ILNews

Oregon verdict may have impact on Indiana Guardsmen’s KBR suits

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal jury verdict last week awarded 12 Oregon soldiers $85 million for illnesses linked to a military contractor that knowingly exposed them to toxic chromium dust in Iraq. The result could have implications for 60 similarly situated Indiana National Guard members who are awaiting their day in court.

The verdict returned in U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon found military contractor Kellogg, Brown & Root acted with “reckless and outrageous indifference to a highly unreasonable risk of harm and conscious indifference to the health, safety, and welfare” of U.S. soldiers. The troops were stationed at a water treatment plant at Qarmat Ali, Iraq in 2003, according to a statement from Cohen & Malad LLC, one of three firms representing the Oregon soldiers in Rocky Bixby, et al., v. KBR, Inc., et al, 3:09-CV-632-PK.

The Indiana Guardsmen of the 1-152 Infantry Battalion are among about 150 other soldiers who have sued claiming they were sickened by the carcinogen sodium dichromate, an orange powder the troops noticed while guarding the water facility that KBR was hired to rehabilitate. According to the statement from Cohen & Malad, the suits allege that KBR said the powder was a mild irritant after guardsmen complained of symptoms such as severe nosebleeds, difficulty breathing and debilitating headaches.

Soldiers have since suffered worsening health problems including cancer, and two have died, the statement said.

The Indiana Guardsmen’s complaint is included in McManaway, et al., vs. KBR, Inc., et al., 4:10-CV-01044, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  2. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  3. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  4. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  5. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

ADVERTISEMENT