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

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

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

Post-Katrina (still?!) formaldehyde exposure is at the center of this Congressional dust-up. It seems that Our Congress is debating whether the manufacturers or the government should shoulder responsibility for the dangerous condition of FEMA trailers provided to people displaced by Katrina.

I can’t help but think there’s a more basic question that isn’t getting asked.  Exactly why are people still living in dangerous post-Katrina trailers?  It’s tempting to go all caustic here and wonder about race and class and poverty. But I won’t.

One of the political ironies is that the Republicans want to blame the government for failing to have formaldehyde standards. Interesting. They are now wanting more regulation? But of course, neither side gets all the blame or all the credit. You have to wonder whether the Democrats can’t find a more expedient approach to solving the underlying problem.

As for the legal side, it’s pretty simple. A manufacturer that sells a dangerous product bears responsibility for the harms and losses caused by the product. That would include toxic trailers.

Manufacturers don’t get to blame the government. The government didn’t make or sell the trailers. The government didn’t make hundreds of millions of dollars selling the trailers.  Since they made and sold the goods, the manufacturers have to take the bitter with the sweet. If the product that they sold is dangerous, they pay what is necessary to cover the harms and losses caused by the dangerous product. Simple rule.

But of course, the whole discussion is sickening, in that the first priority has to be prevention of injury by getting people out of toxic buildings.

David Sugerman