This article will address the emerging litigation(s) involving military service members exposed to PFAS and other Toxic substances on U.S. Military Bases.
To date, at least 600,000 service members at 116 military installations were annually served water with potentially unsafe levels PFAS chemicals, according to an Environmental Working Group (EWG) analysis primarily based on DOD findings.
These numbers are expected to increase as the DOD carries out the congressionally mandated testing and remediation tasks demanded by Congress.
Our September 22nd-24th in person litigation updates at the Riverside Hotel in Fort Lauderdale Florida will provide an in depth, practical coverage on; how to get involved, how to obtain and establish evidence, how to recruit and qualify clients and how to litigate of all the different emerging case (litigation) types related to PFAS and other man-made toxins.
The Camp Lejeune case appears to be the tip of a very large iceberg. Congress has allocated over one billion dollars (thus far) to the DOD and ordered the military to test for and mitigate the presence of PFAS and other toxic chemicals in drinking water and other exposure pathways on military bases.
While none of the many Congressional acts related to military and public exposure to toxic substances proposed or passed over the last few years directly addresses private litigation and attorneys’ fees other than the Camp Lejeune related acts, none of the more recent legislation and proposed legislation has foreclosed on the same.
More simply stated, politicians do not seem to find wisdom in taking any action that would prevent service members from hiring private attorneys nor foreclosing entirely on those attorneys receiving contingency fees (fee limits but not foreclosure).
I share in the belief that Congress is likely to pass legislation like the Camp Lejeune Act(s) that will specifically address the hiring of private attorneys by affected service members as well as provide for attorney’s fees in the various legislation. It would be hard to conceive how any politician having supported the Camp Lejeune Act(s) would do an about face and tell other service members, “sorry your out of luck”. It would also be difficult to explain to service members while their right to counsel and attorney fee compensation should be less than provided for in circumstances addressed in other legislative enactments: Equal Access to Justice Act 28 U.S.C. § 2412 28 U.S.C. 1346(b); (allows 25% attorney fees in addition to judgement or settlement amount). 28 U.S.C. 2677; (allows 25% attorney fees in addition to judgement or settlement amount). 28 U.S.C. 2672 allows 20% attorney fees in addition to judgement or settlement amount).
In fairness, we must address the fact that certain house members have proposed limiting attorney’s fees in the Camp Lejeune case to as little as 1%, others have proposed caps of 12%, 17% etc. none of these more draconian proposals have gained significant popularity among the political peers of bill sponsors.
The political optics of supporting service members access to private counsel but then saying “but counsel can’t charge enough to adequately represent you” doesn’t make political sense.
The Supreme Court has recognized that overly draconian limitations on attorney’s fees in cases brought against the Federal and State Governments would not differ from a complete foreclosure on bringing such cases and given that our governing bodies are not kings nor emperors, such “back door” denial of access to justice is not tolerable. See Walters v. National Assn. of Radiation Survivors, 473 US 305 - Supreme Court 1985 Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar Assn., 389 U. S. 217 (1967), Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U. S. 1 (1964).
While it is likely that certain members of Congress may propose draconian limitation on fees in the probable future cases involving military toxic exposure, I do not believe that the concern over these potential and likely proposed legislations is a reason for firms to forego representing deserving military members. Additionally, while it is probable that fee limitations will exist, I do not believe the limits will be so draconian as to render representing these deserving individuals financially unfeasible.
We will provide an in depth “how to” step by step guide to getting involved, obtaining clients, obtaining and establishing evidence, and litigating cases related to PFAS and other toxic chemicals “in the news” in our September 22nd -24th litigation update.
In addition to cases involving military members, we will also address consumer class actions (deceptive marketing) brought by individuals who purchased contaminated consumer products, homeowners, ranchers, and farmers who have suffered damage to property values, life stock and crops and of course, individuals who have suffered actual physical/medical injury because of exposure to these toxic substances.
https://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/eer/ecc/pfas/docs/reports/PFAS-Task-Force-Qtrly-RTC-FY22-Q3-Q4.pdf
Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022
https://media.defense.gov/2022/Jun/06/2003012511/-1/-1/1/PFAS-PROGRESS-AS-OF-MARCH-31-2022.PDF
https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/2020-military-pfas-sites/map/
This is a standardised guide to give you an idea of what size you will need, however some brands may vary from these conversions.
Ready to Wear Clothing
Size | XXS - XS | XS - S | S - M | M - L | L - XL | XL - XXL |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
UK | 6 | 8 | 10 | 12 | 14 | 16 |
US | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 12 |
Italy (IT) | 38 | 40 | 42 | 44 | 46 | 48 |
France (FR/EU) | 34 | 36 | 38 | 40 | 42 | 44 |
Denmark | 32 | 34 | 36 | 38 | 40 | 42 |
Russia | 40 | 42 | 44 | 46 | 48 | 50 |
Germany | 32 | 34 | 36 | 38 | 40 | 42 |
Japan | 5 | 7 | 9 | 11 | 13 | 15 |
Australia | 6 | 8 | 10 | 12 | 14 | 16 |
Korea | 33 | 44 | 55 | 66 | 77 | 88 |
China | 160/84 | 165/86 | 170/88 | 175/90 | 180/92 | 185/94 |
Jeans | 24-25 | 26-27 | 27-28 | 29-30 | 31-32 | 32-33 |
Color: Gray
1 X $113.88
Comments (3)