ILNews

Soldiers sue contractor for toxic exposure in Iraq

Jennifer Nelson
December 4, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Sixteen members of Indiana National Guard have filed a lawsuit against a Texas-based contractor working in Iraq for exposing the soldiers to a toxic chemical known to increase the risk of developing cancer.

The plaintiffs, who were primarily deployed through a military company based in Tell City, Ind., filed Dec. 3 the federal lawsuit, Mark McManaway, et al. v. KBR, Inc., et al., No. 3:08-cv-0186, in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis. The guardsmen worked at the Qarmat Ali water plant in southern Iraq for a six-month period in 2003 assisting KBR in restoring the water plant so it could resume pumping water into oil wells for a more consistent oil flow. The suit claims KBR downplayed and ignored the danger of the site contamination by sodium dichromate, a toxic chemical used at the water plant as an anti-corrosive that contains nearly pure hexavalent chromium.

Exposure to hexavalent chromium can increase a person's chance to develop various types of cancer and other illnesses. Several of the guardsmen have already become ill as a result of the exposure in 2003, including nasal cancers and rashes, said attorney David Cutshaw, partner at Cohen & Malad, who is representing the soldiers along with Doyle Raizner of Houston.

The soldiers claim they were repeatedly told by the company there was no danger on the site while they worked there, and that their bloody noses and skin lesions were a result of the dry desert air. It was later revealed the company knew of the danger as early as April 2003; the contaminated site was shut down in September 2003.

It wasn't until a congressional hearing in June 2008 did the government and U.S. Army learn how much KBR actually knew about the danger of exposure at the water plant and their ongoing cover-up of soldiers' exposure to the chemical.

In July, commander of the Indiana National Guard started locating and notifying the soldiers who worked at the water plant of their possible exposure to the chemical, Cutshaw said.

"The one thing that really got to me about this is (the soldiers) could have been receiving treatment for the last five years, but KBR has been hiding it," he said.

The suit alleges negligence and gross negligence on the part of KBR for failing to inform and protect the guardsmen from exposure to the hexavalent chromium. As a result of KBR's acts and omissions, the guardsmen are seeking compensation for their personal injuries and damages they currently have and will likely have in the future. The suit claims as a result of their exposure, the guardsmen have been exposed to a greater risk of severe injury or death and will need ongoing health care.

The applicable statute of limitations shouldn't apply in this case because KBR just a few months ago was still providing information to the U.S. Army that denied any knowledge of the site contamination until July 2003, the suit alleges.

Cutshaw said there are a reported 141 soldiers from the Indiana National Guard assigned to patrol the Qarmat Ali water plant, as well as soldiers from Scotland and Great Britain. He said he hadn't heard of any other suits dealing with this issue but thinks once more people learn about this suit, they could file their own or join this suit.

According to Cutshaw, KBR is currently involved in arbitration with KBR civilian employees who worked on the site regarding this issue and that arbitration is set to begin next week.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT