The document indicates that the DOL has requested $2 million to implement the new system called the Overseas Contractors Compensation Act (OCCA). This is the first we have heard of this name and it is a piece of legislation that apparently be proposed in the near future.

It is described as a “DOL-administered” program where injured claimant’s would be paid from a collective fund. The thought is obviously to streamline the program and make it cheaper to administer.

Under the current set up, Defense Base Act claimants are entitled to benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. It appears this proposal will pull Defense Base Act claims away from the Longshore Act and into a new set of rules and procedures.

This could be a great thing for claimants. Perhaps the new system will more thoroughly compensate claimant’s for their injuries. However, there are reasons to be concerned. First, the Longshore Act has many claimant friendly elements that could be thrown away in this new legislation. Under the Longshore Act claimants have these advantages:

- an initial legal presumption that their injury entitles them to treatment and compensation that must be rebutted by the defense
- the right to an attorney who is paid by the insurance company if they win benefits
- the right to a trial before an impartial judge who does not work for either side
- the ability to settle then claim with the insurer to “move on” with their lives

The Defense Base Act adds one huge advantage as well:
- Cases covered by the Defense Base Act involve injuries in the “Zone of Special Danger.” This is a legal concept that them simplified says strange things happen in strange places and helps claimants prove “unusual” injuries like PTSD, diseases like Hepititis, and injuries or deaths that would not have happened but for the remoteness of a work location (like the middle of a desert).

If the new laws throw out these advantages then the DOL will be doing thousands of claimant’s a disservice, just to streamline the system and make it cost less. Two examples of streamlined systems where a government agency decides whether you get benefits or not are the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA) and Social Security Disability (SSD). Talk to someone who has filed for SSD benefits and see whether they tell you that system was a fair “streamlined” experience.

We will be keeping our eyes and ears peeled for more on the OCCA as details become public.

          Most states and the American Bar Association have rules which read something like the one here in Georgia: “A lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in a lawyer’s possession in connection with a representation seperate from the lawyer’s own property.  Funds shall be kept in a separate account maintained in an approved institution as defined in Rule 1.15(III)(c)(1).”  Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct.  The account referred to is called an “escrow” or “trust” account.  Its basic purpose is to create a separate depository for funds of a client or funds which contain both client and attorney funds.

          An example of the escrow account’s use would be in a situation where and insurance company issues one check which included a client’s proceeds of a settlement and attorney fees and costs.  In that situation, since the check includes client property in addition to moneys payable to the attorney, it would have to be deposited in a separate account, an escrow account, before distributed.  After the check clears the bank and the funds are verified, the attorney will disburse the funds in separate checks, one to the client and one to himself.  When handled in this manner, it is easily determined where the fund were dispersed.

          Often, a client is confused when they have to wait an additional period of time to receive settlement proceeds.  However, even though this procedure take a few extra days, it protects the client and the attorney and creates a record of each transaction which can be easily audited or checked at a later time. 

          It is fair to say that the case referenced above involved more than simply the deposit of funds into the wrong account.  According to the article, the attorney received a check in excess of $137,000 in 2006, deposited it and, at the time of the article, had not disbursed any funds to the client. 

          Generally, any check representing funds belonging jointly to a client and an attorney will have the client’s name on it.  This requires the client to endorse the check before it is deposited into the escrow account.  It is our firm’s practice to give a copy of the check which the client endorses to the client so that there is no doubt as to the amount of the check and so that the client can have a record of the funds for their file.  At disbursement, any fees, costs or other deduction from the client’s proceeds should be disclosed and the client should be given a accounting of the individual costs being assessed.  There should be a writing in the file acknowledging the distribution of the funds with a copy of this accounting being provided to the client.  When handled in this manner, all transactions are documented and easily verified if a question arises at a later date.

          Before you agree to a settlement, it is necessary to ask several questions so that there will be no unpleasant surprises when the final distribution takes place.  First, ask your attorney if there will be separate checks representing your proceeds and the fees and costs.  If so, will it be necessary to deposit your check into an escrow account.  If that will be necessary, what additional costs/fees come out of your proceeds and how long will it take for the funds to clear.

          If all proceeds are paid in one check, ask your lawyer what the net proceeds will be; that is, what will you receive after all fees, cost, medical and other expenses are paid.  Finally, request a copy of the check deposited, front and back, and ask in what account the check will be deposited.  If the answer is not an escrow of trust account, there may be problems.

          In DBA cases, the checks are generally separate so these problems may not arise.  Also in DBA cases, the client’s check is rarely sent to the attorney and there is no need for an escrow deposit.  However, if the situation arises, there should be documentation for every deduction taken.  If you have questions of your attorney, ask them.  The great majority of lawyers follow the ethical rules and will not risk losing their licence to practice by commingling funds.  Therefore, an attorney will want you to be satisfied that you are aware of the reason for every deduction from your funds so that there will be no questions in the future.

The columnist notes that contractors should not expect a vote of thanks from President Obama, rather

expect to see contractor personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to be portrayed as expendable profiteers, adventure seekers or marginalized members of society who are not entitled to the same respect or value given to members of the military.

I actually blogged about Mr. Schooner’s March 2007 Houston Chronicle article on the same theme last year.

Below is the new column from May 25, 2009 by Steven Schooner:

Remember Them, Too
Don’t Contractors Count When We Calculate the Costs of War?

By Steven Schooner
Monday, May 25, 2009

 Despite the light that Memorial Day will shine, briefly, on the U.S. death tolls in Iraq and Afghanistan, don’t expect an accurate accounting of the real human cost of our military actions abroad. The numbers you’ll see — mostly likely just under 5,000 fatalities — won’t tell the whole story.

As of June 2008 (the most recent reliable numbers available publicly), more than 1,350 civilian contractor personnel had died in Iraq and Afghanistan supporting our efforts. About 29,000 contractors had been injured, more than 8,300 seriously.

But don’t expect President Obama to remember or thank the contractor personnel who died supporting our troops or diplomatic missions. Instead, expect to see contractor personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to be portrayed as expendable profiteers, adventure seekers or marginalized members of society who are not entitled to the same respect or value given to members of the military.

That portrayal, of course, is neither accurate nor fair. Most contractors perform tasks that a generation ago would have been done by uniformed service members. A significant number of these contractors are former members of the military who believe they’re answering the same call they would have answered had the crisis arisen while they were on active duty.

Many of the victims are Iraqis and other foreign nationals working under U.S. government contracts. But whether or not they are U.S. citizens, the central fact remains: If our military was less dependent on contractors, these fatalities probably would have been of uniformed service members.

An honest, accurate tally is important because the public — and, for that matter, Congress — does not grasp the level of the military’s reliance on contractors in the battle area, nor the extent of these contractors’ sacrifices. Simply put, the contemporary, heavily outsourced U.S. military cannot effectively fight or sustain itself without a significant, if not unprecedented, presence of embedded contractors. In Iraq, our contractor-to-troop ratio has exceeded 1 to 1. The State Department admitted last summer that it could not remain in Iraq without heavy reliance on private security.

An accurate tally is critical to any discussion of the costs and benefits of our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. War proponents benefit from the massive contractor presence because it permits them to suggest that our military presence is smaller than what is actually required. And to the extent that the public cares about military fatalities, the human cost of our efforts in Iraq appears much smaller than it would if we didn’t rely so heavily on contractors.

In 2006 and 2007, the contractor death rate climbed dramatically. After much smaller numbers during the first three years of the Iraq war, at least 301 civilian contractors died in 2006. At least 353 civilian contractors died in Iraq in 2007, while 901 U.S. military personnel died there. In other words, in 2007, contractors accounted for more than one in four deaths associated with the U.S. occupation.

If anything, the number of contractor deaths is understated. Last year, for the first time, Congress began to require the Pentagon, the State Department and the Agency for International Development to keep track of how many contractors are working in Iraq and Afghanistan and how many have been killed and wounded. The Defense Department recently conceded that it is trying but is not yet up to the task.

The Labor Department generates but does not publish data quarterly on contractor deaths, but only because insurance claims are filed with its Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation. (American contractors are required to provide Defense Base Act insurance, which falls under that program.) If a contractor’s family or employer does not seek insurance compensation, that death isn’t counted. There’s no doubt that the allied death toll is significantly higher than reported and that contractors bear a far greater burden in this regard than the public appreciates.

In a representative democracy, public awareness of the human cost of our engagements abroad is critical. If we’re going to tally the human cost of our efforts, the public deserves a full accounting.

The writer, a retired Army Reserve judge advocate, is co-director of the Government Procurement Law program at George Washington University. He was a White House procurement policy official from 1996 to 1998. He published an academic article, “Why Contractor Fatalities Matter,” in the Autumn 2008 issue of the Army War College’s quarterly journal, Parameters.

Read Steven Schooner’s entire article in context at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/24/AR2009052401994.html

I first read this news in a New York Times article titled “Ex-Blackwater Workers May Return to Iraq Jobs“  The topic is newsworthy on its own, but this article contained an unusual quote from a Blackwater spokeswoman:

An unresolved question is whether Blackwater, recently renamed Xe (pronounced zee), or any affiliated company will profit from the deal. Speculation inside the industry and the Iraqi government has focused on whether Triple Canopy might hire as a subcontractor a company called the Falcon Group, identified in a lawsuit brought by Ms. Burke as a Blackwater affiliate.

A Blackwater spokeswoman, Anne Tyrell, said that Blackwater had no relationship with Falcon Group, whose Web site describes it as an Iraqi-owned company with interests in security and reconstruction. “The people who provide security services abroad are independent contractors,”Ms. Tyrell said. “When their 60- to 90-day contracts with us expire, they can seek employment with whomever they choose.”

That statement is ironic because Blackwater has defended themselves from wrongful death lawsuits by former employees arguing against their classification as independent contractors.  So publicly, these contractors are independent contractors whom Blackwater has no control over, but in court they are direct employees when it suits them to limit benefit/liabilities. Maybe this spokesperson was uninformed, but these words do mean things, and you can’t have it both ways.

 The reason why I am not asked this question very often, is that most injured contractors only contact an attorney AFTER something has gone wrong with their case, like that their benefits are stopped or reduced or a medical procedure is denied or delayed. One reason why this is unfortunate is that while you have amazing flexibility in choosing an initial physician, those same rules limit your ability to change doctors.

If your first choice of physician refers you to some other specialist, for instance a family doctor who refers you to a orthopedic specialist for a back problem, the insurance company must honor that referral. Also, if your doctor retires, you can choose a new one.

However, outside of those situations, you are pretty much stuck with your first choice. Once a claimant has made his initial, “free choice” of a physicians, he may change physicians only upon obtaining prior written approval of the employer, insurer, or the Department of Labor. It is likely that if you do not like your doctor or what he is telling you, the insurance company probably loves him.

One situation we have run into recently, is where the insurance company actually recommends a doctor to the injured employee. Sometimes this is done by the insurance company’s “Nurse Case Manager.” A Nurse Case Manager often just ends up being a spy for the insurance company. He or she will be assigned to your case and theoretically their job is to facilitate your medical treatment. They may even convince you to allow them to come to your doctor’s visits and speak privately with your doctor.  However, no matter how pleasant a human being they appear to be, they are first and foremost an employee of the insurance company. Their paycheck comes from the same place as your weekly check and your medical expenses. Their interests are not necessarily in line with yours.

In a recent case, the Nurse Case Manager mentioned this “great” doctor they knew whose office was nearby to our client. Little did he know that this doctor is one of the “go-to” doctors one major insurer sends claimants to for ”independent” medical evaluations when they seek to challenge a claimant’s case. To our industry, this conversation is the equivalent of offering to sell you some beachfront property in Nevada.

They managed to fool the unsuspecting injured contractor into picking this doctor as his one free choice of doctors. You can guess how well that has worked out for him.  He had no clue of this doctor’s reputation and had no clue he likely could not change doctors without the insurance company agreeing.  While you have a wealth of options available to you upon your return to the United States or your home country, when you pick your doctor please do some research, talk to friends, or make some calls. Don’t just pick them out of the phone book and double check anyone the insurance company recommends.

Most of the injuries we see coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan are actually of the same nature that we see here in employment in the states – knee injuries like torn knee ligaments or miniscus, shoulder injuries, usually torn rotator cuffs, and back injuries like herniated (slipped), or extruded (ruptured) discs. The human body is fragile and unfortunately there are a select few parts of our bodies that tend to give out under the right/wrong conditions.

Sadly, the dangers of war have introduced new kinds of physical trauma to a system typically reserved for more common problems.  It is important to note that any injured contractor is entitled to:

“such medical, surgical, and other attendance or treatment, nurse and hospital service, medicine, crutches, and apparatus, for such period as the nature of the injury or the process of recovery may require.”  33 U.S.C. Section 907(a)

For those with extreme measures of injuries, this can result in extreme measures of treatment, surgery, and rehabilitation.  

One such example is Ronnie Grigsby of Handen, Idaho. He was thrown from a vehicle in Iraq and suffered a  broken neck and “Traumatic Brain Injury.”  Lucky to be alive, Mr. Grigsby has had a long road back to any form of normalcy. Ronnie has had to re-learn how to walk and talk. He has lost the ability to taste or smell, and sees double without the aid of corrective glasses. 

Recently, the Pentagon has attempt to bring more attention to both minor and major brain injuries in troops and civilian contractors. Most “brain injuries” from Iraq/Afghanistan are only concussions, but some can fundamentally change the way your body operates.

Cases such as Mr. Grigsby’s often require in-home medical attendants, modifications to the injured claimant’s home, prosthetic devices, implanted stimulator units, implanted morphine pumps, or even massage or hot tub therapies.

There is no limit to the costs that the insurer is required to pay. It is not like a health insurance policy with a lifetime limit, or specific coverage limits for certain types of care.  The insurer has the duty:

 ”to furnish appropriate medical care for the employee’s injury, and for such period as the nature of the injury or the process of recovery may require.” 20 C.F.R. 702.402

If your condition warrants it and your doctor requests approval of a device, procedure, or treatment, you deserve that treatment from the workers’ compensation insurer. It is important to note that courts have held that if an employee’s injuries are so severe as to require domestic services, the employer must provide them, even to the extent of reimbursing a family member who performs them.

For now they are seeking input from the insurance industry and from major defense contractors. Eight possibilities for the future of the Defense Base Act have been proposed, but the DoD is open to other alternative recommendations:

1. a single-source contract  awarded on a competitive basis issued and administered by the DoD;
2. a multiple-award contract awarded on a competitive basis issued and administered by DoD;
3. o change (i.e., contractors are required to obtain appropriate DBA insurance on their own)
4.  government self insuring for DBA losses while contracting to the private sector for program administrative and claims processing
5. government self insuring with DoD and Department of Labor (DoL) employees performing all administrative and claims processing
6. a GSA schedules-type set of maximum rates, which may include awards based on geographic location of the work to be performed and/or based on the nature of the work to be performed, with competition for each major contract (a vehicle structured similar to state-side workers compensation policies)
7. a pre-qualified list of DoD-approved DBA carriers and brokers/agents who meet a predetermined set criteria/qualifications to provide DBA insurance from which contractors would be required to obtain appropriate DBA coverage
8. contractors self insuring either on an individual basis or by pooling of contractors, including information on how a panel/pool participant would avoid adverse selection
9. other alternative recommendations not listed above

Will this mean that AIG may now provide coverage on 100% of all Defense Base Claims?

Will only certain “approved” insurers be allows to offer this insurance and by what criteria will they be allowed to do so?

Or will more insurers get involved in Defense Base Act claims?

Or might it mean that the government could take direct charge and responsibility over this program as they do for direct employees of the federal government (like Postal Workers).  Please read this posing on why our federal government taking over Defense Base Act claims and acting as the insurer AND the judge/jury might be a huge mistake.

Below is the AP report:

RIVERVIEW, Mich. (AP) — A U.S. veteran who returned to Iraq as a civilian contractor was shot to death while protecting American diplomats in Iraq, his employer said Sunday.

Justin Pope, 25, died after being shot late Wednesday or early Thursday in Kirkuk, said Douglas Ebner, a spokesman for Falls Church, Va.-based DynCorp International.

Detroit-area television station WJBK reported Saturday that Pope was killed by sniper fire. Ebner denied that, saying Pope died of “an accidental gunshot wound.” He would not elaborate, saying the incident was under investigation by DynCorp and the U.S. State Department.

“We’re very sorry that this happened,” Ebner said. “The family has our condolences.”

Pope’s mother, Patricia Salser, said her son joined the Marines after graduating from Riverview High School in 2002. He served two military tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan before returning to Iraq as a DynCorp employee, WJBK reported.

Pope’s survivors include his wife and a 7-year-old son.

The AP has reported 1,264 civilian employees of U.S. government contractors died through Sept. 30, 2008, the latest figures available. The vast majority of civilian contractors in Iraq are employed by the Pentagon.

DynCorp is one of three U.S.-based security contractors that work for the State Department in Iraq.

View the article in context at -

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jTjt0gymZ7ftNlVrcz9zAXLjf2gQD96Q4TDO2

Six years later, and after law suits have been filed against KBR for their alleged failure to test for the substance at a contaminated oil facility, the Army has finally notified Guardsman Roberta’s fellow soldiers that they too may have been exposed to the same toxic chemicals.

We don’t yet know what will come of Larry Roberta and his fellow soldiers. How many other soldiers, contractors, or Iraqi civilians will develop similar lung disorders?

Unfortunately, this is not the only reported case of respitory disfunction to come out of Iraq or Afghanistan. On top of the fact that the dusty/sandy environment contributes to lung problems amongst asthmatics or those with COPD, there are fears that practices such as having large “Burn pits” at or close to camps may contribute to some disorders.

It is important to note that even the exacerbation of pre-existing respitory conditions in contractors is compensible under the Defense Base Act. This means that if you develop an unusual condition on the job or soon after, even if you have a history of problems, you may be entitled to medical treatment and even weekly cash benefits depending on the extent of your condition.

As I stated in my previous post on the burn pits, if you have returned home and are suffering from medical problems and you fear your problems could be caused by chemical exposure, we encourage you to seek medical attention. Also be aware that you only have two years to file a claim with the Department of Labor. That two year clock is likely to begin no later than at the point where you have been given medical advice connecting your disease to your employment. If you suspect you may have an Iraq related condition, first get to a doctor, then talk to a lawyer.

Below is the story from the Oregonian’s Julie Sullivan:

The soldiers worried about Saddam Hussein loyalists, not the dust.

Dust coated the Oregon Army National Guardsmen’s combat boots and caked their skin as they protected Halliburton KBR contractors restoring oil flow in Iraq in 2003. Dust poofed from the soldiers’ uniforms as they crowded into vans at the end of the day and shared tents at night.

When the dust blew onto Spc. Larry Roberta’s ready-to-eat meal, he rinsed the chicken patty with his canteen water and ate it.

 Six months later, doctors discovered the flap into Roberta’s stomach had disintegrated. Six years later, the Marine and former police officer can no longer walk to the mailbox or work.

Another Oregon soldier, Sgt. Nicholas Thomas, died of complications of leukemia at age 21. Three others have reported lung problems to headquarters. Five more told The Oregonian they suffer chronic coughs, rashes and immune system disorders.

The same Oregon Guard soldiers who went into Iraq without adequate body armor or up-armored Humvees face another dubious first: exposure to hexavalent chromium, which greatly increases their risk of cancer and other diseases. It was in the orange and yellow dust spread over half the Qarmat Ali water treatment plant by fleeing Saddam supporters.

Scientists call the carcinogen a Trojan horse because the damage may not be immediately obvious. Over time, people can develop different cancers, breathing problems, stomach ulcers or damage to the digestive tract.

“This is our Agent Orange,” says Scott Ashby, who served in the Oregon Guard.

Ninety-three Oregon soldiers may still not know that they have been exposed to hexavalent chromium. The Oregon Guard sent registered letters notifying them Friday, six years after their deployment.

Officials say they didn’t learn of the problem themselves until November, when the Army, spurred by lawsuits in Indiana and Texas and a subsequent Senate investigation, alerted the Oregon Guard. The suits claim KBR ignored both a United Nations report and its own employees’ warnings about the danger.

The Oregon Guard has sent 286 letters to soldiers of the 1st Battalion, 162nd Infantry Division, about possible exposure. Fewer than 20 have responded to the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Guard.

The 1-162 was broken up in an Army reorganization in 2006. Andfewer than half of the soldiers who were deployed are still in the Guard. Forty letters have been returned unopened. The Portland VA’s chief environmental-agent doctor has seen only four soldiers.

Larry and Michelle Roberta of Aumsville received the Guard’s letter Feb. 26 notifying them of his possible exposure. They set the letter aside. Roberta has known since July 2003 when an Army medic recorded exposure to hexavalent chromium at the water plant.

“We knew he was exposed since the very beginning,” says Michelle Roberta, 38. “I sent a very healthy man over there. He did not come back.”

The 1-162 arrived at its base of operations in Kuwait on April 18, 2003, and within weeks, the soldiers from Gresham and McMinnville were assigned to escort and protect KBR contractors on a mission called “Restore Iraqi Oil.” Soldiers also came from combined units from Hillsboro and St. Helens.

Houston-based Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, then a subsidiary of Halliburton, won the contract to get the oil flowing in Iraq. Repairing the water treatment plant, which maintained pressure in nearby oil wells, was a top priority.

Soldiers, officers and the undersecretary of the Army’s manager for the project say that Oregon platoons rotated from Kuwait into Iraq in three to four day intervals from April 2003 until June 2003. Oregon soldiers met KBR workers at a rest stop on the main highway into Iraq, then accompanied them in the contractors’ SUVs to pipelines, oil fields or the water treatment plant.

Just weeks after the Indiana Guard replaced the Oregonians, a new KBR safety officer arrived at the water treatment plant at Qarmat Ali. Ed Blacke was shocked by the widespread orange and yellow dust piled feet deep in places. The powder, he learned, was a corrosion fighter that contained hexavalent chromium. Soon he had sinus, throat and breathing problems, and found that 60 percent of the soldiers and staff at Qarmat Ali had identical symptoms. KBR managers told him it was “a nonissue.”

Blacke described the sequence of events to a Senate committee in June 2008.

According to a subsequent Senate query, KBR did not test the site until August 2003 or notify the Army until September 2003. The Indiana Guard learned of the contamination when KBR managers showed up in protective suits. KBR closed the plant shortly after.

In October 2003, the Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine evaluated 137 soldiers and others at the site. They reported abnormalities including eye, nose and lung irritation that “could also be due to dehydration, diet supplements, previous conditions or heavy workouts.” The Army also concluded that the low levels of exposure that were found meant soldiers were not expected to suffer long-term health consequences.

Finally, the Army concluded, KBR had fulfilled its contract. It paved over the contamination, then completed the water-treatment center repairs in 2006. The oil was flowing.

In March 2008, nine KBR employees, including whistle-blower Blacke, sued KBR for damages. Under federal law, the case went to arbitration last week. In December, 16 Indiana Guardsmen filed their own lawsuit, contending KBR “disregarded and downplayed the extreme danger.” The Indiana commander is dying of a rare lung cancer that the VA has ruled is related to being at the water treatment plant.

KBR has denied any assertion that it harmed employees or soldiers.

Sens. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Evan Bayh, D-Ind., have challenged the Army’s handling of the issue, even after an independent panel backed the Army. The senators also want to know why some Guard members — including some from Oregon — still haven’t been notified.

Col. William Farthing, the Army’s project manager, says officials are trying. “We still have soldiers exposed to a carcinogen, and if they develop any health issues related to that we want to make sure they get help.” He urges the Oregon Guard to adopt Indiana’s model in coordinating with the VA.

But the Oregon Guard is busy. The medical command is readying half the state’s soldiers — about 3,000 — to return to Iraq this summer. And they are still determining who served at the water treatment plant. Because in the chaos of the early days of the war in 2003, no one kept an archive of names of who served where, or day-by-day events.

Brig. Gen. Mike Caldwell says the first Oregon Guardsmen sent into combat in 50 years paid a price.

“This was the low point of the Army’s care of reservists, no doubt about it,” says Caldwell, commander of the Oregon State Defense Forces.

“The strategy was driven by former Secretary of Defense (Donald) Rumsfeld and (Deputy Defense Secretary) Paul Wolfowitz, and the responsibility goes right back to them. They thought we were going into Panama and we’d all be home in a week.”

When Larry Roberta finally did come home, Michelle barely recognized him.

For Larry Roberta, the military had always been a way out. As a foster child, he joined the National Guard for rent money. He served three years in the Marine Corps, then went to work as a security officer and then a police officer. Detective and forensic classes persuaded him to pursue computer forensics. He rejoined the Guard in 2001 so he could afford college. And he kept working as a technician at Xerox in Wilsonville.

At 38, he scored at the top of every physical category in the Guard’s exam. His only medications: ibuprofen and Tums. He left for Iraq tan, fit and in his prime.

Within weeks of arriving and patrolling the water treatment plant, Roberta had severe chest pains, sore throats, coughing attacks and wheezing, according to his medical records. Although KBR and the Army did not move to close the plant or alert the soldiers and civilians until weeks later, as early as July 18, 2003, an Army medic wrote in Larry Roberta’s chart: “Possible irritation of lung from reflux/inhalation air toxicity (sodium dichromate at Qarmat Ali WTP.)”

Roberta’s commanders also were concerned, hounding him to get medical care. When the Army began investigating exposure two months later, his first sergeant thrust him at doctors: “This is the soldier you have to see.”

In December 2003, Roberta was evacuated to Madigan Army Hospital to repair the disintegrated stomach opening. They also diagnosed reactive airway disorder, upper chest pain and nasal polyps, noting his exposure to hexavalent chromium.

Then he came home. Michelle Roberta noticed other changes. He erupted at local boys on bicycles. The former policeman who despised domestic violence, grabbed her by the throat. She hit him with a Dirt Devil and went to the phone book for a therapist. After he climbed over the cubicle at work angry at a colleague, he called his wife: “I need help.”

With the help of an Oregon Department of Veterans Affairs counselor, he was rated 100 percent disabled by lung disorders, tinnitus and post-traumatic stress disorder. He needs two inhalers to breathe and swallows eight kinds of pills a day for upper chest pain, migraines, high blood pressure, mood swings and a mystifying low level of testosterone.

“The worst part was, I couldn’t figure out what was going on,” he says. At one point, he plotted to kill himself — “right down to the noose.”

Michelle Roberta intervened. “I have ESP about these things.”

With their son Larry, 20, living at home, Michelle, a dialysis technician, has held the family together, working full time and meeting with the landlord and creditors to cover bills. She uses their pugs Jimi andFrank, who respond when a mood is coming.

And she introduced her husband to Donna Burleigh of S&D Exotic Bird Rescue in Keizer. Larry Roberta began working with abandoned birds and the couple have since moved 23 cockatoos, macaws and others into their home in a dizzying array of squawks and color.

Larry Roberta has begun visiting schools with his birds. He is trying, he says, to find purpose in his new life. Many of the birds are so traumatized they have plucked their own feathers and are unadoptable. They perch, beneath gorgeous heads, like whole chickens ready for the pot.

“They’re misfits,” he says, “like I am.”

– Julie Sullivan; juliesullivan@news.oregonian.com

See the entire story in context at

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/03/oregon_veteran_disabled_by_ira.html

For more on the burn pits themselves and the action or inaction by Congress and the military concerning them, please visit the burn pit tag page by Ms. Sparky, who has been on top of this situation for some time.

At least as of the end of 2006, the Air Force believed the Anaconda/Balad burn pit posed serious health hazards, per the below linked memorandum:

air-force-memo

If a contractor were to be injured or killed by exposure to whatever may be contained in the smoke from the burn pits, or by another condition from the camp sites, their injuries may be covered under the Defense Base Act. The Defense Base Act does provide coverage for “occupational diseases” in the same way it provides coverage for knee or back injuries, however, it can be much more difficult to prove where cancer or leukemia came from as opposed to a torn knee ligament. Successfully pursuing a claim for benefits for an exposure based injury certainly requires your physician(s) to connect your medical problems to the chemicals or conditions you were exposed to.

The types diseases/exposures successfully claimed under the Act already vary widely from lung problems from Asbestos exposure, worsened Asthma, skin problems, certain cancers, lead poisening, leukemia from radiation exposure, Gulf War Syndrome, and even to aggravated hemorrhoids.  

If you have returned home and are suffering from medical problems you fear could be caused by chemical exposure, we encourage you to seek medical attention. Also be aware that you only have two years to file a claim with the Department of Labor. That two year clock is likely to begin no later than at the point where you have been given medical advice connecting your disease to your employment.