and negligent failure to warn claims are premised on the manufacturer’s duty to disclose to a physician any latent, foreseeable dangers associated with the use of a prescription product. Knowlton v. Deseret Medical, Inc., 930 F.2d 116, 120 & n. 2 (1st Cir.1991) (discussing Massachusetts law). Although this standard resembles the FDA requirement, the two may differ as applied. See Jones, 430 U.S. at 526, 97 S.Ct. at 1310 (in determining preemption issue, it is necessary “to consider the relationship between state and federal laws as they are interpreted and applied, not merely as they are written”). Applying Massachusetts law, a factfinder could find a label deficient that complies with FDA requirements. MacDonald v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 394 Mass. 131, 475 N.E.2d 65, 70-71 (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 920, 106 S.Ct. 250, 88
holding analogous circumstances conclusive  of legislative intent holding that the burden of proving lack of negligence is on the owner holding that compliance with fda requirements though admissible to demonstrate lack of negligence is not conclusive on this issue just as violation of fda requirements is evidence but not conclusive evidence of negligence holding that plain meaning of legislation should be conclusive holding that reporting requirements that are afforded immunity under  419 are not predicated on actual or conclusive evidence of abuse or maltreatment