Yearly Archives: 2022

One of several motions heard by Judge Papak last month in Oregon Federal Court involved yet another attempt to lash out at the attorneys who proudly represent the veterans of Qarmat Ali. A jury awarded a bellwether group of twelve of the 162 veterans a total $85.2 million in November for KBR’s misconduct in exposing the veterans to sodium dichromate. With an award of nearly $7.1 million for each veteran, KBR’s own potential financial exposure to the remaining Veterans exceeds $1 billion if the remaining verdicts remain consistent with the bellwether trial verdict. Click here to read a synopsis of that trial and verdict.

Having lost the trial in front of an Oregon jury, KBR and its counsel have continued to try and shift blame for misconduct everywhere but towards their own actions. The topic at the center of the latest legal wrangling brought on by KBR’s attorneys concerns the limited ‘gag order’, generally restricting the parties’ rights to comment to the verdict. The order was effective throughout the trial, partially lifted after the verdict, and then fully lifted on December 19, 2012.

KBR complained about a post-trial email communication featuring plaintiffs’ attorney Mike Doyle. The email contained an embedded video narrated by Doyle and referenced the jury verdict. KBR argued the video violated the limited ‘gag order’.

Judge Papak rejected KBR’s latest attacks, confirming that the “statements were clearly not in violation of the previously imposed restrictive order”, and the communication “disclosed no information material to the parties’ dispute not already in the public record.”

We are pleased with the decision regarding yet another side-show motion by a company unwilling to take responsibility for their misconduct and the life changing impacts to the Qarmat Ali Veterans.

Salon.com published a story addressing the dangerous work conditions millions of Americans endure every day. The article states the government documents 4,500 workplace deaths every year at a cost of $250 billion. Texas hosts “the nation’s highest number of workplace fatalities”.

West, Texas being the location of a catastrophic explosion is not happenstance. Texas promotes “antipathy toward regulations” and does not require workers compensation insurance be carried by businesses operating within the state. According to the New York Times, Texas has “more than three times the number of accidents, four times the number of injuries and deaths, and 300 times the property damage costs” as Illinois. The fertilizer plant where the blast originated had not been inspected by OSHA since 1985.

The author of the article, David Sirota, attributes this lack of concern at the number of workers who die every year and the lack of reaction to “a deregulated economy whose laws are written by corporate interests”. He cites those corporate interests as the roadblock for safety regulation and enforcement who uses politicians and their campaigns to ensure they don’t spend additional dollars on making workplaces safer.

NPR released an article recently addressing the large number of worker accidents in Texas and the demographics of the employees. Many are undocumented immigrants and exploited by companies seeking cheap, tax-free labor. This contributes to a corporate environment expecting optimized profits while maintaining low labor costs and the bare minimum safety regulations.

Doyle has represented clients and their families over the years that have been paralyzed, maimed, and killed as a result of poor workplace conditions. We stand behind them in their fight against corporate entities whose greed converts a workplace death to a cost of doing business.

Doyle Dennis Avery LLP is pleased to announce new resources for military members and their families to provide information about burn pit exposure. From 2003 to 2013, thousands of military members were exposed to toxic materials burned on military bases with serious health consequences.

What’s the Background on Burn Pit Litigation?

Government contractors including Halliburton and KBR were given government contracts to dispose of waste on military bases in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The contractors improperly burned material in large open-air burn pits operated close to living and working areas. The result: Soldiers and deployed military members were exposed to harmful fumes and carcinogenic particles.

Doyle Dennis Avery LLP is a leading burn pit law firm, representing military personnel who were negligently exposed to toxic substances. More than 100 cases have been filed throughout the United States against military contractors. In one case, a jury ruled in favor of 12 soldiers (represented by Doyle) against military contractor KBR in an $81 million judgment.

Every case is different and those who may have been exposed need to understand the risks; the signs and symptoms of illnesses; and their options if they fall ill. Doyle Dennis Avery LLP has prepared interactive resources for military members and their families. The interactive information at Burn Pit Facts explains:

• Where burn pits were located: There were 251 burn pits in Iraq and 22 in Afghanistan as of 2010. The largest was at Joint Base Balad.
• Who was exposed: There were 25,000 personnel on some of the bases where burn pits were located.
• What was burned: More than 100 tons of potentially hazardous materials were burned daily at some of the bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. The materials being burned included heavy metals, medical waste, biohazard materials, banned chemicals, plastic water bottles, asbestos, tires, PVC pipes, pesticides and batteries.
• The health consequences of burn pits: Health effects include respiratory disorders, neurological disorders, cardiopulmonary disorders, skin problems, autoimmune conditions, and cancers. The fallout has been compared with Agent Orange.
• What your options are: Burn pit lawsuits were first filed in 2007. Today, there are a number of cases on file and a multi-district litigation established to manage the litigation.

Doyle is here to help victims who may have been exposed and family members of those affected. In addition to the facts page, you can also find more information, resources, and assistance by visiting our pages on:

• Burn Pit FAQ
• Burn Pit Resources
• Legal Help for Burn Pit Victims

Our attorneys offer free consultations on burn pit claims. Call today to schedule a consultation.

Le Monde Diplomatique recently released an article discussing the immense freedom private intelligence companies enjoy in maintaining extensive government contracts irrespective of the  activities in which they engage. The article provides that the need for accountability is at an all-time high and begins by discussing the conduct of Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR).

The first situation involves a 24 year-old Pennsylvania native. In 2008, this Green Beret, along with eighteen others, was killed after being electrocuted while showering on military bases in Iraq. These fully preventable deaths were due the improper wiring performed by KBR’s chosen subcontractor.

Four years after these electrocutions, KBR was found guilty of knowingly exposing twelve soldiers to sodium dichromate, scientifically accepted as one of the most potent cancer causing agents on earth, and an Oregon jury awarded the men, all represented by Doyle Dennis Avery LLP , over $80 million in damages as a result of KBR’s misconduct. Two of the twelve Oregon National Guards have died as a result of the toxic exposure.   Last year, KBR was accused on human trafficking twelve men from Nepali, eleven of them were later beheaded. The one survivor is among the plaintiffs in a case currently filed in district court inTexas.

The article reveals that through it all, KBR has profited substantially from the governments “war on terror” in Iraq, to the tune of $39.5 billion over the last decade. The article interviewed Attorney Mike Doyle of Doyle Dennis Avery LLP , lead attorney in the sodium dichromate case against KBR. Mr. Doyle explained that the generous limited liability stipulations make it easy for military contractors to profit while potentially shifting the majority of the responsibility for unlawful behavior back to the government

KBR is one of three private military contractors tried for similar civil and criminal offenses, each of which has had limited to no impact on their contractual relationships with the government.  In one example, CACI has been accused of misconduct in connection with Abu Ghraib, yet  the company was awarded 5 new or renewed government contracts just this year.  Additionally, PAE, Civilian Peace International, and Dyncorp are amongst the top companies to receive reconstruction money in Afghanistan and have all been accused of civil and criminal violations.

According to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), the legal authority that decides when a company is prevented from receiving government contracts, the government  still has the discretion to hire a contractor engaged in questionable conduct – as long as their benefit in service outweighs their behavior.

The article also points to language evidencing dependency on the contract between CACI and the U.S. Navy, in which the Navy states, “CACI Technologies is the only known company which currently possesses the knowledge and expertise to meet the Navy’s technical and schedule requirements to support.”

But is “knowledge and expertise” the only reason? Experts believe companies maintain these levels of significance by remaining close to our nation’s lawmakers and the Pentagon. Campaign contributions have also dramatically increased – around the year 2000, CACI and KBR contributed about $5,000, now those amounts have swelled to $210,000. The lobbying organizations for these military intelligence companies are now composed primarily of former members of the Department of Defense, the House of Representatives, the Navy, and the U.S. Coast Guard, which is another reason why changing the current situation may prove very difficult.

Despite the fact that it is legal for the government to overlook unlawful behavior in awarding contracts, some experts argue that it’s a problematic on a deeper level. We have laws and regulations in our government that prohibit business with foreign governments that are engaged in human rights violations, so why are we allowed to do so with these companies?

The article closes by concluding that both republicans and democrats have the agenda of protecting our nation against the threat of terrorism, but at what costs? Every corporation, especially those engaged in actions that negligently harm our nation’s our servicemen should be held liable and and have repercussions for their unlawful actions.