Centex Bateson Construction Co. v. Department of Taxation & Revenue of New Mexico

How later courts describe this case

• explaining that state common-law claims are preempted “to the extent that their recognition would impose any requirements different from, or in addition to, FDA requirements applicable to the device”
• finding preemption based on an ascertainable requirement in an express FDA regulation requiring specific warnings on a device’s packaging
• state law claim for failure to warn of risk of toxic shock syndrome related to use of tampons, a class II device, preempted by MDA
• where labeling is preempted by FDA, it would be anomalous to hold that a consumer is entitled to expect a product to be safer than government-mandated warnings
• consumer cannot expect a product to perform more safely than government mandated warnings