. Medco Health Sols, Inc., No. 4:15-cv-13680CDP, 2016 WL 3997071 (E.D. Mo., July 26, 2016).
  • Obtained summary judgment for defendant accused of sending unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of the TCPA. The federal court found, as a matter of law, that the healthcare communications at issue did not constitute “advertisements” and therefore did not support a claim under the TCPA. Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., No. 3:14CV00583, 2014 WL 6775501 (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 2, 2014). The decision was upheld in its entirety in a lengthy opinion by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Appeal No. 14-4201, 2015 WL 3485900 (6th Cir. June 3, 2015).
  • Successfully defended law firm accused of sending unsolicited text messages in violation of the TCPA. The lawsuit, which was filed as a putative class action, was completely dismissed on February 24, 2015. Ronald Theby, v. Midwest Disability, P.C., No. 14SL-CC04176 (St. Louis Cnty Cir. Ct.).
  • Obtained summary judgment for large pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) in nationwide putative class action alleging violations of the TCPA. On an issue of first impression in the Eastern District of Missouri, the Court entered summary judgment on PBM’s “express consent” defense and held as a matter of law that by providing her number in conjunction with the health benefits she received, Plaintiff had expressly consented to be called about those services. Elkins v. Medco Health Solutions, No. 4:12-CV-2141-TIA, 2014 WL 1663406 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 25, 2014)
  • Secured dismissal with prejudice on behalf of pharmacy client in a pharmaceutical tort/failure to warn case in federal court involving the drug Reglan/metoclopramide. Ward et al. v. Wyeth Inc., et al. No. 4:14-CV-00170 (E.D. Mo. 2014)
  • Prosecuted claim for misappropriation of trade secrets against “big four” accounting firm in case stemming from the theft of healthcare client’s proprietary business operations documents. After a three-day preliminary injunction hearing, the Court entered broad relief prohibiting the internal and external dissemination of any information obtained from client’s computer systems. Express Scripts, Inc. et al. v. Ernst & Young LLP et al., No. 13SL-CC00537 (St. Louis Cnty Cir. Ct., Dec. 10, 2013)
  • Represented mail-order pharmacy in putative class action seeking damages and injunctive relief against client as well as the manufacturer of certain generic pharmaceuticals alleged to contain pieces of glass. After preliminary injunction was denied, all claims against pharmacy defendant were dismissed. Fenwick v. Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., No. 3:12-CV-07354-PGS-DEA (D.N.J. 2013)
  • Successfully defended healthcare company in federal court action alleging unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, Lanham Act violations and breach of contract. After hearing, court denied plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. The court later dismissed all claims against our client with prejudice. Meritain Health Inc.et al. v. Express Scripts, Inc., No. 4:12-CV-266-CEJ (E.D. Mo. 2012)
  • Represented PBM client in bid protest to defend award of a multi-billion dollar state contract for pharmacy benefit management services to healthcare client. After client was awarded the contract, the incumbent in-state contractor initiated a bid protest to dispute the award on numerous grounds. Following extensive briefing and a two week hearing, the Maryland Board of Contact Appeals affirmed the award in its entirety. In re Appeal Catalyst Rx, Nos. MSBCA 2759, 2762, 2768, 2780, and 2784 (Jan. 2012)