about the Cypher stent is just a thinly veiled way of claiming that the FDA would not have approved the Cypher in the absence of fraud — a claim that is squarely foreclosed by Buckman. See Clark v. Medtronic, Inc., 572 F.Supp.2d 1090, 1095 (D.Minn.2008) (rejecting the argument that the defendant fraudulently concealed problems with its device from the FDA both because the record did not support his claim and because such a claim would be barred under Buckman). Riley also argues that, because the Cypher stent is coated with a drug, the preemption analysis of § 360k(a) is inapplicable, and the Court must instead undertake the implied-preemption analysis that applies to claims relating to federally regulated drugs. Cf. Wyeth v. Levine, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1187, 1204, 173 L.Ed.2d 51 (2009) (<HOLDING>). But the Cypher stent is not merely a drug or
holding state failuretowarn claims were preempted because any warning label linking said drugs to suicide would have been false and misleading holding that erisa preempted state law claim brought by employer against insurance company for wrongful claims processing holding misrepresentation claim to be preempted holding that a failuretowarn claim against a pharmaceutical company was not impliedly preempted holding that failuretowarn claims based on theory that faarequired warnings are insufficient are preempted