Court Opinion

ID: 996501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:52:10.277484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:05.566429
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

In Re: A. H. ROBINS COMPANY,
INCORPORATED,
Debtor.

LINDA R. WRIGHT,                                                    No. 98-1713
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: September 15, 1998

Decided: October 16, 1998

Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Linda R. Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Orran Lee Brown, Sr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Linda Wright, a Dalkon Shield Claimant, appeals the district
court's order denying her motion to set aside an alternative dispute
resolution (ADR) decision. We affirm.

Wright claimed that she was inserted with a Dalkon Shield in 1965.
It was removed in 1974. She asserted that the device caused pelvic
inflammatory disease, perforation, endometritis, uncontrolled bleed-
ing, infertility, emotional injury, and pain and suffering. The Dalkon
Shield Claimants Trust contended that the intrauterine device (IUD)
Wright used was not a Dalkon Shield, because the device was not
commercially available until November 1969, well after Wright's
IUD was inserted.

Wright elected to resolve her claim through ADR. The referee con-
cluded that Wright had not met her burden of proving that the device
she used was a Dalkon Shield. Therefore, she was not entitled to com-
pensation for injuries caused by the Dalkon Shield.

Wright moved to vacate the ADR decision. The district court
denied the motion, finding that she was simply dissatisfied with the
referee's decision and that the referee had not committed flagrant mis-
conduct in reaching his decision. Therefore, judicial review was not
appropriate. This appeal followed.

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, Inc. (Bledsoe v.
Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust), 112 F.3d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1997).
The ADR Agreement that Wright signed and the ADR Rules provide
no mechanism for judicial review of ADR decisions. Nonetheless, the
district court may grant review from an ADR decision"`where the

                    2
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 type
envisioned by Bledsoe. Rather, the referee made a reasoned determi-
nation based on the evidence of record.

We accordingly affirm. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materi-
als before the court and argument would not aid the decisional pro-
cess.

AFFIRMED

                    3