In Re A.h. Robins Company, Incorporated, Debtor.jayne Graham, Claimant-appellant, v. A.h. Robins Company, Incorporated, Debtor-appellee.in Re A.h. Robins Company, Incorporated, Debtor.lois Chastain, Claimant-appellant, v. A.h. Robins Company, Incorporated, Debtor-appellee.in Re A.h. Robins Company, Incorporated, Debtor.helen V.e. Dorosh, Claimant-appellant, v. A.h. Robins Company, Incorporated, Debtor-appellee, 872 F.2d 416 (4th Cir. 1989)

Jayne Graham, Lois Chastain, and Helen V.E. Dorosh appeal the district court's order disallowing their Dalkon Shield claims. We affirm without prejudice to the appellants' right to request the district court to review the disallowances under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

The appellants' claims were disallowed because appellants did not return a questionnaire providing additional information about their claims. We recently ruled that returning this questionnaire by the deadline set by the district court was necessary to establish valid Dalkon Shield claims against A.H. Robins under the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act. In re A.H. Robins Co., --- F.2d ----, No. 88-1012 (4th Cir. Dec. 8, 1988). As appellants failed to comply with this requirement, the district court acted properly in disallowing their claims, and we affirm its decision.

We note that the district court may reinstate a Dalkon Shield claim if a claimant files a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion asking for such relief and if the district court decides that such relief is warranted under Rule 60(b). Maressa v. A.H. Robins Co., 839 F.2d 220 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 109 S. Ct. 76 (1988). Accordingly, our affirmance of the district court's disallowance of appellants' claims is without prejudice to the right of any of the appellants to file such a Rule 60(b) motion. In re A.H. Robins Co., No. 88-1012, slip op. at 15.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and oral argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.