basis for testimony about what was generally known in a particular medical field. See Erickson v. Baxter Healthcare, Inc., 131 F.Supp.2d 995, 1001 (N.D.Ill.2001). Differences of reliable expert opinions are for the jury to resolve. Smith, 215 F.3d at 718. In the context of the motion to bar Dr. London’s opinions about what was known or knowable about HIV and HCV prior to Mr. Erickson’s infections, the defendants make two substantive arguments about the standard of care. In a footnote in their reply brief, they argue, that Ms. Erickson’s claims are preempted by federal law, viz., FDA approval and regulations of factor concentrates. Not only do the defendants mischaracterize the holding of Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341, 121 S.Ct. 1012, 1017, 148 L.Ed.2d 854 (2001) (<HOLDING>), they waive the argument by putting it in a
holding that state law claim regarding breach of settlement agreement was preempted by federal labor law holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law holding statelaw claim based on alleged failure to give proper notice of right to convert is preempted by erisa holding that federal law governs res judicata effect of an earlier federal judgment based on federal law holding that statelaw fraudonthefda claim  was preempted by federal law based on uniquely federal nature of regulated relationship