designed the label on the Abbott test and at the time of licensure precluded any change in the label without prior FDA approval. The Court’s conflict preemption analysis, authored by the sole dissenting Justice in Feldman v. Lederle Laboratories, 125 N.J. 117, 158, 592 A.2d 1176 (1991) (Garibaldi, J. dissenting), overstates the preemptive effect of the FDA-designed label and resurrects conflict preemption obstacles to state tort law that were definitively addressed and rejected in Lederle. The federal courts clearly have recognized that the preemptive effect of a warning designed or approved by a federal agency depends on whether the regulated entity has disclosed all relevant information to the agency. See, e.g., Hurley v. Lederle Laboratories, 863 F.2d 1173, 1179-80 (5th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Roberson v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., 863
holding that courts have given section 453 a narrow preemptive effect in light of its legislative history and rejecting an argument based on conflict preemption holding that notwithstanding fda approval of warning on dpt vaccine preemptive effect of fda action depends on jurys determination whether manufacturer withheld from fda information that might have affected fdas decision on content of warning holding that although an adequate warning will prevent the reliance on a theory of strict liability in a failure to warn defect ease such a warning will not make safe a product with a manufacturing defect holding district courts dismissal following explicit and reasonable warning was not an abuse of discretion holding that a predominance finding depends on a courts choice of law analysis