See id. (“[T]he FDA is charged with the difficult task of regulating the marketing and distribution of medical devices without intruding upon decisions statutorily com mitted to the discretion of health care professionals.”). While Schouest's claims that Med-tronic failed to prov:ide sufficient warnings cannot overcome the MDA's express preemptive force, her claims premised on fraudulent representations about off-label procedures can avoid Riegel. As discussed above, making false or misleading statements about medical devices is prohibited by federal law. This means that Schouest's state law fraud claims based on false off-label promotion would, if proven, also amount to a violation of federal law, and thus such claims could survive preemption. See Houston, 957 F.Supp.2d at 1179-80 (<HOLDING>); cf. In re Epogen & Aranesp Off-Label
holding that state fraudbased claims are parallel or genuinely equivalent to federal law holding that pursuit of a parallel state court lawsuit involving claims and parties common to the federal action does not justify the district courts intervention in state court proceedings holding that state fraudbased claims that include offlabel promotion allegations are not impliedly preempted under buckman because they are moored in traditional state common law that exists independently from the fdca holding that the fraudbased common law claims against the citco defendants fail for the same reason that the section 10b claims fail holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law