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. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  2. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  3. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  4. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT