THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, January 18, 1995 TAG: 9501180450
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B5 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: ASSOCIATED PRESS
DATELINE: RICHMOND LENGTH: Medium: 56 lines
After more than 30 months of legal arguments and deliberation, lawyers representing hundreds of women in a class-action suit against the maker of the Dalkon Shield sought to expedite justice.
Justice delayed was justice denied, the attorneys claimed. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court disagreed and refused a request to order the federal appeals panel in Richmond to speed things along.
Too late.
The high court's rejection Tuesday of a motion by lawyers for women who claim they were injured by the intrauterine birth control device came more than a month after the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the case.
Lawyers and court clerks were bewildered by the high court's moot response.
``What could the Supreme Court possibly be ruling on?'' asked Alan Morrison, a Utah lawyer representing some of the of women.
The Supreme Court apparently never got word that the appeals court on Dec. 14 had rejected the plaintiffs' challenge to procedures for resolving their claims.
The approved procedures set a three-year period of limitations for arbitration from the date claimants discover injuries they believe are caused by the kite-shaped, intrauterine birth-control device. Lawyers for the women say the three-year limit is harsher than the law in many states.
The high court's delayed reaction probably occurred because everyone assumed someone else would inform Washington the appeals court had acted.
Unless the high court chooses to hear arguments on a case, opinions and information on appeals cases are not sent to it, said the clerk.
``The Supreme Court is not on the mailing list for our opinions,'' she said. ``They wouldn't want a copy of every opinion. That would sort of overwhelm them.''
The federal court clerk's office in Richmond thought the lawyers would take care of canceling their business before the high court. Not so, said Michael Pretl, a Baltimore lawyer who represents some of the women.
``I just assumed there was contact between the two courts,'' said Pretl. ``If I had known there wasn't, I would have followed up myself.''
The women's lawyers challenged the time limit before the three-judge appellate panel in Richmond on March 4, 1992.
The Dalkon Shield, manufactured by the Richmond-based A.H. Robins Co., was pulled from the U.S. market in 1974 after its design was blamed for thousands of painful infections, spontaneous abortions, hysterectomies and at least 18 deaths among its 3 million users.
A $2.5 billion trust fund was set up in 1985 after A.H. Robins sought bankruptcy protection from its creditors. by CNB