Stamps v. Collagen Corp

holding that existence of express preemption clause precludes reliance on implied preemption doctrine, without determining whether provision constituted a "reliable indicium of congressional intent" | holding that existence of express preemption clause precludes reliance on implied preemption doctrine, without determining whether provision constituted a “reliable indicium of congressional intent” | holding that the analysis used in Ferebee did not survive the Cipollone decision | holding that the analysis used in Fer-ebee did not survive the Cipollone decision | holding that the analysis used in Ferebee did not survive the Cipollone decision | finding that the express preemption provision in the MDA precludes any discussion regarding implied preemption | holding state law claims not preempted where FDA had established no specific requirements unique to the Class III medical device at issue | finding that the PMA process constitutes a “specific requirement” applicable to a particular device | “[W]e do not believe the [preemption] analysis [in Fere- bee] can be said to have survived Cipol- lone-” | claims of failure to warn and defective design preempted where manufacturer of Class III device underwent PMA | relying on Cipollone for interpretation of state “requirement” under MDA | defective design, inadequate warning, and negligent failure to warn | Class III antiwrinkle treatment product