OPINION OF THE COURT

Elizabeth Lassetter appeals an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denying her recovery under the terms of the Diet Drug Nationwide Class Action Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”). 1 We will affirm.

1. Background

This appeal relates to the settlement of multi-district products liability litigation regarding the diet drugs Pondimin® and Redux®, previously sold by American Home Products (“AHP”). See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 543 F.3d 179, 180-81 (3d Cir. 2008). In November 1999, Wyeth, the successor-in-interest to AHP, joined plaintiffs’ representatives in the Settlement Agreement, which the District Court approved. See id. at 181. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Wyeth was required to contribute funds, placed in a trust, for the payment of claims. See id. at 180. The resulting AHP Settlement Trust (the “Trust”), acting through its trustees and claims administrator, administers and reviews claims to determine the benefits, if any, that a class member is qualified to receive under the terms of the Settlement Agreement. See id. 2

In August 2002, Lassetter filed a claim with the Trust pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement for *185 so-called Matrix Level II benefits. Her claim included, as required for Level II benefits, the statement of an attesting physician diagnosing her with moderate mitral regurgitation, based on her echocardio-gram. Upon review, the Trust’s auditing cardiologist concluded that there was a reasonable medical basis (the applicable standard under the Settlement Agreement) for the attesting physician’s finding that Lassetter suffered from moderate mi-tral regurgitation. However, the District Court, inundated with fraudulent benefits claims, ordered a second review of claims, including Lassetter’s, to determine whether she intentionally misrepresented details of her echocardiogram test. Following that review, the Trust denied the claim and affirmed its decision in a Final Post Audit Determination.

Lassetter disputed the second audit’s adverse finding, and the Trust applied to the District Court for an Order to Show Cause why Lassetter’s claim should be paid. The District Court issued the Order and referred the case to a Special Master for further proceedings. The parties submitted statements of the case to the Special Master, and the Special Master appointed a Technical Advisor to prepare a report for the District Court’s review. Like the second auditing cardiologist, the Technical Advisor concluded that there existed intentional misrepresentation of the echocardiogram test and further determined that there was no reasonable medical basis for finding that Lassetter had moderate mitral regurgitation. Both the parties’ statements and supporting documentation, as well as the Technical Advis- or’s report, were submitted to the District Court for review in making its decision on the Order to Show Cause. After a thorough review of the record before it, the District Court denied Lassetter’s claim, based on the audit conclusion that there was no reasonable medical basis for the diagnosis submitted with the claim.

II. Discussion 3

On appeal, Lassetter argues that the evidence in the record met the burden of proof establishing a reasonable medical basis for the attesting physician’s conclusion and that the Court erred by deputizing the Technical Advisor with judicial power. 4

With respect to both of Lassetter’s arguments, we conclude that she has failed to show any abuse of discretion in the District Court’s interpretation or factual findings. The Court performed a thorough review of the record before it, including both parties’ statements and the opinions of both auditing cardiologists, the Technical Advisor, and Lassetter’s own attesting physician. The Technical Advisor also acted within the limitations set by the Settlement Agreement; he introduced no evidence and relied only on the submitted materials in forming his opinion. The Court did not delegate its authority to the Technical Advisor in affirming the Trust’s denial of Lassetter’s claim, as evidenced by its detailed memorandum opinion. Ae- *186 eordingly, the Court’s reliance on the Technical Advisor was not an abuse of discretion.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm.