Camp Lejeune Lawsuit In Alabama

Fob James Law Firm represents people all over the country who have Camp Lejeune water contamination claims. If you or a loved one were exposed to toxic water, the Camp Lejeune Lawyers at Fob James Law Firm want to help you.

The water at Camp Lejeune from 1953 until 1987 contained toxic chemicals. Folks who lived or worked at Camp Lejeune were exposed to harmful chemicals.

The toxic water caused serious diseases such as cancer, parkinson’s, non hodgkin lymphoma, and many others.

Our biggest concern is making sure you get the justice and the compensation that you deserve. Please don’t hesitate to reach out to us. 

Contact a Camp Lejeune lawyer in Birmingham, Alabama today for a free case evaluation.

The deadline to file a Camp Lejeune claim was August 10, 2024. As a result, we cannot help with your case unless your claim was properly filed before the deadline.

Camp Lejuene Water Contamination FAQ

Who Qualifies for a Camp Lejeune Water Contamination Settlement?

Contamination of water at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in North Carolina and military installations near Camp Lejeune [e.g. Marine Corps Air Station New River (MCAS NR)] occurred over a span of 35 years, exposing an estimated one million people to chemicals linked with diseases like Parkinson’s disease, kidney disease, fertility problems, and several types of cancer.

Between 1953 and 1987, water treated and distributed by the Tarawa Terrace and Hadnot Point systems on Camp Lejeune Marine Base contained unsafe levels of toxic chemicals like trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethylene (also known as perchloroethylene, or PCE), vinyl chloride, and benzene.

Veterans, family members and others who lived or worked at Camp Lejeune or Marine Corps Air Station New River (MCAS NR) may be entitled to compensation if you were:

• at Camp Lejeune between August 1, 1953 and December 31, 1987 for at least 30 days; and
• diagnosed with qualifying injuries

What Are the Presumptive Conditions for Camp Lejeune Claims?

In the disability context, a presumptive condition is a disease the Department of Veteran Affairs believes was likely caused by certain exposure during the veteran’s active duty service.

A presumptive condition is typically supported by scientific evidence and peer reviewed medical studies that relate the disease to a specific exposure during military service.

The VA’s Presumptive Conditions

For Camp Lejeune water contamination claims, the VA has conceded that the following diseases are presumed to have been caused by 30 days or more of exposure to the toxic water at Camp Lejeune between August 1, 1953, to December 31, 1987:

• Adult leukemia
• Liver cancer
• Bladder cancer
• Aplastic anemia
• Kidney cancer
• Parkinson’s disease
• Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
• Multiple myeloma

This list is not exhaustive as it is in context of a veteran’s disability claim related to toxic water exposure.

However, the list also applies to a victim pursuing a claim under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act. A claimant with one of the diseases above will have a very strong case because the government has already conceded that a causal relationship exists between the disease and exposure to the toxic water.

Presumptive Conditions Under The Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012

Many non-veterans were exposed to the toxic water, including family members that lived on base. For this reason, the government passed the Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012.

This law requires the Department of Veteran Affairs to provide health care to Veterans who served on active duty at Camp Lejeune and to reimburse eligible Camp Lejeune family members for health care costs related to the following 15 specified illnesses or medical conditions:

• Bladder cancer
• Breast cancer
• Esophageal cancer
• Female infertility
• Hepatic steatosis
• Kidney cancer
• Leukemia
• Lung cancer
• Miscarriage (while at Camp Lejeune)
• Multiple myeloma
• Myelodysplastic syndromes
• Neurobehavioral effects
• Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
• Renal toxicity
• Scleroderma

The Camp Lejeune Families Act not only includes five of the VA’s eight presumptive diseases, but also ten additional illnesses such as cancers of the breast, esophagus and lungs.

Accordingly, claimants with illnesses covered under the Camp Lejeune Families Act may also have strong claims and arguably have “presumptive conditions”.

Other Conditions Linked to Contaminants in the Water at Camp Lejeune

In addition to the presumptive conditions under the VA and Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012, many other conditions could be caused by the toxic water at Camp Lejeune.

In fact, the JAG’s claim form lists conditions beyond those that the VA deems presumptive. Most notably, the claim form includes boxes for “other kidney diseases”, “cardiac defect”, and “Other (Please explain)”.

The medical evidence connecting the toxic water to various diseases continues to evolve, especially with respect to neurological conditions. Below are conditions that, according to various studies and medical research, may be caused by the toxic water:

• ALS (LOU GERHIG’S DISEASE)
• BIRTH DEFECTS AND INJURIES
• BRAIN DAMAGE
• BRAIN CANCER
• FATTY LIVER DISEASE
• HEPATIC STEATOSIS
• NEUROBEHAVIORAL EFFECTS
• UTERINE CANCER
• PARKINSONIAN SYNDROME
• RENAL TOXICITY
• OTHER CANCERS
• OTHER NEUROLOGICAL DISEASES

If you have not been diagnosed with a “presumptive condition”, do not assume that you do not have a case. Contact Fob James Law Firm for a free consultation and case review with an experienced Camp Lejeune lawsuit lawyer.

What Is the Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2022?

On June 16, 2022, the United States Senate voted in favor of the Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2022. This legislation opened the door for new claims on behalf of Veterans and military families injured by exposure to contaminated water at the military base. The President signed the CLJA into law on August 10, 2022.

The significance of this law is that it enlarges the time period for victims to file claims. Most toxic tort claims are barred two years after the date of discovery or after a requisite period has passed, regardless of the date of discovery. This time period is the statute of limitations and the statute of repose.

Prior to the CLJA, victims claims were barred by the statute of limitations or the statute of repose in virtually every state, including North Carolina, because the exposure occurred so long ago (1953-1987).

Thanks to the CLJA, victims of water contamination at Camp Lejeune can now file claims against the federal government.

What Can I Recover From a Camp Lejeune Water Contamination Lawsuit?

Every case is unique, but people who file claims can potentially recover money for some of the following damages:

• Past and future medical bills (including medication, hospital stays, and in-home care)
• Pain and suffering including mental anguish
• Psychological damage
• Lost wages
• Loss of earning capacity
• The loss of enjoyment of life
• Broadly speaking, a plaintiff could be entitled to compensation for any past and future costs associated with their injury

Talk to your Camp Lejeune attorney about the damages in your particular situation.

How Long Do I Have to File a Camp Lejeune Lawsuit?

The Camp Lejeune Justice Act establishes a two-year time-frame from the date of the law’s enactment during which veterans, their families, and others exposed to contaminated drinking water on the military base can commence legal action. 

The CLJA went into effect on August 10, 2022. The deadline to file a claim with the JAG was August 10, 2024. If the JAG denies a victim’s written demand, the victim has only 180 days from the receipt of the denial to file a lawsuit.

Do not delay. Contact Fob James Law Firm toll-free at 833-684-0503 for a free case analysis. Our Alabama Camp Lejeune Water Contamination attorneys are ready to help you.

How Do I File a Camp Lejeune Water Claim Under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act?

According to the CLJA, victims must first comply with 28 U.S. Code § 2675 before filing a lawsuit. This means that victims must submit a written claim to the Office of the JAG. The JAG will have six months to either pay the claim or deny the claim.

If the JAG does not respond to the written demand within 6 months, then the claim is constructively denied.

After a formal written denial, the claimant has 180 days to file a lawsuit in the federal court of North Carolina.

What Do Camp Lejeune Victims In Alabama Have To Prove?

Victims of the Camp Lejeune Water Contamination have to prove the following:

1. Proof that you served or lived at Camp Lejeune for at least 30 days between August 1, 1953 and December 31, 1987;
2. A current diagnosed condition; and,
3. Evidence sufficient to conclude that a causal relationship exists between the diagnosis and toxic water exposure (or that a causal relationship is as least likely as not).  

No case is the same. Talk to your lawyer about proving causation in your situtuation.

Will A Camp Lejeune Lawsuit Affect My Disability From The VA?

No, your claim under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA) is a completely separate claim. The CLJA entitles you to different damages like pain and suffering.

It is possible that some health care benefits paid for by the government (e.g. VA, Medicare) in the past in connection with the injury caused by the toxic water may offset part of your CLJA recovery.

However, according to the VA, your disability benefits will not be affected by any CLJA award:

What Is The Cost To Hire An Alabama Camp Lejeune Lawyer?

Fob James Law Firm operates on the contingency-fee-basis. This means we are paid a percentage of the recovery.

Our fees come out of a favorable settlement or jury award, not out of your pocket. Importantly, if we do not obtain a recovery then you owe us nothing.

Fob James Law Firm charges every Camp Lejeune toxic water client a 20% or 25% contingency fee.

Specifically, if your Camp Lejeune claim is resolved before litigation, the attorney’s fee is 20% of the settlement. If your claim is resolved after filing a lawsuit, the attorney’s fee is 25% of the total recovery.

For an in depth analysis explaining why lawyer fees in Camp Lejeune lawsuits should be capped at 20-25%, please read our article, What Are The Attorney Fees For The Camp Lejeune Lawsuit.

What Is The Average Payout For The Camp Lejeune Lawsuit?

We believe claims will be grouped into different tiers based on the injury. For example bladder cancer cases could be one tier and parkinsons’ disease cases could be another tier.

The government will likely implement a point system based on a myriad of factors (e.g. the number of years spent at Camp Lejeune). Claims with higher points will likely be offered more money.

This is basically what the government has implemented with its “Elective Option” (EO). The EO provides settlement offers to a limited number of cases that meet very strict criteria.

Under the Elective Option, settlement amounts are based on the qualifying injury and the number of years spent at Camp Lejeune. Read our article on the Elective Option for a breakdown.

Settlement amounts will likely range from $25,000 to over $1 million dollars depending on the injury. To discuss the potential value of your case with a Camp Lejeune attorney, please contact us at 866-837-1010.

When Will The Camp Lejeune Lawsuit Be Settled?

The filed Camp Lejeune lawsuits have been consolidated for the purpose of efficiency. The litigation is underway for tracks 1, 2, and 3.

The Federal Judges presiding over the litigation will schedule “bellwether” trials (test trials), likely in 2025. These trials will hopefully apply pressure on the government to start reviewing and settling cases.

For cases that meet the criteria under the Elective Option, the government will make offers on its own time. The government first determines that a case qualifies under the EO before making an offer. Only a small percetange of cases actually qualify under the government’s narrow criteria.

This is completely speculative but for most cases we believe the time frame for settlement could be 2 years.

The Risk of Cancer and Parkinson’s Is Real

In 2014, Frank J. Bove with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and several colleagues published a mortality study (the “Bove Study”) of civilian employees at Camp Lejeune exposed to water contaminated with solvents. The study concluded that elevated toxins in the water system at Camp Lejeune increased the risk of cancers of the kidney, liver, esophagus, cervix, multiple myeloma, Hodgkin lymphoma and ALS.

Furthermore, the federal government’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) conducted an extensive mortality study of military personnel at Camp Lejeune compared to personnel at Camp Pendleton. Over the same time period, the Camp Lejeune group had higher mortality rates for the following causes of death:

• Cancers of the cervix, esophagus, kidney, liver, lung, pancreas, prostate, rectum, and soft tissue
• Hodgkin’s lymphoma
• Leukemias
• Multiple myeloma
• Multiple sclerosis

Moreover, a recent study conducted by JAMA Neurology concluded that marines exposed to the toxic water at Camp Lejeune had a 70% greater risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.

Camp Lejeune Lawsuit Updates

For the latest news on the Camp Lejeune lawsuit, visit our blog. We update the litigation blog every week or month to give you the most recent information available.

January 5, 2025 – Court Extends Expert Discovery and Motion Practice Deadlines

The PLG and DOJ filed a joint motion asking the Court to extend the deadlines for expert disclosures and related motion practice. The Court granted the motion and entered an Order setting new deadlines below:

The tail end of expert motion practice is October 31, 2025. After that date, the Court will rule on pending motions.

Based on these deadlines, it is looking increasingly unlikely that the Bellwether trials will start in 2025.

December 13, 2024 – The Navy’s Claims Portal Is a Mess

I’m sure you’ve read about the Navy’s online portal and how they are asking claimants to upload documents so their claims can be “reviewed”. The Navy makes it sound like they are evaluating claims to make settlement offers. This is not true. We have not seen or heard of settlement offers being made outside of the very narrow EO.

Once the Navy gets documents, we are receiving messages saying that claims cannot be substantiated for a myriad of reasons. Below are common excuses used by the Navy to say “claim not substantiated”.

• “we will only accept certified copies of medical records” (note that for many claimants these records no longer exist);
• “we can’t read the seal or stamp on your document” (e.g., Letters of Administration, Birth Certificate, etc.);
• “the DD214 doesn’t specify the time spent at Camp Lejuene or housing records”

In many cases, the government has the military and housing records in their possession, but they will not give them to us. Suffice it to say, this entire process is a game.

As we’ve said before, we do not think there will be a real claim evaluation or settlement process until after a number of belwether trials. The only way cases are going to get resolved is if there is a negotiated settlement process.

November 13, 2024 – General Update on the Camp Lejeune Litigation

Below is a general overview of the current state of the Camp Lejeune litigation as of November 2024.

I. Timing

The Camp Lejeune toxic water litigation involves over 500,000 administrative claims. The significant number of claims, coupled with the fact that the defendant is the US government, means this litigation will likely be going on for a very long time. 

The first track of “bellwether” test trials are still expected to take place in 2025. There are a total of 25 cases going to trial. Our hope is that after the first round of bellwether trials are complete, the government will begin making reasonable settlement offers. 

II. Expert Discovery

The Court has ruled that plaintiffs have the burden of proof on general and specific causation. In order to prove causation, plaintiffs rely on expert testimony. The parties are actively engaged in “expert” discovery. This includes working with water contamination experts, medical experts/doctors, etc. Plaintiffs have the burden of proof on causation, Later this year, the parties will exchange expert reports and take depositions of each expert. 

After expert reports are exchanged, there will likely be “Daubert” challenges, in which the Court will rule on the admissibility of each expert’s testimony and opinions. The Daubert rulings could have an impact on which cases are allowed to move forward in the litigation, and that is something that we will definitely keep you informed of when the time comes. 

Plaintiffs’ general causation expert reports are currently due in December 2024 and Plaintiffs’ specific causation experts are currently due in January 2024. Daubert rulings will likely take place in early to mid 2025 prior to the bellwether trials. 

III. Trial Framework

The Judges have ruled that the 25 bellwether trials will be divided into four phases:

1. Phase 1 is the “water contamination” phase,
2. Phase 2 is “general causation”,
3. Phase 3 is “specific causation”, and
4. Phase 4 is “damages.”

The parties are still working on resolving exactly what evidence will be presented in each phase of trial, but the general framework of each phase is summarized below.  

During the “water contamination” phase of trial, the parties will present evidence on the levels of water contamination at Camp Lejeune from 1953 to 1987 and the Court will make a determination on what chemicals were in the water at that time. The plaintiffs will also present evidence on the various pathways of exposure (for example, drinking, showering, inhalation, etc.) during this phase of trial. 

Second, during the “general causation” phase of trial, the plaintiffs will be required to prove that a particular type of harm (for example, kidney cancer) can generally be caused by the toxic water exposure to a degree of scientific certainty. 

Third, during the “specific causation” phase of trial, the plaintiffs must prove that their specific injuries (for example, that particular plaintiff’s kidney cancer) was caused by the toxic water exposure to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty. 

Finally, during the “damages” phase of trial, the plaintiffs will present evidence on the damages suffered as a result of the toxic water exposure. This includes, but is not limited to, pain and suffering, lost wages, medical bills, etc. or, for wrongful death cases, the lost value of your loved one’s life.  

November 4, 2024 – Navy Reports Over 100,000 Duplicate Claims Files

The Navy reports that out of the 550,000 claims that have been filed, over 100,000 are duplicates. This means that multiple claims have been filed for some claimants. Many of the duplicate filing are the “dual rep” scenario. This is where a claimant signed with two or more firms and each firm filed a claim. Another reason for duplicate claims is that some firms filed new claims once the Navy launched its online portal system. Here, the Navy is treating the paper claim form and the online portal filing as two separate claims. According to the Navy, it is working on purging duplicate claims.

November 1, 2024 – Expert Discovery Underway

Plaintiff Leadership is preparing the first round of bellwether cases for trial in 2025. The litigation is in the expert discovery phase. The parties will produce their expert reports on general and sepcific causation. Thereafter, the parties will take the experts’ depositions. We anticipate a fight on the admissibility of expert testimony. The DOJ will likley file “Daubert” motions seeking to limit the scope of Plainitiffs’ expert’s testimony. This is a standard practice in mass tort litigation.

October 1, 2024 – Rubio and Tillis Sponsor Bill to Streamline the CLJA

Senators Marco Rubio and Thom Tillis introduced a bill to amend the CLJA so that the process of receiving compensatoin is streamlined.

The bill explicitly permits the following:

• cases can be heard in any federal district court
• jury trials
• victims only need to demonstrate general causation and not specific causation
• attorney fees of 20-25%

Hopefully, this bill gains some steam.

September 17, 2024 – Court Rules On “Estate” Issue

We blogged back in May about the motion four plaintiffs filed on the estate issue. The question is can a family member pursue a wrongful death claim without opening an estate and being appointed personal representative? The answer from the Court’s order appears to be no.

Importantly, under the CLJA, only a legally appointed representative has legal standing to file a wrongful death claim on behalf of a loved one. The Court will accept documentation such as “Letters Testamentary” or “Letters of Administration” issued by a state which appoint a “personal represetative”.

One plaintiff who filed the motion did not open an estate. The Court ruled this person was not “legally appointed” as required by the CLJA. However, the Court did stay the case to allow this plaintiff time to cure the defect.

September 2, 2024 – Court Denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel

Plaintiffs filed a “motion to compel” seeking documents, emails and the like from any storage device used by various governement employees that were related to Camp Lejeune water contamination. The Court denied the motion on the grounds that the reuqest is overbroad. The Court also bought the DOJ’s argument that the cost and time to search the custodial files of the subject employees would require signicifcant cost and time. We do not agree that the request was overbroad because it was limited to doccuments related to Camp Lejeune water contamination. As far as scope of the request, we were hoping that the Court would require the parties to agree to search terms that would yield narrower results. Instead, the motion is denied so the DOJ does not have to produce responsive documents.

August 21, 2024 – PLG and DOJ File Joint Status Report

The parties filed their joint status report this month, which reveals that 546,0500 claims were filed before the August 10th deadline. We do not think there are actually this many claims. Many firms re-filed their claims into the Navy’s online portal system so we believe alot of duplicates are being counted in the number above.

The status report also included information about the sequence of two pre-trial legal battles. The first legal issue that will be adjudicated by the Court before trial is the “Water Contamination Phase”. After expert discovery concludes, the PLG and DOJ will engage in motion practice (e.g. summary judgment) and Daubert (challenge admissibiliy of expert discovery) on this issue. The DOJ is trying to limit the scope of contamnation to specific areas on base and timeframes.

The Water Contamination Phase will be followed by the “General Causation Phase”, which is about whether the exposure to the contamination caused the harm. Again, after expert discovery, the PLG and DOJ will enage in motion practice and Daubert. The Judges in the EDNC will ulitimately decide whether the Plaintiffs can meet their burden of proof on these two issues. Given that these two phases and related motion practice will occur before trial, we doubt that Bellwether trials will begin the first part of 2025.

Finally, the PLG and DOJ stipulated the three elements Plaintiffs must prove at trial:

1. Plaintiff is an individual, including a veteran (as defined in section 101 of title 38,United States Code), or the legal representative of such an individual, who resided, worked, or was otherwise exposed (including in utero exposure) for not less than 30 days during the period beginning on August 1, 1953, and ending on December 31, 1987, to water at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, that was supplied by, or on behalf of, the United States;
2. Plaintiff suffered harm; and
3. Plaintiff’s harm was caused by exposure to the water at Camp Lejeune.

August 10, 2024 – Deadline to File CLJA Is Today

Today is the final day claimants can file a CLJA with the Navy. After today, any filed claim will be time barred. As stated below, we are no longer taking new Camp Lejeune cases.

August 2, 2024 – CMS (Medicare) Announces No Liens (for the most part)

One lingering question has been: “will Medicare assert a lien on CLJA settlements or judgments”? The answer is “No” with respect to Elective Option settlements. But what about non-Elective Option settlements or judgments?

CMS / Medicare announced that for “medicare-fee-for-benefit” services, Medicare will not assert a lien on any CLJA settlements or judgments.

However, Medicare Advantage Organizations and state Medicaid agencies that paid for relevant treatment may assert a lien independently. Best practice is still to request liens from all medical organizations that may have paid for relevant treatment.

July 17, 2024 – Court Appoints Settlement Masters

The Judges with the EDNC appointed Thomas J. Perrelli and Christopher Oprison to serve as Settlement Masters in the Camp Lejeuen litigation. The role of the Settlement Masters is to help facilitate discussions between the parties on establishing a settlement structure for Camp Lejeune cases.

Up until this point, there has not been any significant movement between the parties with respect to settlement. Hopefully, the Settlement Masters can help facilitate a resilution that resolves a large number of claims.

July 8, 2024 – We Are No Longer Taking New Camp Lejeune Cases

Fob James Law Firm is no longer taking new Camp Lejeune cases. The deadline to file claims is August 10, 2024. As a result, we do not have enough time to investigate and file new claims before the deadline. Of course, we will continue to post updates as the litigation progresses.

July 3, 2024 – Plaintiffs and DOJ Select Track 1 Bellwether Cases

The PLG and DOJ made their initial bellwether selections for Track 1. The PLG picked three cases for each Track 1 disease and the DOJ selected two cases for each Track 1 disease. These cases will be the first cases that go to trial in the Camp Lejeune litigation. Below are the first round of Bellwether cases:

Bladder Cancer

Kidney Cancer

Leukemia

Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma

Parkinson’s Disease

July 1, 2024 – Track 1 Plaintiffs Must Prove Toxic Exposure and General Causation

The Court entered a somewhat surprising order requiring Track 1 plaintiffs to prove two things before trial:

• the toxic chemical exposure at Camp Lejeune; and
• general causation for their respective disease

Frankly, it is ridiculous that the government is not stipulating that toxic chemical exposure occured at Camp Lejeune between 1953 and 1987. Of course, the toxic chemical exposure is well documented.

In addition, Track 1 plaintiffs must prove that the chemicals they were exposed to at Camp Lejeune caused their specific diseases (bladder cancer, kidney cancer, etc.).

Ultimatley, the Judges in the EDNC will get to decide if plaintiffs can meet their burden on the two issues above.

The Camp Lejeune litigation is becoming more akin to other mass tort litigations. The expert discovery phase is crucial because this is where the Court decides if the plaintiffs can meet their burden on causation.

June 20, 2024 – DOJ’s Track 1 Bellwether Picks Due Today

The PLG picked three cases for each Track 1 disease five days ago. These cases will be set for trial likely in 2025. The DOJ gets to pick two cases for each Track 1 disease. The DOJ’s picks are due today.

June 12, 2024 – Process Established for Picking Track 1 Cases for Trial

The Court approved the parties’ joint motion establishing the process for picking the first Track 1 cases for trial. The Plainitff Leadership will select three cases for each Track 1 disease. The DOJ will select two cases for each Track 1 disease. The selected Plaintiffs must waive any non-Track 1 diseases. For example, if a selected Plainitff has kidney cancer (track 1 disease) and prostate cancer, the plaintiff must be willing to proceed only as to the kidney cancer. Based on the current discovery schedule, it looks like the first Track 1 trial will begin in 2025.

June 2, 2024 – August 10 Deadline Is Approaching

We have been surprised how many people this late in the game have been calling us with Camp Lejeune claims. It seems alot of folks were on the fence for various reasons and now have decided to file a claim.

Please be aware that the deadline to file a claim with the JAG is August 10, 2024. If you have not already filed a claim please contact an attorney ASAP. Do not wait until the last minute. For instance, wrongful death cases require opening an estate and getting a personal representative appointed by the probate court. This process can easily take a couple months.

May 28, 2024 – General Update on the Camp Lejeune Litigation

If you are looking for a general overview (as of May 2024) of what’s been happening the Camp Lejeune litigation, below is a good starting point:

Track 1 Bellwether Trials.

As previously mentioned, there are 100 Track 1 “test” cases being prepared for trial. Track 1 cases consist of the following conditions:

• Bladder Cancer,
• Kidney Cancer,
• Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma,
• Leukemia, and
• Parkinson’s Disease.

Right now, that is the primary focus of this litigation, since the outcome of these test trials will influence the ultimate amount of the settlements and therefore impact all claimants in the Camp Lejeune litigation.

The “fact discovery” process for these 100 cases ends next month (e.g., depositions of plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ treating physicians, answers to parties’ written questions, etc.). After that, we will shift to the expert component of the 100 Track 1 Bellwether cases and then trial.

Our hope is that these first 100 trials will take place either later this year or in the first part of 2025, but we do not have trial dates yet.

Track 2 Bellwether Cases

As a reminder, Track 2 cases consist of the following conditions:  

• Kidney disease,
• Breast cancer,
• Liver cancer,
• Prostate cancer, and
• Lung cancer.

The selection process for Track 2 bellwether cases is underway. Similar to Track 1, 100 test cases for Track 2 will be selected.

Track 3 Cases and Beyond

These tracks will be comprised of other injuries not included in Tracks 1 and 2. These injuries have not yet been decided by the Court.

Keep in mind that the “track” does not have anything to do with the value or merit of a case. The Court is simply trying to litigate the categories of injuries/diseases with the most possible claimants first, in order to reduce the overall number of claimants in the litigation.

Also, it’s possible that settlement offers will be made prior to Tracks 2 or 3 even making it to trial. Time will tell how this ultimately plays out, but we are hopeful that the Track 1 Bellwether trials will have a positive impact on the litigation and increase the prospects of an early global settlement.

Jury Trials

Earlier this year the EDNC Federal Court struck plaintiffs’ demand for jury trials. The plaintiff leadership group attempted to immediately appeal the Court’s decision, but the Court ruled that any appeal must wait until after the first round of bench trials take place.

Note, a “bench trial” is simply when the judge makes the decisions rather than a jury. Although we would prefer to have jury trials in this litigation (because jury trials typically result in larger verdicts than bench trials), bench trials do provide some advantages in this type of litigation, particularly in terms of predictability on the amount of damages awarded at trial. 

For example, if a judge rules that a certain category of injuries (e.g., Kidney Cancer or Parkinson’s) are worth between $2 and 5 million dollars at trial, that will be a good indicator of what those cases would be worth if the same type of case goes to trial before that particular judge.

Every case is obviously unique/different, but bench trials are still far more predicable than if 12 strangers off the street were to rule on the case (e.g., one jury could award $20 million dollars on a case and a different jury could award $0 on the same case). If the bench verdicts seem unreasonably low or unfair, we have no doubt that the bench verdicts will be appealed.

Other Issues

Lastly, there are numerous motions pending before the Court that are waiting to be ruled on. Among other things, these pending motions include:

• plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on specific causation,
• plaintiffs’ motion to expedite track one trials,
• and plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration denying motion to compel muster rolls and ATSDR study.

Once these motions are ruled on by the EDNC federal court judges, we will post updates here.

May 13, 2024 – Court Denies Request to Certify Jury Trial Issue for Appeal

We blogged several months ago about Plaintiffs’ motion to certify the jury trial issue for appeal. To recap, the Court ruled Plaintiffs do not have a right to a jury trial. In order to appeal the issue, Plaintiffs first have to get permission from the Court because the appeal is unrelated to a final judgment.

The Court denied Plaintiffs’ request to certify the jury trial issue for appeal. The Court’s logic is that there are no “special consequences” if the Court is wrong at this stage. The Court said that Plaintiffs can file an appeal after bench trials.

The problem with this approach is that if the appelate court reverses after bench trials, alot of time, cost, and energy will have been wasted in cases where the plaintiffs wish to have their cases retried with juries.

May 3, 2024 – Plaintiffs File Motion On Personal Representative Issue

Plaintiff Leadership filed a motion for summary judgment asking the Court to rule the following representatives are qualified to bring wrongful death cases under the CLJA:

• Out-of-state personal representatives appointed by the Probate Court in Onslow County, NC
• Legal representatives or heirs who have the right in their respect states to bring wrongful death claims without having to open an estate

This motion is very important. The JAG/DOJ’s position has been that only a personal representative recognized by a Probate Court has legal standing to file a wrongful death claim.

Inititially, their position was that people who resided outside of North Carolina had to open an estate in their home state and also an ancillary estate in North Carolina. The Court shot this down several months ago, ruling that an ancillary estate in North Carolina was not required to file a claim. But many questions remain, which is what the PLG’s motion attempts to resolve.

Onslow County’s Probate Court has a streamlined process for out-of-state folks to be appointed personal representive. For many people, the process in Onslow County is much easier than opening an estate in their home state. Based on the Court’s ruling in the ancillary estate issue, we beleive the Court will rule that the Onslow County process is sufficient.

Some states like California have laws that allow certain family members to bring wrongful death cases without the burden of opening an estate. If the Court rules that residents of such states need not open an estate, the process to file a wrongful death claim will be much easier.

One big issue is the timing of the motion. With the filing deadline of August 10, 2024 approaching, it remains to be seen what will happen if the Court rules on the motion after or near the deadline.

May 1, 2024- PLG Responds to the DOJ’s Motion to Delay Multi-Disease Trials

We blogged on April 12th about the DOJ’s motion to delay Track 1 trials for plaintiffs with multi-diseases. The PLG opposes that motion and asks the Court to allow the parties to meet and confer on the bellwether selection trial process.

The PLG’s even handed approach makes sense. If the parties conferred, they may agree on many of the cases that should be scheduled first.

The PLG also points out that the DOJ has had plenty of time to do disocvery on multi-diseases plaintiffs. Also, rougly half of the filed cases involve multi-disease plaintiffs. If the goal of bellwethers is to resolve as many cases as possible, then multi-disease cases have to be tried.

Finally, the PLG makes a good point that the DOJ’s motion is premature. Until the Court lays out the process for Bellwether trials, it is too early to make selections. For example, will multiple cases be tried at once?

April 18, 2024 – DOJ Asks Court to Reconsider Track 2 Opt Outs

A few months ago, the Court denied the DOJ’s request to remove “opts outs” from discovery track process. Currently, Plaintiffs can elect to opt their filed cases out of the discovery track process.

The DOJ argues that the “opt out” process gives the Plaintiffs an unfair advange in that they are allegedly opting out weak cases and stacking the discovery track pool with stronger cases.

The DOJ filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider allowing opt outs for Track 2 selections. You can read the DOJ’s motion here.

April 12, 2024 – DOJ Files Motion To Delay Trials for Multi-Disease Track 1 Cases

The DOJ filed a motion asking the Court to priortize single disease Track 1 cases when scheduling track 1 trials. Basically, the DOJ wants trials for single disease track 1 cases to be scheduled before multi-disease cases (ones where the plaintiff has a track 1 disease as well as a non-track 1 disease).

The DOJ argues it needs more time to get ready for multi-disease trials. Hog wash. If this were true the DOJ should have filed this motion months ago. The reality is some of the strongest cases are multi-diseaes cases (e.g. kidney cancer +kidney disease). The DOJ’s request is based on what is convenient for them and limiting the number of cases that can be set for trial first.

April 2, 2024 – Joint Status Conference Held

Another joint status conference was held today. Status conferences are way for the Court to monitor the progress of the litigation and to be aware of pending issues.

There is no new information to report. The parties discusses several discovery issues. The Court scheduled the next status conference on April 24th.

March 28, 2024 – DOJ’s Position on Attorney Fee Caps

The DOJ posted on its Camp Lejeune website that attorney fee caps of 20-25% apply to any settlement or judgment:

What does everyone think?

March 26, 2024 – New Joint Status Report Filed

The Parties filed another joint status report before the next status conference. The report is very similar to the one filed on March 15th.

The government is currently scheduling and taking the discovery track plaintiffs’ depositions. Depositions for 98 discovery track plaintiffs have been scheduled.

The government’s “Elective Option” settlement process is pretty much non existent. The government has settled less than 50 cases out of over 176,000 claims. Something has to give. Or else it will take thousands of years to settle claims. Hopefully the test trials will make a difference.

On March 1st, the Navy began to load claim files to an online portal system. So far the Navy has loaded half of the existing CLJA claims inventory into the claims management system. Presumably, law firms will be able to acess the the claim system to review and verify claim information.

March 15, 2024 – Parties File Joint Status Report

The parties filed a joint status report prior to the upcoming status conference. Approximately 175,000 claims have been filed with the JAG. A total of 1633 lawsuits have been filed in the EDNC.

The Navy is in the process of loading claim information into an online portal. Presumbaly, law firms and pro se claimaints will be able to review and validate their claim information.

We are asked all the time about the government’s “settlement process”. Again, the government’s settlement criteria is very strict, so very few cases qualify. Case in point, out of 175,000 claims, the Navy’s Tort Branch has settled 24 cases and the DOJ has settled 18 cases. These numbers are statistically insignificant. At this pace, it will take 100 years to resolve these cases.

On that note, the Parties continue to negotiate a resolution questionnaire and resolution roadmap. On January 16, 2024, the parties jointly recommended Tom Perrelli of Jenner & Block to serve as Special Settlement Master. Hopefully progress will be made on a real settlement process the closer we get to Track 1 trials.

Depositions for Track 1 discovery pool plaintiffs are underway. 95 out of 99 plaintiff depositions have been scheduled. We will be in Portland, Oregon in mid April for the deposition of one of our discovery track clients.

March 14, 2024 – Court Compels Government To Produce Water Modeling Files

The Plaintiffs asked the Court to compel the government to produce the Water Modeling Project Files created by the ATSDR. These documents include surveys of water systems and GIS maps relevant to the toxic water.

The parties could not reach an agreement on the format the files should be produced in. The Court ruled that the government must produce the files in native format. Native format means the format which the application is designed to work with. In other words, the government does not have to change the format of the files to accomodate Plaintiffs’ desired system. It just has to produce the files in their native format.

March 10, 2024 – Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Digital Muster Rolls Denied as Moot

Plaintiffs’ leadership filed a motion to compel asking the Court to order the government to produce digitized copies of “muster rolls”. These rolls are important because they contain housing records. In many cases, the muster rolls are the only documents that exist reflecting that an individual was on base (and where). The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion as moot because it found that the government does not have digitized records in its possession. The government has agreed to produce the muster rolls in their current format (e.g. micro film, hard copies). The Court finds this to be sufficient. The Court notes that a party is only obligated to produce documents that are already in existence.

March 1, 2024 – No Ancillary Estate In North Carolina Required

In wrongful death cases, the DOJ argued that personal representatives for out-of-state estates must open an estate in their home state and an ancillary estate in North Carolina. This would impose a massive burden and cost on claimants who wish to pursue a wrongful death claim. Of course, this was the DOJ’s intention, to impose a burden on folks to deter them from pursuing wrong death cases.

Fortunately, the Court ruled that out of state claimants who open an estate in their home states do not need to open a second “ancillary estate” in North Carolina. This is good news as it helps streamline the process for wrongful death cases.

February 27, 2024 – EDNC Judges Select 5 Diseases for Track 2 Discovery

The Court entered a much anticipated order listing the five diseases for the Track 2 discovery. The five Track 2 diseases are:

• prostate cancer
• kidney disease
• lung cancer
• liver cancer
• breast cancer

Liver cancer is the only Track 2 disease that is on the VA’s list of “presumed conditions”. We think the Judges selected diseases that represent the most commonly filed claims.

The order notes that “the selection focuses on illnesses for which early trials may help promote an early resolution for common illnesses.”

Like Track 1, the Track 2 process will inlclude the selection of cases for the discovery pool followed by a scheduling order.

Finally, the Court directs the parties to submit a proposed discovery plan for the Track 2 illnesses within 10 days of the order.

February 18, 2024 – Plaintiffs Attempt to Appeal Court’s Jury Trial Ruling

The Plaintiff Leadership Group (PLG) intends to appeal the Court’s ruling that plaintiffs are not entitled to a jury trial under the CLJA. PLG asked the Court to certify the issue for an appeal. If the Court certifies the issue, which we think they will, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit will ultimately decide the issue.

We are pleased that Leadership is trying to appeal this ruling. Could this appeal delay the litigaiotn? Yes, but we think any delay is worth it. PLG is going about it strategically. By filing on behalf of only two plaintiffs, PLG will argue that the appeal should not stay the entire litigation. However, the appellate Court’s ruling will impact all cases, not just the two plaintiffs that are seeking to appeal.

February 7, 2024 – Court Rules No Jury Trials

The Court ruled that Camp Lejeune victims are not entitled to a jury trial under the CLJA. There is no way to sugar coat this decision–it is a huge loss for the plaintiffs.

The Court’s order is concerning because the Camp Lejeune Justice Act states: “Nothing in this subsection shall impair the right of any party to a trial by jury.” Seems pretty clear to us that if the CLJA did not allow jury trials then this language would not be in the statute.

Nevertheless, the Court ruled that the text of the CLJA did not grant the right to a jury trial and that under the law, plaintiffs with claims against the federal government do not get jury trials.

We are hopeful that Plaintiff Leadership will file an appeal. The downside is this will cause further delays. However, this is such a fundamental issue we believe pursuing an appeal is worth any delays.

If the ruling stands, the practical implication is that the Judges will have a lot more control over the litigation and value of the cases. For example, the Judges could group cases together and have bench trials in bulk. The Judges will get to decide damages in these bench trials and this will set a predictable measure of damages for any future bench trials. If the parties know the range of damages the Judges will award in bench trials, then the cases have to settle for some amount in that range. What this ruling does is take away the threat of “nuclear verdicts” awarded by juries.

February 6, 2024 – Our General Thoughts on the Status of the Camp Lejeune Litigation

The “Track 1” discovery process is well underway. Again, the Court has already designated kidney cancer, bladder cancer, Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Parkinson’s disease, and leukemia as Track 1 discovery/bellwether cases. Written discovery has been served and most of the Track 1 plaintiff depositions have been scheduled. Compared to most other national/multi-district litigations, this one is moving along pretty fast.

The current list of “Track 2” and “Track 3” cases has not been finalized, but we expect the Court to rule on the proposed list of Track 2-3 conditions soon. Track 2 conditions being proposed by the Plaintiff Leadership Group include:

• liver cancer
• sclerosis/scleroderma
• multiple myeloma
• kidney disease
• aplastic anemia

On the other hand, Track 2 conditions being proposed by the Government include:

• prostate cancer
• breast cancer
• lung cancer
• pancreatic cancer
• esophageal cancer

The Plaintiff Leadership Group believes the government’s proposed list of Track 2 conditions is better suited for Track 3, with the exception of childhood leukemia substituted for pancreatic cancer.

Our hope remains that the first round of “real” settlement offers will be made following the Track 1 bellwether trials. At the moment, we are still being told these trials will take place in 2024, although whether that actually happens remains to be seen. As you all know, there are no certainties when the government will ultimately decide to act.

Lastly, there are several pending motions filed with the Court, including a partial motion for summary judgment filed by the Plaintiffs and a motion to strike the jury trials filed by the DOJ. The Court’s rulings on these motions will have a big impact on how the litigation plays out.

February 5, 2024 – Court Enters Track 1 Scheduling Order

The Court entered a scheduling order for cases that are part of the Track 1 discovery pool. The order sets important discovery deadlines, including the following:

• March 19, 2024 – deadline for Track 1 plaintiffs to submit Discovery Pool Profile Forms
• June 17, 2024 – discovery cut off date
• July 17, 2024 – deadline for Track 1 plaintiffs to disclose expert witnesses
• August 16, 2024 – deadline for defendant to disclose expert witnesses
• August 31, 2024 – deadline for Track 1 plaintiffs to disclose any rebuttal expert witnesses
• September 30, 2024 – closure of expert discovery (e.g., expert depositions must be complete)
• October 30, 2024 – deadline to file dispostive motions

Notably missing from the scheduling order are trial dates. However, the order does state that the parties should be prepared to start trials in 2024.

Based on this schedule we believe the chance of jury trials commencing in 2024 is unlikely. Assuming there are no continuances or delays, discovery will end September 30th and dispositive motions will be filed on October 30th. Thereafter, the Court will have to set hearings for the motions and rule on them. This does not leave much time to realistically conduct trials in 2024.

February 1, 2024 – ATSDR Releases New Study

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) released a study about the toxic water exposure at Camp Lejeune. In short, the study compared approximately 400,000 service members and members of their families who were diagnosed with cancer or similar conditions. Half of the individuals were stationed at Camp Lejeune and the other half were stationed at Camp Pendleton from the mid-1970’s to mid-1980’s.

The study found that the group stationed at Camp Lejeune had about a 20% greater risk of developing certain types of cancer and other serious medical conditions including:

• kidney cancer
• kidney disease
• bladder cancer
• liver cancer
• Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
• multiple myeloma, leukemia
• Parkinson’s disease
• systematic sclerosis.

Notably, the study also discovered that the group at Camp Lejeune experienced an increased risk of certain types of lung cancers, esophageal/throat/thyroid cancers, myeloid cancers, myelodysplastic syndromes, male breast cancer, and polycythemia vera (a type of blood cancer).

A copy of the study is available here.

January 23, 2024 – Plaintiffs Ask The Court for Expedited and Consolidated Trials

Prior to the settlement conference this week with Judge Boyle, Plaintiff Leadership (“PLG”) filed a “Rule 16 Statement” with the Court. In this statement, PLG asks Judge Boyle to consider consolidating the 29 discovery track cases on his docket into 5 separate trials. Each trial would involve a different disease. E.g., the kidney cancer trial would include 8 plaintiffs, the bladder cancer trial would include 6 plaintiffs, etc.

PLG also asks the Court to enter a pre-trial directive that causation is presumed for Track 1 diseases. Further, PLG requests that the Court enter a directive stating that the chemicals (benzene, TCE, PCE, and vinyl chloride) were in the water at Camp Lejeune during the relevant time period.

Finally, PLG estimates that each trial would last 5-8 days. PLG’s goal here is to expedite the discovery track process. We’ll see what Judge Boyle thinks about the proposal.

January 19, 2024 – Court Approves One of Our Cases for the Track 1 Bellwether Process

The Court entered an order today approving one of our firm’s cases for the Track 1 Bellwether process. This is a tremendous honor as very few firms outside of the Plaintiff Leadership/Executive Committees have bellwether cases. Frankly, we had to fight just to get one.

Track 2 bellwether selections will likely occur in the near future once the Court has determined which diseases will be in Track 2.

January 18, 2024 – Status and Settlement Conferences Scheduled Next Week

The next status conference is set for January 23rd in Wilmington, NC. A settlement conference is also set for January 24th in Raleigh. The settlement conference is limited to 40 filed cases that are on Judge Boyles’ docket. Judge Boyle is probably looking for an update on the likelihood that any of these cases on his docket will settle.

January 17, 2024 – Plaintiffs File Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Plaintiffs’ Leadership filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of causation. In regular tort cases, the burden is on the Plaintiff to prove that his or her injury was caused by the toxic substance. This analysis is specific to each Plaintiff and typically specific causation is proved through medical expert testimony,

Leadership’s motion argues that claimants under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act do not have to prove that the water was the specific cause of their individual injury. Rather, Leadership argues that under the law. claimants merely need to show that the water is likely to have caused their injury, which can be done by showing that the claimant was on base for 30 or more days.

If Leadership’s motion is granted by the Court, this would be an enormous victory for the victims. I would also simplify the claims process. The DOJ will of course fight this motion tooth and nail. Time will tell.

January 10, 2024 – Status Conference Update

Fob James and co-counsel, James Foster, attended the Tuesday morning status conference in Raleigh, NC. The status conference was in front of Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr.

It was not as eventful as flying out of Raleigh in inclement weather that afternoon. Judge Jones first asked the parties for a list of pending motions. Next, counsel for the parties informed the Court they are working toward resolving much of the current documentary discovery disputes and to hold off on ruling on the pending motion to compel.

Finally, Judge Jones asked counsel for the DOJ and PLG if our firm’s 17 cases that are tentatively selected for the discovery track would be included in the Plaintiffs’ forthcoming discovery responses and production. The answer is yes.

January 3, 2024 – Parties Filed Joint Status Report

As required before the next status conference, the parties filed their first Joint Status Report of 2024. This status report is similar to the prior report filed in December.

The crux of it is the parties are fighting over various discovery issues such as the location of plaintiffs’ depositions. In any event, discovery is moving forward in the discovery pool cases. The plaintiffs are currently working on responding to the DOJ’s discovery requests.

The parties have been unable to agree on a process for global settlement. As a result, the parties are exploring the use of a Special Master to help resolve issues regarding the global settlement process.

The most interesting part of the report is the estimated number proposed Track 2 claims that are eligible to be filed. The Court has yet to decide which diseases will be in Track 2. Per the Court’s request, the parties’ estimated number of proposed Track 2 claims (eligible to be filed) are listed below:

Related Content: Read Our Camp Lejeune Lawsuit Blog For Updates Prior to 2024

We Represent Camp Lejeune Toxic Water Clients Nationwide

Fob James Law Firm is honored to represent veterans and their families who have suffered injuries caused by contaminated water at Camp Lejeune. We are currently representing clients in 48 states:

Irrespective of where clients are located, Camp Lejeune lawsuits must be filed and litigated in federal court in North Carolina. We are ready to aggressively represent you and your family on your claim no matter what state you reside in.

Contact a Camp Lejeune Lawyer Near Me In Alabama

At Fob James Law Firm, our job is to fight for your best interests. If you’ve suffered an injury as a result of exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, you should contact us immediately.

We can determine if you are eligible to file a claim or not. It won’t cost you anything to speak with us.

Additionally, you’ll never pay us anything until we successfully settle or win your case in court.

Our Birmingham, Alabama Camp Lejeune Attorneys are experienced, dedicated, and they truly care about you.

We treat all of our clients exactly how we would want our own family members to be treated. Contact us right now at 205-407-6009 or set up a free case evaluation so we can help you.