In Re Diet Drugs (Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine) Product Liability Litigation ( 2011 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 10-3848
_____________
In Re: DIET DRUGS
(PHENTERMINE/FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE)
PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION
Donna J. Pickering,
Appellant
_____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
District Court Nos.: 2-99-cv-20593
16-md-1203
MDL 1203
District Judge: The Honorable Harvey Bartle, III
_____________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
September 14, 2011
Before: SLOVITER, SMITH, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Filed: September 20, 2011)
_____________________
OPINION
_____________________
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
Donna J. Pickering appeals from an order of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which denied her claim for Matrix
Compensation Benefits under the Diet Drug Nationwide Class Action Settlement
Agreement. We exercise final order jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. In re
Diet Drugs Prod. Liab. Litig., 543 F.3d 179, 184 n.10 (3d Cir. 2008). Because a
district court exercises “its equitable authority to administer and implement a class
action settlement,” we review for an abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of
discretion may be found if the District Court’s decision is based on a clearly
erroneous factual finding, an error of law, or an improper application of law to fact.
Id.Pickering contends that the District Court abused its discretion by
concluding that she failed to establish a reasonable medical basis for the opinion of
her attesting physician, Dr. Evans, that she had moderate mitral regurgitation,
which would entitle her to Matrix Compensation Benefits. In Pickering’s view, the
District Court failed to adequately consider not only the evidence she initially
submitted in support of her claim, but also the supplemental evidence she provided
to establish a reasonable medical basis for Dr. Evans’ opinion. She contends that
the District Court improperly relied on the technical advisor’s medical opinion that
she had only mild mitral valve regurgitation, which does not entitle her to benefits,
and that there was no reasonable medical basis for Dr. Evans’ claim.
We have carefully reviewed the Show Cause Record developed in this case.
2
Pickering’s contention that the District Court failed to adequately consider the
evidence she adduced in the Show Cause Proceeding is belied by the District
Court’s comprehensive Memorandum. The assertion that the District Court
improperly relied on the technical advisor’s opinion is likewise unpersuasive. The
Court scrutinized all of the medical opinions and noted that Pickering had failed to
rebut certain assessments that supported the opinions of both the auditing
cardiologist and the technical advisor that she did not have moderate mitral
regurgitation. Because the evidence of record permits a finding that there may be
either a reasonable medical basis or no reasonable medical basis for Dr. Evans’
opinion, we can discern no clear error of fact, which would constitute an abuse of
discretion warranting reversal. See Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564,
573-74 (1985). We will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
3