deficiencies in its own test, and its duty to warn users of those deficiencies. Accordingly, the Court’s application of the doctrine of “field preemption” to Abbott’s duty to warn in the summer and fall of 1986 is unsupported by federal preemption jurisprudence and, as well, by the record that suggests the FDA’s regulatory efforts peaked when the Abbott blood test was licensed in 1985, and that after licensure the FDA impatiently awaited Abbott’s submission of a modified and unproved test. Conflict Preemption The majority opinion asserts that, in addition to finding implied “field” preemption of plaintiffs’ claims based on the comprehensiveness of FDA regulation, a state failure-to-warn claim would be subject to implied conflict preemption because the .Supp. 929, 933 (W.D.Ark.1994) (<HOLDING>). The Court also relies on the applicable
holding that manufacturer could be estopped from asserting federal preemption of failuretowarn claim if manufacturer withheld material facts from environmental protection agency holding that purely factual material may be withheld from disclosure under exemption 5 if that material would expose the deliberative process of an agency holding that a defendant was estopped from asserting improper service where the defendants conduct caused the allegedly improper service holding that materiality of medical information withheld from insurer could be presumed material to insurer holding that tribal entity was not equitably estopped from asserting immunity because misrepresentations of the tribes officials or employees cannot affect its immunity from suit