With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". § 29-28-105 (1994). We agree with Telectronics that these slight variations in language make a difference in the impact of the law. However, we agree with Plaintiffs that these types of variations can be managed with proper jury instructions. Other variations pointed out by Telectronics are either insignificant or irrelevant to the issues presented in this case. For example, Telectronics asserts that Plaintiffs failed to analyze how states deal with compliance with federal regulations. In this instance, this variation is likely to be immaterial because the Supreme Court recently found the FDA “regulations” under which the “ J” Lead was allowed to proceed to market does not provide protection to the public. See Medtronic v. Lohr, — U.S.-,-, 116 S.Ct. 2240, 2254, 135 L.Ed.2d 700 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we find that the strict

A: holding that fdas substantial equivalence doctrine does not preclude state law claims because the approval process did not involve safety and thus provide little protection to the public
B: holding that the jones act does not preempt state law in applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens and thus state law governs
C: holding that doctrine does not violate due process
D: holding the state law claims were not preempted
A.