Widmark v. Dalkon Shield Trust ( 1998 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
In Re: A. H. ROBINS COMPANY,
INCORPORATED,
Debtor.
No. 98-1522
LENORE WIDMARK,
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 30, 1998
Decided: October 26, 1998
Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Michael Villeck, Howard Eison, SANDERS, SANDERS, BLOCK &
WOYCIK, P.C., Mineola, New York, for Appellant. 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Lenore Widmark, a Dalkon Shield Claimant, elected to resolve her
claim through binding arbitration. The arbitrator issued an unfavor-
able decision, concluding that Widmark's pelvic inflammatory dis-
ease did not arise from her use of the Dalkon Shield. Widmark then
filed a motion to vacate the arbitrator's decision in the district court.
The district court denied the motion, and Widmark appealed.
We vacate and remand. Widmark established that she used the
Dalkon Shield and suffered from pelvic inflammatory disease, an
injury appearing in Exhibit A to the Claims Resolution Facility. She
therefore was entitled to the presumption of causation announced in
In re A. H. Robins Co. (Reichel v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust),
109 F.3d 965 (4th Cir. 1997), because the presumption applies in
binding arbitration. See In re A.H. Robins Co. (King v. Dalkon Shield
Claimants Trust, 1998 WL 544770, at *1 (4th Cir. Aug. 17, 1998)
(unpublished). We vacate the order of the district court because the
arbitrator did not apply the presumption. We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and oral argument would not aid the
decisional process. In light of this disposition, the motion to acceler-
ate oral argument is denied, and the case is remanded to the district
court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
VACATED AND REMANDED*
_________________________________________________________________
*The motion of the Trust filed October 5, 1998, to submit a surrebuttal
brief is granted.
2