With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 84, 126 L.Ed.2d 52 (1993); see also Talbott v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 63 F.3d 25, 30-31 (1st Cir.1995) (adopting analysis of district court, which held claims for negligent design, development, and manufacture preempted); Lewis v. Intermedics Intraocular, Inc., 56 F.3d 703, 708 (5th Cir.1995) (noting, in intraocular lens case, "[i]f plaintiffs' products liability claims for recovery due to the lenses' dangers are preempted, then it would seem ridiculous to say that a claim for failure to warn about these dangers could survive”); Mendes v. Medtronic, Inc., 18 F.3d 13, 18-19 (1st Cir.1994) (negligent failure to warn and negligent manufacturing claims preempted for Class III device not subject to PMA process); cf. Feldt v. Mentor Corp., 61 F.3d 431, 436 & n. 6 (5th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Lohr, 56 F.3d at 1347-52 (11th Cir.1995)

A: holding that state claims for fraudulent submissions to the fda were preempted
B: holding the state law claims were not preempted
C: holding with respect to class iii device not subject to pma process that negligent marketing and inadequate warning claims were preempted but defective design claim was not preempted because no fda design requirement existed
D: holding that acts of improper maintenance were insufficient to defeat plaintiffs defective design claim
C.