In both Caplinger v. Medtronic, Inc.,784 F.3d 1335 (10th Cir. 2015) (No. 13-6061) and Angeles v. Medtronic, Inc.,No. A14-1149 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2015), the courts addressed preemption-based dismissal orders of claims alleging breaches of express and implied warranties, negligence, and failure-to-warn, all relating to the off-label use of defendant’s medical device.  The FDA had approved this device as safe and effective for use in a particular surgical technique.  In these cases, plaintiffs had elected and received different surgeries, in which the device was used in an off-label manner, allegedly based upon assurances by the defendant that the device was also safe and effective for use in those surgeries.  Plaintiffs challenged the dismissal rulings below on the ground that preemption should not extend to off-label uses because the FDA’s approval as safe and effective applied only to the specified use.  Both courts rejected this argument, ruling that governing Supreme Court precedent makes clear that FDA approval is device-specific, not use-specific.  Further, in Caplinger,the Tenth Circuit affirmed the preemption-based dismissal on additional grounds, noting that the plaintiff had not succeeded in identifying any federal law that her state law claims paralleled.  Consequently, those state law claims necessarily were preempted.  In contrast, in Angeles, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, accepting plaintiffs’ argument that they had identified federal law that certain of their state law claims allegedly paralleled, thus avoiding preemption of those parallel state claims.  The state court plaintiffs also alleged that defendant negligently failed to fulfill its duty under state law to monitor the product after FDA approval and to warn of complaints about the product’s performance and adverse health consequences attributable to the product.  Because this state law duty parallels a federal law to monitor for and report problems to the FDA after FDA approval, with respect to these claims only, the court remanded for further proceedings.