Although the scope of federal preemption of state common law medical device claims has been vigorously debated since the Medical Device Amendments were enacted in 1976, a hot-button issue is the extent to which implied preemption may bar state device claims that parallel duties imposed by the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, says Professor Jean Macchiaroli Eggen in this BNA Insight. The author analyzes recent cases and concludes that some parallel claims should survive implied preemption, and that a medical device manufacturer should not be immune from all state law claims simply because the device received marketing approval from the FDA.