Video and Transcripts Hearing on: After Injury, the Battle Begins: Evaluating Workers’ Compensation for Civilian Contractors in War Zones
Posted by defensebaseactcomp on June 19, 2009
You can view the video of the hearing at this link
http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3986&Itemid=31
go down page and it will say click here
Transcript is still not available (July 28) but is still in the works.
Update on transcripts 01/21/2010: We are now told transcripts are not available to the public but you can make an appointment to view them.
We were told by the committee that the transcripts were behind but would be available.
The office now claims no one is allowed to see the transcripts and the video has been removed as well.
What’s UP ?
Defense Base Act Compensation Blog 
daffodils said
The three contractors did a great job yesterday, thank you. The leg on the table was damatic; the comment that there is nothing “fuzzy” about PTSD spot-on; so was the refrence to parties and bonuses and the common-sense response that nothing will change as long as AIG/ CNA are involved.
Question is why was nobody who was denied benefits at the table? Half the PTSD cases get denied, and many legitimate cases were never filed because the Covington cabal denied most of them from the start of the war. Not even Pitts pointed this out, although he lost most of these cases. These judges need to be replaced by objective, intelligent professionals who do their homework and actually read the DSM-IV and accept universal truths such as WAR IS DANGEROUS.
Krash said
Does anyone know of a PTSD case that was approved??
There were many of us who have had our claims denied that were willing to testify, but we were never contacted.
T. Lee Marshall said
The war-injured does not need changes made to the Longshore/DBA Acts. The broken bodies are no different now than they were in 1941. The horrors haven’t changed, only the power of the Corporation to direct Government has.
What are needed are enforcement of the Acts and examination of what changes have been made through bad ALJ decisions. For example, the Longshore Act directs benefit calculation based on working wages for the employer when injured. Who did it benefit to base the calculation on wages earned in the previous 12 months? Whoever made that change certainly was not looking out for the worker.
What is not needed are lobbyists hiding in the shadows like some ugly mistress weakening the effectiveness of the Act any more than it is now. What is not needed is the likes of a politician who objects to free lunches for children or the thought put into lowering nicotine in cigarettes. Lowering nicotine means the junkie smokes more and thus, pays more taxes. For many children, that one meal is their only meal.
The changes that need to be made are: 1. Increase the misrepresentation penalty to 5-15 years and 10-50K fine; 2. Direct the DOL claim examiners to flag suspicious LS forms; 3. Increase the civil penalty flexible enough to fit the damage caused by the insurance company/adjuster; and 4. Disallow the IC’s use of medical examiners whose practice is based on working for ICs. The Secretary of Labor compiles a list of the barred and the Act prohibits the Secretary from selecting a DBA medical examiner from those working or worked for insurance companies.