UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

In Re: A. H. ROBINS COMPANY,

Debtor.

DIANE HIGGINS,

No. 98-1076

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

DALKON SHIELD CLAIMANTS TRUST,

Trust-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge;

Blackwell N. Shelley, Bankruptcy Judge.

(CA-85-1307-R)

Submitted: July 31, 1998

Decided: August 20, 1998

Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Diane Higgins, Appellant Pro Se. Orran Lee Brown, Jr., DALKON

SHIELD CLAIMANTS TRUST, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Diane Higgins, a Dalkon Shield Claimant, appeals the district

court's order denying her motion to vacate an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) decision. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

Higgins was inserted with a Dalkon Shield in August 1972. Medical records reveal that she had menstrual periods beginning on

November 22, 1972, and December 22, 1972. The record states that

she used the Dalkon Shield until it was expelled on an unspecified

date in December 1972. She became pregnant and had an abortion on

February 28, 1973. One record states that her uterus at the time of the

abortion was a size indicating ten weeks' gestation.

Higgins filed a Dalkon Shield Claim asserting that she suffered

excessive bleeding, pregnancy with the Dalkon Shield in place, and

pain. She proceeded to ADR. The Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust

maintained that Higgins suffered no injury attributable to Dalkon

Shield use.

The ADR referee found after a hearing that the Dalkon Shield was

expelled prior to Higgins' pregnancy. Therefore, she was not entitled

to compensation for the pregnancy/abortion episode. However, Higgins' testimony and medical records established a"dramatic" episode

of bleeding in late November 1972, around the time that the device

became dislodged and eventually was expelled. The referee awarded

Higgins $4000 for severe pain and bleeding caused by the Dalkon

Shield.

Higgins, who testified that she believed she became pregnant while

the Dalkon Shield was in place, moved in the district court for an

 2
order vacating the referee's decision. The district court denied the

motion, and Higgins appealed.

The decision of an ADR referee is "binding and final," and a

Dalkon Shield Claimant who proceeds to ADR generally relinquishes

the right to judicial review. See In re A. H. Robins, Co. (Bledsoe v.

Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust), 112 F.3d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1997).

The ADR Agreement which Higgins signed and the ADR Rules provide no mechanism for judicial review of a referee's decision. Nonetheless, the district court may grant relief from an ADR decision

"`where the moving party demonstrates flagrant referee misconduct

by clear and convincing evidence.'" Id. We review the district court's

refusal to vacate an ADR decision for abuse of discretion. See id.

Here, there was no abuse of discretion. The district court correctly

found that the referee did not commit flagrant misconduct of the sort

envisioned by Bledsoe. Rather, the referee made a reasoned determination based on the evidence of record.

We accordingly affirm the denial of the motion to vacate. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3