Defense Base Act Compensation Blog

The Modern Day DBA Casualty

Misjudgements- The Zone of Special Danger

Posted by defensebaseactcomp on December 1, 2009

Welcome to our new DBA Forum

We’re no Lexis Nexis but we’re free and we’ll do our best to keep you informed on whats going on behind the scenes with DBA claims in the Department of  Labor’s Administrative Law System


Today we have what appears to be another case of an Administrative Law Judge trying to change the law against the contractor.

This case also provides some interesting insight into payroll and safety practices KBR and Halliburton have been accused of indulging in.

“Claimant raised concerns regarding the computation of his pay, the adequacy of the employer-provided living quarters, and safety issues involving the manner in which electrical work was being performed.

Claimant stated that he was instructed by employer’s security personnel to get into a military vehicle.
Claimant stated that he refused to do as instructed because he did not think the trip to BAB was safe.  After two MPs arrived, the IG intervened but ultimately turned the situation back over to them, leading to repeated requests that claimant get into the vehicle.

Claimant’s continued refusal to do as asked prompted the MPs to take action. As one MP handcuffed claimant’s hands behind his back, the second attempted to put claimant into body armor. Claimant repeatedly resisted the MP’s efforts, and stated that before he knew it, he was on the ground. The MPs then pulled claimant up from the ground, placed him into the vest, and put him into the vehicle. At that time, he was driven to Camp Phoenix, where he immediately informed the MPs that his neck, shoulder and wrist were hurting. He was treated at employer’s clinic for these injuries.

The players:  Halliburton, AIG, an injured contractor

As the administrative law judge’s denial of benefits
relied on his findings that claimant was at fault, or that the injury-causing incident did not directly involve employer or its personnel, it is in error. Given the totality of the administrative law judge’s discussion, it is apparent that his conclusion that claimant’s injuries are not within the scope of employment was inappropriately influenced by those determinations.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: