Here is a video of an NBC Nightly News story that aired December 30, 2009 about Army National Guard soldiers’ exposures to sodium dichromate in Iraq.  The video features two soldiers, Larry Roberta of the Oregon National Guard and Russ Kimbro from the Indiana National Guard.

Larry is part of the group of Oregon  National Guard soldiers  pursuing claims in federal court in Bixby v. KBR.  It’s easy to see from the video that the filming took a lot out of him.

Even though he was fighting major challenges, Larry  stepped up to represent the Oregon National Guard.  Words like “duty” mean something to these soldiers.  Their service and quiet resolve inspire me.  It’s an honor to do what I can in this case in return by serving as their attorney.

It’s a good telling of the story by two soldiers.  They provide a good feel for what our troops faced while serving in Iraq.  And as for KBR’s responses, I have some definite thoughts on that. But it’s best to just leave that for trial.

David Sugerman

Here’s the link to a report in The Oregonian posted on OregonLive about this week’s increase in filing fees in Oregon’s civil court system. Longer analysis here explaining the problem.  The comments at OregonLive are a bit disconcerting, what with yammering about frivolous lawsuits and a 1989 Orange County case.

Last I checked, Orange County was in California, not Oregon. And 1989 was, like, 20 years ago.  The case sounds suspiciously like a number of made-up cases from the 1980’s that turned out to be urban mythic. Not that it matters–that wasn’t the case here, and it isn’t the case now.

But the noise about frivolous lawsuits from 1989 in California misses the point.

The real problem is that ordinary Oregonians–people who pay their bills and keep their heads down–are going to be barred from the courthouse. It’s not just filing fees. The courts will now charge costs at stage of the case (motions, orders, appearances, arguments). The Oregonian article missed that part of the story. Unless we face up to funding services in our state, only the rich will enjoy basic rights like access to justice. You can’t afford it? No justice for you.

Sad day.

New flash: The idiot at the helm–the author–recently mastered the tech skills that take him to the level of preschooler.  To celebrate, and without further delay, here is Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint in Bixby v. KBR, the case on behalf of the Oregon National Guard soldiers exposed to sodium dichromate in Iraq in 2003.

David Sugerman

Here’s the update on Oregon National Guard soldiers case against KBR. By way of background, members of the Oregon National Guard who served in Iraq in 2003 were exposed to sodium dichromate while protecting KBR employees at the Qarmat Ali water treatment plant. We filed the case this summer.

It has grown. We filed an amended complaint a few weeks ago. I’m still having problems with uploads, so I can’t seem to get the pdf to load. Apologies. Once we get the bugs ironed out, I’ll update.

For those tracking this case, it’s Bixby, et al v. KBR, U.S. District Court Case No.  3:09-CV-632-PK (D. Or.)  The other update is that the KBR defendants have filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction is one of those dry but important issues.  KBR believes that it should not have to defend this case in Oregon. We’ll be doing discovery over the coming month and then responding and should have a ruling in late fall.

David Sugerman

The frivolous lawsuit canard often turns on whose ox is getting gored. When a consumer files a class action, it is–according to representatives of business interests–a frivolous lawsuit. But when someone who wants to close the courthouse doors files their own class action, it is to take on illegal conduct.

When a politician who is opposed to frivolous lawsuits or too many lawsuits threatens to file her own case, that, too, is a different story.

The latest chapter comes from this stinging rebuke of the so-called Birther movement. It seems that one Captain Connie Rhodes sought an injunction prohibiting her deployment to Iraq because President Obama has not established that he was born in the U.S. As a result–the lawsuit claims–he is not the Commander-in-Chief. And so, she claims, she should not be required to ship out to Iraq because President Obama isn’t the real president.

The opinion makes entertaining reading. The court takes a dim view of Capt. Rhodes’ lawyer’s antics in this and other cases. Correctly so, I might add. Still, I’m going to wager that the court was a bit too restrained for the message to get through. Maybe next time.

I can hardly wait to see this opinion crop up on Freedomworks web site. They claim to be concerned with frivolous lawsuits. Any takers on whether they list it?

David Sugerman

I can’t stand the thought of kids going hungry. That’s why I’m stepping up to help the Oregon Business Hunger Initiative. Summer is coming, and kids who rely on school meals are at risk for going without. I’m doing my small part to help fill the hole. The problems we face are bigger than any one of us, but even so, responsible businesses that band together can help fill in the gaps.

There are never enough thanks for the hard working people at the Oregon Food Bank.  But thanks are always due, even so. For anyone in a position to help, here’s more information on their Oregon Business hunger initiative.

David Sugerman

p.s. I’ll be off line in trial next week in Pendleton.  I’ll have very little time to respond to comments and emails next week.

Along with my colleagues, Houston attorneys Michael Doyle and Jeff Raizner, I filed an injury case here in Portland in federal court today for a group of Oregon National Guard soldiers against KBR, Inc., a private contractors. The soldiers were exposed to sodium dichromate while serving in Iraq in 2003. The compound contains a very toxic component, hexavalent chromium. The exposure problems have been widely reported in The Oregonian by reporter Julie Sullivan.

Our soldiers face a long road ahead. It is honor to represent them. Here is the link to a copy for anyone interested in the Complaint: complaint-and-demand-for-jury-trial-filed

David Sugerman

It’s one of those cases that causes those of us who represent consumers to shake our heads. An affluent woman who has been bleaching her hair since childhood sues an upscale salon for botched hair treatment. She seeks $50,000 in humiliation damages, plus substantial out-of-pocket expenses for hair treatment and childcare.

Deliberating for just an hour, the jury found against her by a margin of 11-1.  That’s about as quick and complete a rejection as you see in a jury trial case.

The lawyer representing the dissatisfied salon patron, Leta Gorman, is a shareholder at Bullivant Houser, a large west-coast law firm.  She  typically defends manufacturers in injury cases.  According to the news account, the lawyer defending the salon argued that this was a “frivolous lawsuit.”

Oddball cases get twisted, and I imagine this one will show up in the echo chamber of distortion. What the Chamber of Commerce and others who decry lawsuit abuse miss is this: most damage lawsuits are filed by businesses. Here, an affluent and sophisticated consumer seeking beauty in a bottle sued when things went bad. It’s fine for the Chamber of Commerce to complain, but it ought to be truthful about how only the wealthy can afford the luxury of litigation of thin cases.

For those of us who represent injured people, this is one of those eye rollers. It’s an eye roller because cases for people with profound injuries have to wait in line behind luxury litigators. It’s an eye roller because our judicial system–which is strained and underfunded–has to deal with this type of claim. And it’s an eye roller because it gives squawk box material to those who can’t discern between claims for those wrongfully injured and those who litigate simply because they can afford to do so.

For all the heat and the noise, the true story is about quiet wisdom. That wisdom came from the jury. One of the jurors, Del Shaw, was quoted in The Oregonian. His simple assessment is the real story: “We took a look at the facts and didn’t feel the facts supported the claim.” That left me smiling because it simply shows that the jury considered the evidence and made a decision based upon the merits.

In that way, the case proves what those of us who work in the trenches know. Juries generally get it right.

David Sugerman

Nice write up online for the Willamette Week here about how liability insurance rates for Oregon physicians fell. The study from the State of Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services dispels a major political myth.

While it’s hard to remember, Oregon voters rejected a cap on damages in medical malpractice cases several years ago. The initiative, Measure 35, was sold as necessary due to a crisis. Check out the linked power ponit to see how badly proponents of Measure 35 overstated their position.

Oregon voters saw through the rhetoric and chose the wise course. Today’s study simply confirms the wisdom of that choice.

It should be interesting to see whether this objective information stifles the recurring urge by some to put limits on damages. The absence of any crisis makes it pretty difficult to argue for caps on damages.

David Sugerman

The FDA issued a warning today today  that consumers should not take the diet supplement Hydroxycut due to its potential to cause liver damage. Here is a link to the FDA notice.

I’ve been down this road before in the ephedra litigation. One of the things that would shock most consumers is that many over-the-counter diet supplements aren’t tested before release to the public.  The synthetic ephedra products caused a trail of carnage to consumers. Looks like we may be in for another round.

David Sugerman