Posts Tagged ‘War Hazards Act’
Posted by defensebaseactcomp on June 27, 2012
employer/carrier’s inadequate or overly zealous representation in defending against a DBA claim may be grounds for denying all or some portion of a request for WHCA reimbursement.
So Mr Rayburn how many War Hazards reimbursements has the DFEC denied
in part or whole over the following
Overly Zealous DBA Insurance Company Defense Tactics ?
The use of repeated Defense Medical Examinations with Doctors Over Paid to produce a report detrimental to the claimant, to run them through the drill
The claims process being drug out for as long as nine years with no end in sight while the defense racks up ever more legal fees, the insco keeps charging administrative fees, not to mention the claimants attorneys fee’s, while the claimant goes without medical and/or indemnity
Unnecessary mileage, airfare, lodging, expenses paid out due to due coercing claimants to travel as far as five states away to attend Defense Medical Examinations, Mediations, Depositions, Hearings
The use of private investigators, some even criminals themselves, to stalk and intimidate injured contractors and their families far beyond simply confirming a claimants status
The use of Third Party Administrators to handle claims processes that could easily be done without the added expense and fees.
Unnecessary fines and interest due to non payment or late payment of indemnity
The financial ruination of injured contractors and their families caused by the overly zealous controverting of legitimate claims
The Temporary Disabilities which are now Permanent due to their failure to provide medical care under the guise of investigating clearly legitimate claims. Now the US taxpayer is responsible for disabilities far beyond what they ever had to be.
The PTSD Suicides caused by the Insurance Companies, their claims examiners, and their attorneys
The break up of families caused the constant pressure and abusive tactics used by the Employer/Carrier
The forced acceptance of inadequate settlements or stipulated agreements due to starving the claimant out for years on end and/or threatening the claimant and family that if they do not accept the inadequate settlement they will make them miserable for the rest of their lives (see The Weaponization of the Defense Medical Examination)
Unfairly denying the claimants attorneys fees in order to discourage good attorneys from handling these claims
FECA BULLETIN NO. 12-01
1. DFEC requires, before acceptance of any WHCA reimbursement claim, that the employer/carrier has made only reasonable and prudent efforts in presenting all meritorious defenses against a DBA claim without regard to whether the case is eligible for WHCA reimbursement. An employer/carrier’s inadequate or overly zealous representation in defending against a DBA claim may be grounds for denying all or some portion of a request for WHCA reimbursement.
CECILY A. RAYBURN
Director, Division of Planning, Policy and Standards
Posted in ACE, AIG and CNA, Chartis, Civilian Contractors, Contractor Casualties and Missing, DBA Attorneys Fees, Defense Base Act, Defense Base Act Attorneys, Defense Base Act Insurance, Defense Base Act Law and Procedure, Defense Base Act Lawyers, Delay, Deny, Department of Labor, Hope that I die, Injured Contractors, KBR, Political Watch, PTSD and TBI, Suicide, Veterans, War Hazards Act | Tagged: ACE, AIG, Chartis, CNA, CNA Insurance Company, DBA, DBA Insurance Companies, Defense Base Act, Defense Base Act Attorneys, Defense Base Act Attorneys Fees, Defense Medical Examinations, injured contractors, Overly Zealous representation, Private investigators, Third Party Medical Providers, War Hazard Recovery, War Hazards Act, WHCA Reimbursement | 7 Comments »
Posted by defensebaseactcomp on January 12, 2012
The Defense Base Act’s Exclusive Remedy “A License to Kill”
The Exclusive Remedy was intended to be trade off to keep injured contractors from having litigate with their employers when they are injured. As it turns out the employers are off the hook and the injured contractors fight for years for medical care and lost wages from private insurance companies, AIG, CNA, ACE
AIG has fought the survivors and families of those killed like they were common criminals for the death, medical, and lost wages that were to be provided “forthwith”.
And don’t think something like couldn’t happen to you, your only one bomb or one sniper away.
Bloomberg January 12, 2012
KBR Inc. (KBR) and its former corporate parent, Halliburton Co. (HAL), won’t face a jury on claims they sent unarmed civilian convoy drivers into an Iraqi battle zone in 2004, knowing the workers would be injured or killed, an appeals court ruled.
The U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans today ruled the drivers’ claims were blocked by the Defense Base Act, a U.S. law that shields military contractors from lawsuits. The drivers were attacked and injured because of their role in support operations for the U.S. Army, which is covered under that statute, the judges said.
“Coverage of an injury under the DBA precludes an employee from recovering from his employer,” even if the worker claims the company was “substantially certain” the injuries would occur, U.S. Circuit Judge Priscilla R. Owen said in a 30-page ruling by the panel.
KBR, a Houston-based government contractor, was sued in 2005 by the families of seven drivers killed while working inIraq for the largest U.S. military contractor. The company appealed a 2010 lower-court ruling that jurors could weigh the companies’ actions without second-guessing the actions of the Army.
U.S. District Judge Gray Miller, who presided over the case in Houston federal court, refused to dismiss Halliburton, which spun off KBR as a separate company in 2007. Miller had also ruled that the companies couldn’t name the military as a co-defendant in the lawsuits, so the Army wasn’t required to defend its actions.
The drivers and their families claimed KBR officials fraudulently recruited workers for safe jobs in Iraq and intentionally sent unarmed civilians into a recognized combat zone in April 2004. KBR’s military-supply contract gave company officials the right to refuse assignments deemed too dangerous for civilians, according to the complaints.
KBR and Halliburton argued that they weren’t liable because they couldn’t refuse Army orders to dispatch the fuel convoys under terms of their multibillion-dollar supply contract with the U.S. military. The convoys were attacked at a time when Iraqi insurgents were escalating the fight against U.S. troops that had taken over the country to oust dictator Saddam Hussein.
The case is Fisher v. Halliburton, 10-20202, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (New Orleans).
Posted in AIG and CNA, Civilian Contractors, Contractor Casualties and Missing, Defense Base Act, Defense Base Act Insurance, Exclusive Remedy, Follow the Money, Injured Contractors, Iraq, KBR, Political Watch | Tagged: Civilian Contractors, Convoy, Defense Base Act, Exclusive Remedy, Halliburton, Iraq, KBR, Killed, License to Kill, War Hazards Act | 1 Comment »
Posted by defensebaseactcomp on December 28, 2011
This news release at the DoL’s website is NOT dated but this was a recent appointment though she has been in the position for nearly a year now.
Miranda Chiu is much appreciated by the Defense Attorneys
Dropping the DBA Ball
She did not even implement her own policies, regulations, and procedures
Looks like DBA Claimants are in for a lot more of the same bias in favor of the insurance companies if the last nine years serve as an indicator
The Office of Workers’ Comp Programs announces the appointment of Ms. Miranda Chiu as the Director of the Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation. Ms. Chiu has served as Acting Director of the Longshore Division for the last eight months, and as the Division’s Chief of the Branch of Policies, Regulations and Procedures for eight years before that.
Ms. Chiu has extensive experience in Longshore claims. She worked in various capacities in the Longshore arena for thirty years, beginning as a Claims Examiner in the San Francisco Longshore district office, then as a maritime claims supervisor in private industry and a legal assistant at a major Longshore law firm, before taking on her duties as Branch Chief in 2002.
Ms. Chiu holds a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature, and has published a lead article in ‘The Longshore Textbook’, 2nd and 3rd Editions. She is a frequent speaker at industry seminars and educational events and has won numerous awards for her work at the Department of Labor
Posted in Civilian Contractors, Defense Base Act, Defense Base Act Insurance, Defense Base Act Law and Procedure, Department of Labor, Dropping the DBA Ball, Injured Contractors, LHWCA Longshore Harbor Workers Compesnation Act, Political Watch, PTSD and TBI, War Hazards Act | Tagged: DBA, Defense Base Act, Defense Base Act Claims, Defense Base Act Insurance, Department of Labor, DoL, injured war zone contractors, LHWCA, Longshore Harbor Workers Compensation Act, Maritime Claims, Miranda Chiu, OWCP, ptsd, War Hazards Act, WHA | 1 Comment »
Posted by defensebaseactcomp on March 9, 2011
“Over the past six years (does not include 2010) under the WHCA,
the federal government has paid more in reimbursements to insurers for expenses
than it has paid in compensation to claimants
There is evidence that the current process, in which the federal government identifies WHCA claims after they have been paid as DBA claims and then reimburses insurers for claim and administrative costs, results in the federal government paying significant amounts that do not go directly to claimants.
Over the past six years under the WHCA, the federal government has paid more in reimbursements to insurers for expenses ($19.7 million) than it has paid in compensation
to claimants ($12.1 million).
There is also evidence, including testimony provided by DBA and WHCA claimants at a 2009 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing, that in some cases, claimants with injuries that clearly fall under the statutory requirements of the WHCA must first navigate procedural and other requirements of their contractors’ DBA insurers before their cases are eventually transferred to DOL.
In some cases, DBA insurers controvert claims or oppose specific benefits for claims that are likely to end up at the DOL under the WHCA. Under the current system, insurers have the right and responsibility to investigate all claims and controvert or oppose claims and benefits they feel are not their responsibility or that fall outside of the DBA.
However, this can cause delays for claimants, including claimants with clear WHCA cases that will eventually be paid by the DOL.
Posted in ACE, AIG and CNA, Civilian Contractors, Contractor Casualties and Missing, DBA Attorneys Fees, Defense Base Act Attorneys, Defense Base Act Law and Procedure, Defense Base Act Lawyers, Delay, Deny, Department of Labor, Follow the Money, Hope that I die, Injured Contractors, LHWCA Longshore Harbor Workers Compesnation Act, War Hazards Act | Tagged: ACE, AIG, CNA, Defense Base Act Attorneys, Defense Base Act Insurance Companies, Defense Base Act Lawyers, Department of Labor, War Hazards Act, War Hazards Recovery | 4 Comments »
Posted by defensebaseactcomp on February 14, 2011
Posted by Brit Guy
Below is part of the document issued by the insurers to employers the document is called:
International Voluntary Workers’ Compensation and Employers ‘Liability Coverage Form
Page 10 Part Five Conditions
1. DEFENSE BASE ACT
2. It is understood and agreed that no premium will be charged, and no portion of the rating is for any benefits which may become payable under the provision of the War Hazards Compensation Act and any subsequent amendments or modification thereto. It is understood the United States Government self-insures these exposures and will reimburse the company for any and all losses falling under the act, so long as no charge is made for the coverage by the company.
Link to WHCA http://www.dol.gov/owcp/dlhwc/whca.htm
Let me use my case as an example.
(3) The discharge or explosion of munitions intended for use in connection with a war or armed conflict with a hostile force or person as defined herein
Three investigations have been carried out by the US Government
1. The DoD after the incident
2. The DoL to establish right to benefits
3. The Dept of the Army to establish entitlement to the Defense of Freedom Medal. (Which I have been awarded) You only get this if injured as a direct result of enemy or insurgent action
Three Government agencies have established that the vehicle I was in was hit by a discharge of munitions as an act of war (declared or not) This clearly puts me under the WHCA
If the document above is to be believed then my insurer should be the US Government and the employer/carrier is now an administrator of my case.
The administrator (Employer/carrier) appoint another company to administer the claim i.e. to arrange medical care, make appointments, arrange DME’s. This obviously comes at a price so increases the cost of the claim.
So it would appear that I now have two administrators and one insurer.
The insurer (US Government) at an informal conference arranged by the DoL (A department of the US Government) agree to pay benefits and provide medical care. Administrator one the employer/carrier refuse to comply.
They appoint their legal team again at a cost to fight it and my attorney is forced to file for a formal hearing (again increasing the cost) in front of an ALJ to make the administrator (Employer/carrier) comply with the insurers (US Government) wish’s.
In this time of austerity and the increasing spotlight on government waste around the world it is somewhat staggering that the claimant is forced to take the administrator (Employer/carrier) to court to get what the insurer (US Government) has agreed to pay and that the administrator (Employer/carrier) even if they lose can then go back to the insurer (US Government) ask for their money back and charge 15% for doing so. The cost of this claim could be so much reduced if they just followed the insurers (US Government’s) wish’s.
I am not a legal expert and I am sure that people will argue that what is above is not the case. If you read the documents and the facts of the investigations it is hard to see it in any other way.
One last point if an ALJ agrees with the administrator (employer/carrier) is this the end for me? Well I can only assume not.
Why well because as I have said the insurer (US Government) have agreed to pay.
So as I see it the administrator (Employer/carrier) is going to a formal hearing to argue that they should not be paid.
At last they are doing the right thing.
Posted in ACE, AIG and CNA, Defense Base Act Law and Procedure, Department of Labor, Follow the Money, War Hazards Act | Tagged: Administrator, Defense Base Act, Employer/Carrier, War Hazards Act | Leave a Comment »
Posted by defensebaseactcomp on August 10, 2010
$8 Trillion for Iraq and Afghanistan Wars does not include Veterans or Contractors Care
Contractors currently outnumber troops on both fronts with more on the way.
Never does a cost estimate include the huge
DIRTY TOP SECRET WAR HAZARDS RECOVERY
Cost’s of the War Hazards Act to the Defense Base Act Insurance Companies, AIG, CNA, ACE/ESIS, Zurich.
Nor do they include the additional burden placed on the VA system by Disabled Contractors who are denied benefits by the insurers. These insurers who are falling over each other to take the huge premiums.
Further many of these Disabled Contractors and their families land in our social services systems to “survive”.
How will we figure the cost of ruined lives, ruined families?
Veterans for Common Sense
August 5, 2010 (Chicago Tribune) – It’s a shame to let accountants spoil the charming romance of war, but sometimes they insist. Recently the Congressional Research Service reported that our military undertakings in Iraq and Afghanistan have marked an important milestone. Together, they have cost more than a trillion dollars.
That doesn’t sound like much in the age of TARP, ObamaCare and LeBron James, but it is. Adjusted for inflation, we have spent more on Iraq and Afghanistan than on any war in our history except World War II. They have cost more in real dollars than the Korean and Vietnam wars combined.
But we can only wish we were getting off so lightly. Neither war is over, and neither is going to be soon. The House just approved $37 billion in extra funding to cover this year, and the administration wants another $159 billion for 2011. That won’t be the final request.
Worse, the CRS figure is only part of the bill so far. It noted the sum doesn’t include the “costs of veterans’ benefits, interest on war-related debt or assistance to allies.” All of those will go on after these wars are over, which someday they may be.
Scholars Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia and Linda Bilmes of Harvard published a book in 2008 called “The Three Trillion Dollar War,” which gives a more realistic estimate. But that, too, is an understatement. They figure that when all long-run costs are factored in, the tab will be at least $5 trillion and could reach $7 trillion, or nearly twice as much as this year’s entire federal budget.
And that was two years ago. I asked Bilmes for an update, and she said some obligations, like veterans’ medical and disability compensation costs, “have exceeded our earlier projections.” Do I hear $8 trillion?
The beauty of the current conflicts, however, is that we can pretend we don’t have to pay for them. Unlike past wars, when taxes were raised to defray the cost, these have been financed with the help of borrowed funds. But eventually the astronomical bill will have to be paid. Read the entire Column here
Posted in ACE, Afghanistan, AIG and CNA, Civilian Contractors, Contractor Casualties and Missing, Defense Base Act Law and Procedure, Department of Labor, Dropping the DBA Ball, Follow the Money, Iraq, Racketeering, War Hazards Act, Zurich | Tagged: ACE, Afghanistan, AIG, Civilian Contractors, CNA, Defense Base Act, Department of Labor, DoL, injured contractors, Iraq, LHWCA, War Hazards Act, War Hazards Recovery, Zurich | Leave a Comment »
Posted by defensebaseactcomp on May 22, 2010
There will be no “Defense of Freedom Medal” for being infected with the Leishmaniasis parasite.
Leishmaniasis is a one celled parasite normally contracted via the bite of a female sandfly.
These sandflys and the parasite they carry are endemic to many countries in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Locals and visitors to these endemic areas are always at risk of contracting Leishmaniasis if precautions are not taken to keep from being bitten.
Leishmaniasis is no more a War Hazard than Malaria or any of the regular work place accidents that occur while working overseas yet are not reimbursable under the War Hazards Act.
So unless the female sandflys have taken up arms and joined Al Qaeda and the Taliban, which would require a complete reversal regarding their views on women…..
The War Hazards Tribunal up in Ohio needs to beware the DBA Insurance Company attempts to paint them as insurgents.
This is the first in our series of reports on Leishmaniasis which most of you who worked in the War Zones were exposed to.
Statistically, it is likely that many of you carry this parasite unawares………
Posted in ACE, AIG and CNA, Civilian Contractors, Contractor Casualties and Missing, Defense Base Act Law and Procedure, Department of Labor, Leishmaniasis, Political Watch, War Hazards Act | Tagged: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Civilian Contractor, Contractor Casualties, Defense Base Act, Defense Base Act Insurance Companies, Defense of Freedom Medal, Iraq, Kuwait, Leishmaniasis, Pakistan, Sandfly, Taliban, War Hazards Act | 2 Comments »
Posted by defensebaseactcomp on January 12, 2010
Mr. Miller gave an explanation of the origins of the Defense Base Act and why we may possibly still be using it.
We have to disagree with the reasoning that the reason Injured War Zone contractors are being denied benefits has anything to do with them not being contemplated. AIG and CNA’s risk management firms certainly contemplated what was going on in the War Zones.
The War Hazards Act was rapidly revised to be extremely inclusive of what qualified as a war hazard.
AIG and CNA had no problems with raising DBA premiums to 50% and more of some contractors wages.
Could it be the contemplation was that they could collect huge premiums knowing that no one was going to make them pay the benefits?
We’d like to hear the injured contractors thoughts on these questions.
Posted in AIG and CNA, Interviews with Injured War Zone Contractors | Tagged: AIG, Civilian Contractor, CNA, DBA, Defense Base Act, Defense Base Act Workmans Compensation, Department of Labor, War Hazards Act | 3 Comments »
Posted by defensebaseactcomp on October 26, 2008
Welcome to the Defense Base Act
$$$$ We are the Best Kept Secret of the Wars $$$$
and how should the taxpayer feel about them hiring “Reputation Management” Firms to cover up their cover ups?
Contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org
All comments made here are solely the opinion of the person commenting and not necessarily the opinion of this blog.
Posted in ACE, AIG and CNA, Civilian Contractors, Contractor Casualties and Missing, Defense Base Act, Defense Base Act Attorneys, Defense Base Act Insurance, Defense Base Act Law and Procedure, Defense Base Act Lawyers, Department of Labor, Dropping the DBA Ball, Injured Contractors, LHWCA Longshore Harbor Workers Compesnation Act, OALJ, War Hazards Act | Tagged: ACE, AIG, bad faith insurance, Chartis, Civilian Contractor, Civilian Contractor Casualties, CNA, Contractor Casualties, DBA Lawyers, Defense Base Act, Defense Base Act Attorneys, Defense Base Act Class Action, Defense Base Act Workers Compensation, Department of Labor, ISIS, LHWCA, OALJ, War Hazards Act | 10 Comments »