Fields v. Dalkon Shield Trust ( 1998 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
In Re: A. H. ROBINS COMPANY,
INCORPORATED,
Debtor.
No. 98-1622
ELLEN PAULETTE M. FIELDS,
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: October 30, 1998
Decided: November 23, 1998
Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Ellen Paulette M. Fields, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ellen Fields elected to resolve her Dalkon Shield claim through
binding arbitration. The arbitrator awarded Fields nothing upon the
determination that she used a Lippes Loop, rather than a Dalkon
Shield. Mrs. Fields then filed suit against the Dalkon Shield Claim-
ants Trust (Trust) and eleven other Defendants who were involved in
the handling of her claim.1 She sought $30,000,000 in damages. The
Trust moved to dismiss Fields' complaint, and Fields moved to vacate
the arbitration decision. The district court granted the motion to dis-
miss the complaint for failure to state a claim and denied Fields'
motion to vacate.2 Fields appeals.
With respect to the denial of the motion to vacate the arbitration
decision, we review the district court's findings of fact for clear error
and its conclusions of law de novo. See First Options of Chicago, Inc.
v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 947-48 (1995); Gianelli Money Purchase
Plan & Trust v. ADM Investors Servs., 146 F.3d 1309, 1311 (11th Cir.
1998). The record discloses no error. Rather, the district court cor-
rectly determined that Mrs. Fields had not met any of the criteria for
vacating an arbitration decision set forth in Rule 44(a) of the First
Amended Rules Governing Arbitration.
Fields' complaint dealt entirely with how her Dalkon Shield claim
was handled. Thus, the complaint related to the processing, defense,
and handling of her claim for damages for her use of the Dalkon
_________________________________________________________________
1 Among the causes of action were malpractice, obstruction of justice,
treason, mail fraud, and withholding of evidence.
2 The district court also denied Fields' motions for appointment of
counsel, for investigations, and to transfer her complaint to the federal
district court in Atlanta. Denial of these motions was not an abuse of dis-
cretion.
2
Shield. Mrs. Fields was enjoined by the Robins Plan and the Confir-
mation Order from suing anyone other than the Trust in connection
with the handling of her claim. She pursued her remedies against the
Trust, lost in arbitration, and failed in her bid to vacate the arbitration
decision. She therefore pursued the only remedies available to her.
She may not circumvent the orderly working of the claims process by
filing another lawsuit raising related claims. The district court cor-
rectly found that Mrs. Fields had failed to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted.
We accordingly affirm the decision of the district court. We deny
the motion to authorize preparation of a transcript at government
expense. 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