Camp Lejeune Lawsuit News and Updates

Our lawyers represent victims seeking a Camp Lejeune lawsuit in all 50 states.

This page provides more comprehensive and updated information on Camp Lejeune claims:

Our lawyers are still working to give the latest update on the litigation, even though we are no longer taking new cases. We also recently reopened the comments below to answer any questions you may have or just give you a chance to say what is on your mind.

Latest News on Camp Lejeune Water Contamination Lawsuit

November 13, 2024 – How the Government Is Defending These Lawsuits

Plaintiffs’ lawyers are asking the court to pull a case out of the priority trial pool. The plaintiff is very sick. So the request aims to spare the plaintiff the physical and emotional toll of a high-stakes trial while his health continues to decline. The government, while acknowledging the plaintiff’s condition, is resisting the request. Why? Because it is a case the government thinks it has a better chance of winning/keeping the verdict down.

This is the problem. The government lawyers are more focused on defending itself vigorously against claims than on fulfilling the congressional mandate of the Camp Lejeune Justice Act. You expect this garbage when suing Fortune 500 companies. Those lawyers commonly prioritize every possible legal defense over humane and timely resolution. But that is not what Congress intended here and these kinds of tactics violate the spirit of the CLJA.

November 7, 2024 – Rules for Examinations

This Lejeune judges issued an order that addresses procedures for expert medical examinations of plaintiffs involved in the case. In any litigation, defendants typically have the right under Rule 35 to request a physical examination of the plaintiff when the plaintiff’s physical or mental condition is at issue. This right gives the defendant the ability assess the claimed injuries.

Key elements of the order include:

Scope of Examinations: Plaintiffs who undergo evaluations by expert witnesses retained by plaintiffs’ attorneys must notify the government in advance. This gives the government the option to conduct independent medical exams but allows them to waive this right if they really do not need one.
Examination Notifications: To avoid unnecessary exams, the plaintiffs must inform the government in advance if an expert evaluating a plaintiff is expected to testify in court. If a non-testifying expert later becomes a testifying expert, the plaintiffs’ lawyers must promptly notify the government. The government then has 45 days from this notice to arrange its own examination if desired.
Procedural Standards: Both parties agree to certain procedural standards, including a remote format for exams (unless otherwise agreed) and limited scope focusing only on the injuries claimed in the lawsuit. Examinations may be recorded with consent, and plaintiffs can have a family member or a legal representative present, provided they do not interfere.
Restrictions on Testing: To protect plaintiffs, the order prohibits invasive procedures, such as blood draws, MRIs, and similar tests, during these examinations. Additionally, reports generated by each party’s experts must include detailed findings per Federal Rule 26(a)(2)(B).
Reciprocal Examination Rights: The government retains a reciprocal right to conduct examinations under the same guidelines, which helps maintain a balance in medical testimony used in court.

October 25, 2024 – Moving Towards Settlement

The Camp Lejeune Claims Unit (CLCU) reports that it is implementing strategies to expedite settlements by addressing three key challenges. Here’s a breakdown of the new initiatives:

Simplified Documentation Requirements: To streamline the settlement process, the CLCU will now accept readily available documents proving a single 30-day presence on Camp Lejeune during the relevant period. Claimants may still submit additional documentation to show extended stays to potentially increase their settlement offers.
Automatic Advancement of Pending Claims: Of the 550,000 claims filed, 480,000 await law firm validation. Starting January 13, 2025, the CLCU will move all pending claims forward for review, bypassing the validation step to avoid bottlenecks. Law firms have until this date to review and make corrections; any subsequent changes must follow the formal amendment process.
Handling Duplicate Claims: The government now says that100,000 claims are duplicates filed by multiple law firms for the same claimant. Still, 450,000 claims is still not a real number.

These changes aim to accelerate the settlement timeline by reducing administrative delays and prioritizing claimants’ cases based on existing documentation.

October 23, 2024 – Next Hearing

There is not a lot of news to report in this litigation. The early talk of transparency has not quite come to pass.

The next status conference is on November 6.

October 20, 2024 – Civilian Contractors

We have not talked much about civilian contractor claims. Because of the long exposure period for many of these plaintiffs, these can be very strong cases.

In the Carter case that is one of the first set for trial, the family of a former civilian employee alleges the now-deceased employee was exposed to contaminated water while living and working at several locations on Camp Lejeune, including Hadnot Point, Mainside Barracks, Midway Park, and Paradise Point, from September 1972 through December 1987. The exposure allegedly caused the plaintiff to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2011 and non-cancer kidney disease in 2012, which led to his death in May 2022.

October 16. 2024 – Claims Count

There are now 2,185 filed lawsuits and still over 550,000 administrative claims with the Department of Navy. Some of these are duplicates, but we do not know how many.

October 15, 2024 – Type of Evidence of Contamination at Trial

The core legal battle now focuses on how the contamination at Camp Lejeune will be proven and what type of evidence will be allowed in court. Plaintiffs are pushing for a broad approach, arguing that the contamination and its impacts should include not just water quality but also vapor intrusion and emissions—critical details they believe are necessary to establish how dangerous the environment was for those exposed. The government is, not surprisingly, trying to narrow the focus. It wants to focus just on evidence limited to the concentration of chemicals in the drinking water. This debate will be critical in shaping the trial outcomes, especially as they prepare for bellwether cases involving leukemia and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

October 9, 2024 – Settlement Information

The court has ordered that the government provide timely updates on administrative settlements to aid the Settlement Masters and Settlement Liaison in their efforts to resolve the litigation. This information used to be in the joint status report, but the court asked the government to stop including it.

Now, on the same day the parties submit their joint status report for each required status conference, the defendant must email a notice to the Settlement Masters, the Settlement Liaison, and the Plaintiffs’ Leadership Group. This notice must include the number of CLJA administrative claims that have been settled and the number of outstanding offers to settle such claims.

Our take is that there should be a transparent process, and this should be included in the status reports that the public consumes. The defendant is the government, not Exxon. But that wisdom will not carry the day.

October 3, 2024 – CMO #14 Continued

As we talked about in the September 22 update below, the government responded to the court’s previous order about possible changes to Case Management Order No. 14. The government said it had reached an agreement with the Settlement Masters on how information would be shared with them. Because of this agreement, the government believes that changes to Case Management Order No. 14 are not necessary.

The Lejeune judges have received a copy of this agreement, which is called a “Memorandum of Understanding” (MOU). Today, they said they will wait before making any changes to Case Management Order No. 14. The court wants to evaluate whether the MOU will be used in a way that keeps the settlement process moving quickly and smoothly, without unnecessary delays or restrictions on how information is handled.

The four judges administering these cases do want to get a settlement deal done and want to clear out as many obstacles in that path that they can.

September 25, 2024 – Status Hearing

Yesterday, there was a status hearing on discovery issues. The next conference will be on October 22, 2024.

One update we missed last month is the National Academy of Sciences’ motion to quash a subpoena related to its 2009 report on contaminated water at Camp Lejeune that we discussed on June 8. The Plaintiffs’ Leadership Group sought documents related to the report, but NAS resisted, citing confidentiality and privilege regarding its internal deliberations.

Judge Jones sided with the plaintiffs, ordering NAS to produce a detailed privilege log for withheld documents within 14 days. The court emphasized that NAS must comply with federal discovery rules, despite its confidentiality concerns.

September 22, 2024 – Settlement Master/Gov’t Information Problem Solved

After consulting with the Settlement Masters, the United States agreed on procedures that allow its counsel to engage with the Settlement Masters while safeguarding government information. (See the September 4 update below that explains the issue.)

Glad this is resolved, but I hope this is not a harbinger of more nonsensical roadblocks in the future.

September 18, 2024 – Final Administrative Claim Count

There are over 550,000 administrative claims filed with the Department of Navy, which is focused on finalizing data entry and addressing duplicate claims. I’m not sure why we do not have an exact number.

A total of 2,089 lawsuits have been filed under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA) as of September 2024 Sixty-six of those cases have been dismissed.

September 11, 2024 – Estate Issue Solved (a little)

The court recently ruled on motions for partial summary judgment filed by four plaintiffs. Three of the plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that they had met the administrative and legal requirements under the CLJA. They showed that they had filed claims with the Department of the Navy, specified the amount of damages sought, and waited the required six months without a final decision, thus exhausting their administrative remedies as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2675.

In addition, these plaintiffs established their legal standing by proving they were properly appointed as “legal representatives” of the deceased individuals they were representing. The court accepted documentation, such as letters of administration or testamentary, as sufficient evidence of their authority to manage the estates of the deceased.

The fourth plaintiff, however, was unable to prove to the court that she was a valid legal representative. The court noted that no state court of competent jurisdiction had appointed her as the administrator of her deceased husband’s estate. Under the CLJA, an individual must open an estate or be appointed in some official capacity to act as the legal representative of a deceased person. Because this plaintiff had not met those criteria, she lacked the legal standing to proceed. However, the court did not dismiss her case. Instead, the case was stayed, allowing her time to open an estate and correct the issue.

The plaintiffs also sought guidance from the court on what specifically constitutes a “legal representative” under the CLJA. They hoped for a clear ruling. Everyone wants to know what the ground rules are. But the court declined to offer such guidance, citing that federal courts cannot issue advisory opinions unless there is an actual controversy to resolve.

I disagree. The context of this case did not require an advisory opinion to clear up the what is required to open an estate issue in this litigation. That is what this ruling was about. I think the court could have and should have offered more clarity on the legal representative issue.

The court was similarly unpersuaded by a request to equitably toll the statute of limitations for all claimants under the CLJA, finding that it was not relevant because no party had argued that the claims were time-barred. On this one, I agree with he court. There was no statute of limitations in these cases so such a ruling could reasonably be seen as crossing that line into advisory opinion territory.

September 10, 2024 – Getting Camp Lejeune Settlement Masters What They Need

The government has requested a one-week extension to respond to Magistrate Judge Gates’s September 3, 2024, order regarding potential amendments to Case Management Order No. 14 that we talked about in our September 4 update below.

The government says it has been collaborating with the Settlement Masters to establish procedures that would enable them to work together while safeguarding sensitive government information, in accordance with the case management order. They think the can get an agreement soon.

September 9, 2024 – Parkinson’s Disease Study

Even before the PACT act passed, we have been saying that Parkinson’s disease claims are among the strongest claims in this litigation. A recent study conducted by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, adds more weight to the science behind these claims. Researchers found that exposure to volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including trichloroethylene, in the water at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, may accelerate the progression of Parkinson’s disease.

The study analyzed a cohort of over 172,000 Marines who resided at the base between 1975 and 1985. Among the 270 individuals with Parkinson’s were identified, 65.6% were exposed to VOCs at levels exceeding the permissible limit. The findings suggest that those exposed to VOCs experienced faster progression of Parkinson’s disease, with a higher risk of psychosis, fractures, falls, and shorter time to these events compared to those unexposed.

The study, supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs, highlights a significant dose-response relationship, particularly in the time to falls, and concludes that PD progression may be accelerated by prior environmental exposures.

September 4, 2024 – Trying to Get Settlement Moving Forward

The court is considering modifying the Case Management Order No. 14 to improve the efficiency of settlement processes in this litigation and help resolve some hang-ups the DOJ has about using equipment supplied by the DOJ to get the settlement ball moving forward.

Specifically, the proposed amendments focus on the protocols concerning how Settlement Masters access and handle DOJ data:

Data Security and Equipment Use: The amendments propose that Settlement Masters and their staff may use their own technology and equipment, provided these meet reasonable security measures as per the Amended Protective Order. This change means they will no longer be required to use equipment supplied by the Department of Justice, thus avoiding the constraints of DOJ-specific rules and Federal Acquisition Regulations.
Contractual Terms for Appointment: Another proposed amendment concerns the conditions under which Settlement Masters are appointed. The current requirement that the appointment of Mr. Perrelli and Mr. Oprison as Settlement Masters is contingent on contractual agreements over payment terms will be broadened. The amendment clarifies that these contractual terms will not cover the type, features, or source of technology or equipment used to access DOJ information. This change aims to remove technology or equipment specifications as barriers in the contracting process, facilitating easier entry into substantive settlement discussions.

The judge are asking for comments on these proposed amendments are due one week from its issuance yesterday.

August 27, 2024 – Status Conference

There was a status conference this morning.

August 21, 2024 – Over 500,000 Administrative Claims

Approximately 546,500 administrative claims have been filed with the Department of Navy under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act.

Let’s be realistic. Given the population size and the duration over which the contamination occurred, it is improbable that over half a million people suffered direct injuries. This number is certainly inflated with duplicates and claims that are simply not viable.

August 20, 2024 – All 100 Plaintiffs Deposed

The government has completed all 100 depositions of the Track 1 Discovery Plaintiffs.

August 17, 2024 – How Many Filed Claims?

We will learn in the next status report from the government how many claims have been filed in this litigation. Our guess is that it will be over 400,000, but how many of those cases are viable may be a different story.

At some point, there will be a global settlement deal that will involve more than just the Track 1 cases. The question is which cases will be included, when it will happen, and how much the settlement will be.

August 15, 2024 – Moving Settlement Forward

The government’s response as outlined in the “Notice in Response to the Court’s Settlement Masters Engagement Order” reveals a bureaucratic slowness, to put it generously, in attacking settlement for these lawsuits. Despite ongoing “constructive conversations” with the settlement masters, there is no finalized agreement to pay them.

What’s the holdup? The DOJ is particularly concerned about the protection of sensitive government information and the use of DOJ equipment. They assert that agreements on various operational details need to be ironed out first.

This cautious approach seems driven by a legitimate concern over information security—likely because no one at the DOJ wants to commit a blunder that could be severely criticized. However, it also typifies a bureaucratic inertia that risks unnecessarily dragging out the settlement process.

August 11, 2024 – The Problem Here

Plaintiffs’ lawyers are again complaining about the DOJ’s failure to produce documents despite numerous requests for documents from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command, the government has not produced the necessary materials.

Witnesses have indicated they possess relevant records, but these have not been provided, causing significant delays in discovery and depositions. The plaintiffs argue that the government’s failure to comply with document requests is creating an unfair disadvantage and request a court order to mandate the release of all non-privileged documents and a log of any documents withheld.

I saw a quote earlier in the week from a congressperson – I can’t remember who it was – who said that the government is defending these lawsuits like they were a tobacco company.

I’m saying that less judgmentally than it sounds. There are good lawyers and decent people defending these cases. They reflexively do what lawyers do which is fight as hard as they can.

But they are playing the wrong game here. Congress passed the law allowing Camp Lejeune victims to sue with the clear intent of providing justice and compensation to those affected. The government’s role should be to facilitate this process, not to obstruct it by employing the aggressive tactics you see in corporate litigation. The government is not 3M. Upholding the spirit of the law means working towards just outcomes for the victims, not focusing on technicalities or legal loopholes to avoid responsibility which the DOJ has done to some extent.

August 9, 2024 – Changes to Monthly Status Conferences

The court, on its own initiative, is addressing the future status conferences for the Camp Lejeune Water Litigation. Regular status conferences have been held where parties provided updates, including on settlement efforts. With the recent appointment of Settlement Masters and a Settlement Liaison, updates on settlement efforts are no longer required in status reports or during conferences. So you will no longer see those in our updates.

The parties have also been updating the court on stipulations since the last conference, which have been less thorough than expected. Due to these challenges, a pretrial schedule for expert discovery and briefing on Track 1 issues has been set. The court has emphasized the need for a detailed discussion on the order of proof for CLJA bench trials and has asked the parties to confer on this and report their progress in the next Status Report due August 20, 2024. The next status conference is set for August 27, 2024, in Wilmington.

August 8, 2024: Plan from Here

With fact discovery concluding next week, it is time to get moving towards getting expert testimony ready for trial. A timeline has been established for the expert discovery phase in the Track 1 lawsuits that are going first. Plaintiffs are set to reveal their experts on toxic chemical exposure within 75 days, followed by the United States disclosing its experts 45 days later. Plaintiffs will then have 21 days to present their rebuttal experts.

Parallel schedules have been arranged for the phases covering general causation, specific causation, and damages. Each phase of expert discovery must be finalized within 45 days after the disclosures. Subsequently, Daubert motions and motions for summary judgment must be submitted within 30 days of the end of expert discovery. Parties will have a 21-day window to file oppositions to these motions, and an additional 14 days to submit replies.

August 7, 2024 – No Longer Accepting Camp Lejeune Cases

The 2-year deadline for victims to file claims under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2022 expired yesterday. This means that all future claims regarding injuries caused by the toxic water at Camp Lejeune are time-barred. Our firm is no longer accepting new Camp Lejeune cases.

July 31, 2024 – Sign #344,334 That Elective Option Is Not Working

We have total Lejeune settlements totaling only $23.4 million.

We think settlement talks will get a lot more serious in 11 days.

July 30, 2024 – Judge Bars Camp Lejeune Settlement Talks Leaks

Yesterday, a Magistrate Judge issued an Order prohibiting the parties from making public statements or disclosures about the ongoing global settlement negotiations. The Order specifically aimed at preventing the parties from discussing the progress of the settlement talks in their monthly status reports, which are filed and publicly accessible on PACER.

Why? The restrictions on disclosing Lejeune settlement talk information during status conferences and in joint status reports aim to protect the integrity of settlement negotiations.

This confidentiality helps ensure that the parties can freely discuss and negotiate settlements without concerns that sensitive details might influence judicial proceedings or become public.

Such measures typically encourage open and honest communication during settlement discussions, potentially facilitating more effective and fair resolutions. The exclusion of the court from receiving this information prevents any perceived or actual bias, ensuring the court’s impartiality in the proceedings.

July 24, 2024 – Competing Trial Plans

Camp Lejeune plaintiffs’ lawyers and the government have submitted different proposals yesterday for the pretrial scheduling order in these case that are heading towards trial. Plaintiffs proposal emphasizes completing expert discovery promptly, setting deadlines for expert discovery, dispositive motions practice, and trial commencement by the spring of 2025.

They propose shortening the DOJ’s time to disclose responsive experts from 45 to 30 days in the water contamination phase and suggest a briefing schedule for Daubert and dispositive motions that deviates from the Local Rule, allowing only 14 days for reply briefs for non-discovery motions. Additionally, the plaintiffs plans to disclose specific causation and damages experts for individual plaintiffs by November 19, 2024, requiring the DOJ to disclose its responsive experts within 30 days of their disclosures for each plaintiff.

In contrast, the government’s proposal retains all previously negotiated discovery and briefing deadlines, adding a residual expert discovery phase to avoid reopening expert discovery, which was a concern the judges had. Their phased discovery approach starts with water contamination and general causation, followed by specific causation and damages.

The key differences between the two proposals include the timelines for expert discovery, with the plaintiffs proposing a more accelerated timeline. In other words, the government’s plan aims to slow the train down. Plaintiffs want to get trials as soon as possible.

July 18, 2024 – Win for Plaintiffs – Opt-Out Ruling Affirmed

Seven months ago, the government filed a motion to amend Case Management Order No. 2. It wanted four things: (1) mandate that every plaintiff file a short form complaint, (2) removal of the opt-out provision for Track 2 and future track plaintiffs, (3) extending Track 1 fact discovery by 90 days, and (4) requiring prompt notification if any plaintiff undergoes or will undergo an expert examination.

In February, the court issued Case Management Order No. 10, giving the government some of what it wanted. The court sensibly required all plaintiffs to file a short form complaint. But it retained the opt-out provision for Track 2 and future plaintiffs, declined to extend Track 1 discovery, and deferred the ruling on the expert examination notification requirement.

In April, and we wrote about it in the April 17th update, the DOJ sought reconsideration of the decision to keep the opt-out provision. The government argued that a significant number of Track 2 plaintiffs opting out had skewed the representative sample needed for fair litigation.

It took the court a while, obviously, but in a new ruling yesterday the judges denied this motion for reconsideration. The judges emphasized that the existing Track 2 pool still contained enough cases to maintain a representative sample and found no compelling new evidence to warrant a change in the order. The court maintained that accommodations could be made for plaintiffs unable to participate fully in discovery or trial without necessitating the removal of the opt-out provision.

July 13, 2024 – Plaintiffs’ Proposed Track One Schedule

The parties have jointly proposed this schedule to the court:

Event	Date/Timeframe
Close of discovery related to Track 1 Trial Plaintiffs	August 11, 2024
PLG discloses experts on Water Contamination Phase	75 days after close of fact discovery
Defendant discloses experts on Water Contamination Phase	45 days after plainitffs disclose their experts
PLG discloses rebuttal experts on Water Contamination Phase	21 days after Defendant discloses their experts
PLG discloses experts on General Causation Phase	120 days after close of fact discovery
Defendant discloses experts on General Causation Phase	45 days after plaintifffs disclose their experts
PLG discloses rebuttal experts on General Causation Phase	21 days after Defendant discloses their experts
Complete expert discovery for each phase	45 days after expert disclosures
Serve Daubert motions and motions for summary judgment for each phase	30 days after completing expert discovery
File oppositions to motions	21 days after motions are served
File replies to oppositions	14 days after oppositions are filed

This schedule will likely push the first trial well into 2025.

July 12, 2024: Settlements Masters Finally Appointed

The North Carolina judges have appointed Thomas J. Perrelli of Jenner & Block LLP and Christopher G. Oprison of DLA Piper as settlement masters to facilitate settlement discussions. Magistrate Judge James E. Gates has also been appointed as settlement liaison to assist.

The court is tasking these settlement masters with establishing a settlement structure for the Camp Lejeune Justice Act cases and facilitating discussions between the parties. They will not act as advocates or have coercive authority so no one is going to be cramming a settlement down anyone’s throats. Their authority is limited to facilitating settlement discussions and does not extend to adjudicating any issues in the litigation. But they will work to develop a unified approach to the Herculean task of getting the majority of these lawsuits settled.

The deadline to bring a Camp Lejeune lawsuit is approaching, and the DOJ is feeling the pressure of trials. It is time to throw away the Elective Option and make a real run and get Camp Lejeune settlements en masse.

July 10, 2024: Update on Settlement Payouts

According to the latest joint status report, there are 93 Camp Lejeune cases currently in litigation that qualify for the government’s elective early settlement program. So far, 37 of these cases have accepted early settlement offers, with payouts ranging from $100,000 to $450,000. In nine cases, the elective settlement offers have been rejected, while 26 offers are still pending.

Outside of the elective early settlement program, the government has made settlement offers to 111 individual plaintiffs after verifying their claims. 58 of these settlement offers have been accepted, and 3 have been rejected. Payments totaling just over $20 million have already been sent out to 81 of these plaintiffs – an average of about $246,000 per plaintiff. Bladder cancer claims have had the highest average per claim payout value.

July 9, 2024: Racing to the Finish Line

When we last reported on June 22, 1,825 civil lawsuits were filed. That number has gone up just a bit to 1,851 lawsuits.

Administrative claims is another matter. They continue to surge. Two weeks ago, 261,293 claims were filed with the Navy under the CLJA. This number has surged to approximately 285,484 claims. That is 24,292 more claims in just two weeks.

Everyone keeps asking is how many of these over 285,000 claims are viable and how many of them are for injuries that could never be related to Camp Lejeune? Right now, no one knows that answer.

June 29, 2024 – General Causation Before Trial Motion

The North Carolina judges have decided independently that they want to resolve two critical issues before the first trials: toxic chemical exposure from the water at Camp Lejeune and general causation for the Track I Illnesses.

The plaintiffs’ first task is to establish the presence and levels of alleged chemicals in the water at Camp Lejeune from 1953 to 1987, such as benzene, TCE, PCE, and vinyl chloride. This involves proving the contamination levels at various water distribution systems. Ridiculously, the government has not agreed to stipulate to this.

Secondly, plaintiffs must meet their general causation burden by proving a causal relationship between the chemicals in the water and the Track I Illnesses (bladder cancer, kidney cancer, leukemia, Parkinson’s disease, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma). The court will expedite expert discovery limited to these issues, followed by potential Daubert and dispositive motion briefings.

The parties have been ordered to meet and confer to resolve these Track I issues. They are required to jointly submit a proposed pretrial schedule by July 12, 2024, which will include timelines for limited expert discovery and necessary briefings.

The good news is this will streamline trials to allow for shorter trials that we can hopefully try back-to-back-to-back.

June 18, 2024 – Plaintiffs’ Bellwether Picks

Plaintiffs have their picks for the bellwether trial:

Bladder Cancer

Criswell v. USA, Case No. 7:23-cv-01482-BO-BM
Dyer v. USA, Case No. 7:23-cv-00357-D-RJ
Cagiano v. USA, Case No. 7:23-cv-00569-BO-RN

Kidney Cancer

Mousser v. USA, Case No. 7:23-cv-00667-D-RN
Howard v. USA, Case No. 7:23-cv-00490-FL
Fancher v. USA, Case No. 7:23-cv-00275-M-BM

Leukemia

Gleesing v. USA, Case No. 7:23-cv-01486-FL
Connard v. USA, Case No. 7:23-cv-01557-M-RN
Hill v. USA, Case No. 7:23-cv-00028-M-KS

Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma

Carter v. USA, Case No. 7:23-cv-01565-M-KS
Kidd v. USA, Case No. 7:23-cv-01489-FL
Davis v. USA, Case No. 7:23-cv-00043-BO-BM

Parkinson’s Disease

Peterson v. USA, Case No. 7:23-cv-01576-M-RJ
McElhiney v. USA, Case No. 7:23-cv-01368-BO-RJ
Rothchild v. USA, Case No. 7:23-cv-00858-D-KS

See our June 11, 2024 update for more background.

June 12, 2024 – A Discovery Win

The magistrate judge overseeing the discovery in this litigation ruled for the plaintiffs yesterday, finding that Dr. Christopher Portier’s testimony will go forward. The judge found Dr. Portier’s testimony relevant – it is hard to imagine finding otherwise – and that the government’s claim of undue burden and expenses of attending Dr. Portier’s deposition in Italy were ill-founded. The court highlighted that travel costs alone are insufficient grounds to prevent the deposition, especially given the significant potential impact of Dr. Portier’s testimony on all claimants.

The court also addressed concerns regarding compliance with international law, with plaintiffs accepting the responsibility to ensure all Italian legal requirements are met. Consequently, the motion to prevent Dr. Portier’s deposition was denied.

You can find more background information on this motion for a protective order to quash the deposition in the May 31st summary below.

June 11, 2024 – Court Approves Track 1 Plan

The court approved the joint motion we discussed last week in the June 4th update yesterday. So we will soon know which five Lejeune lawsuits will be heading for trial first. Plaintiffs’ lawyers must pick the three cases from the list they want to go to trial in the next five days.

June 8, 2024 – NAS Discovery

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, nonprofit institution established to provide expert advice on scientific issues.

The NAS conducted a study sponsored by the Navy in 2009 to investigate the links between adverse health effects and contaminated water at Camp Lejeune. The plaintiffs served a subpoena to the NAS, asking for the report and related documents in an effort to get to the truth. Curiously, the NAS has refused to produce the documents. There is a motion to compel pending, and the court is expected to hear the motion on Wednesday.

Get more Camp Lejeune updates that go all the way back to the very beginning

How Camp Lejeune Lawsuits Work

The CLJA gives individuals (or their survivors) who lived or worked at Camp Lejeune for at least 30 days the right to file civil lawsuits in the Eastern District of North Carolina to seek damages for injuries allegedly caused by the contaminated water. Before filing their lawsuit, however, § (h) of the CLJA requires all claimants to go through a 6-month administrative claim process:

(h) Disposition By Federal Agency Required.- An individual may not bring an action under this section before complying with section 2675 of title 28, United States Code.

Before filing a Camp Lejeune toxic water lawsuit, a prospective plaintiff must submit their claim to the “appropriate federal agency.” Once a claim is submitted, the federal agency has a strict 6-month deadline to either accept or deny the claim. Claimants must wait until their claim is rejected or the 6-month deadline expires before filing their lawsuit in federal court.

This administrative claim process is a formality in most regular lawsuits against the Navy. Administrative claims are almost always denied, and the claimants move on to file suit. However, for Camp Lejeune claims under the CLJA, the process could be much different.

Under the CLJA, we believe that at the administrative claims process may be more like a pre-filing settlement mediation in which claimants who pass an initial screening process receive very reasonable settlement offers. We expect many claimants will accept settlement offers during the administrative claim process and never end up filing civil lawsuits.

Our lawyers expect the CLJA administrative claim process to play out this way for two reasons. First, Congress passed the CLJA to ensure that victims of the Lejeune water contamination could get financial compensation for valid injuries. Second, the Biden administration will ultimately be responsible for how this plays out. President Biden has made it clear that he strongly supports compensating deserving veterans.

Who Will the “Appropriate Federal Agency” Be for CLJA Claims?

Under the FTCA, administrative claims must be submitted to the “appropriate federal agency.” Camp Lejeune is not a Federal Tort Claims Act or Military Claims Act lawsuit, but there are similarities.

For Camp Lejeune water contamination claims under the CLJA, the appropriate federal agency will be the Department of the Navy (Navy). The Navy was the agency responsible for the USMC base at Camp Lejeune.

Although the Navy will be the federal agency named in the claim, they will most likely defer to the Department of Justice (DOJ) on handling these suits. The DOJ will take its direction on approaching the CLJA claims from the Biden Administration.

New Law to Allow Camp Lejeune Lawsuit

From 1953 to 1987, the public water supply at Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base in North Carolina was contaminated with toxic chemicals. So for 30 years, more than a million Marines and their families drank and bathed in contaminated water.

Thousands of Marines and their families have suffered severe illnesses and have died. There is strong scientific evidence that chronic exposure to toxic chemicals in Camp Lejeune’s water has caused increased rates of cancer and has caused injuries to children in utero.

Water Contamination at Camp Lejeune

Camp Lejeune is a massive Marine Corps base and military training facility that covers nearly 250 square miles in Onslow County, North Carolina. Camp Lejeune was first opened in 1942. It is used as a base of operations for the Marine Corps and a military operations and training facility used by various branches of the armed forces.

Since its founding in 1942, Camp Lejeune has been a temporary or permanent home for thousands of military service members and their families.

It has also been a home or place of work for thousands more civilian employees and contractors. Camp Lejeune had its own public water system to supply these Marines and civilians with potable water.

In the 1980s, environmental testing at Camp Lejeune discovered that the water supply for its residents and employees was dangerously contaminated.

Toxic Chemicals in Water

Specifically, the Marine Corps determined that from approximately 1953 through 1987, the water supply to Camp Lejeune had been heavily contaminated with volatile organic compounds and carcinogenic chemicals. The most troubling chemicals found were trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (PCE).

These chemicals are in a class of chemicals called “volatile organic compounds” (VOCs). These chemicals are used for dry cleaning, and much of the water contamination was attributed to an off-base dry cleaner that existed before the Marine base was opened. So the water wells were likely contaminated before Camp Lejeune opened.

However, this toxic water came from multiple sources. The same chemicals are also used to clean machinery and weapons, so the contamination came from on and off the Marine base.

Core Issue in Every Camp Lejeune Lawsuit

Every Camp Lejeune water contamination lawsuit will allege that the water supply at Camp Lejeune was contaminated between the 1960s and 1980s. The lawsuit will also claim that the United States negligently caused injury or death by allowing contaminants into the Camp Lejeune water supply and not warning people when they should know these water issues could cause awful side effects that included death.

What Toxic Chemicals Were in the Camp Lejeune Water Supply?

Two specific chemical compounds contaminated the water supply at Camp Lejeune from 1953 to 1987, and they came from two specific water treatment facilities servicing the base: Perchloroethylene (PCE) and Trichloroethylene (TCE).

PCE Caused the Greatest Harm

PCE was the most significant cause of the water contamination and the injuries and deaths that followed at Camp Lejeune. PCE is a clear liquid chemical used in dry cleaning to clean fabrics.

PCE is absorbed following oral, inhalation, and dermal exposures. It travels through the bloodstream to the lungs. PCE targets the central nervous system, liver, and kidneys and accumulates in fat cells. Tetrachloroethylene also crosses the placenta and distributes it to the fetus, which is why there were so many birth defects at Camp Lejeune.

PCE Related Injuries

The evidence is strong that PCE can cause various disorders, including liver and kidney injuries, kidney cancer, bladder cancer, multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Learn more about Camp Lejeune diseases.

PCE Levels at Tarawa Terrance Water Treatment Were Off the Charts

For 346 months, the Tarawa Terrance water treatment and supply facility at Camp Lejeune was contaminated with dangerously high levels of PCE. The source of the contamination was identified as a nearby dry cleaning company. The EPA’s maximum safe level for PCE in drinking water is five ug/L. The peak level of TCE contamination in 1985 in the Camp Lejeune water supply was 215 ug/L.

Digest that number. That is 43 times – 43 times! – the safe level for TCE. It is a wonder there were not more Camp Lejeune water contamination deaths and injuries than have been reported.

Trichloroethylene (TCE) at Hadnot Point Water Treatment Facility

TCE is an industrial chemical that is used in the manufacturing of refrigerants and other hydrofluorocarbons. It is a harmful chemical that has long been known to be unfit for human consumption. TCE has been used as a solvent and fumigant to kill insects.

The body absorbs trichloroethylene most from inhalation and through oral and dermal exposure. The bloodstream pushes this chemical to major organs that receive blood and deposit it in fat cells. The body metabolizes TCE mainly in the liver, kidneys, and lungs. Humans extensively metabolize inhaled doses of trichloroethylene. Metabolites may play a role in the adverse health effects described in studies.

TCE was also commonly used as a solvent and degreaser on metal military equipment. The Hadnot Point water treatment facility servicing Camp Lejeune was found to be highly contaminated with TCE. The contamination is believed to have come from numerous sources. EPA’s maximum safe level for TCE in potable water is five ppb. The Camp Lejeune water supply was contaminated with TCE as high as 1,400 ppb.

Heart Defects at Birth from TCE

With newborn children, congenital heart defects are common in mothers who drank and bathed in the contaminated water at Camp Lejeune. Studies strongly suggest a link between a mother’s exposure to TCE during pregnancy and congenital heart defects.

Other Toxic Chemicals in the Camp’s Well Water

Mercury

In 2012, the Hadnot Point water facility was also contaminated with mercury. Mercury may have come from water pressure meters at the facility that was removed in the 1980s.

Vinyl Chloride and Benzene

These were not the only toxic chemicals found on the base. Vinyl chloride and ne, poisonous chemicals that can cause many of these same injuries alone, were also found on the base. The fact that these toxic chemicals in the water supply are treated as a footnote underscores the remarkable stew of tragic mistakes that caused harm to so many Marines and their families. This is why Congress is stepping in with the Camp Lejeune Justice Act (our attorneys discuss this further below).

Everyone Agrees the Water at Camp Lejeune Was Contaminated

The government will unlikely dispute these facts in a Camp Lejeune lawsuit. In 1989, the EPA placed Camp Lejeune on the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”) National Priorities List for environmental cleanup activities. You may have also heard it is called a “Superfund” site. A Superfund is a euphemism for toxic mess. The U.S. Navy agreed to work with the EPA in environmental remediation efforts that continue to this day.

Chemicals in Camp Lejeune Water-Linked to Cancer

The industrial chemicals that were contaminating the Camp Lejeune water supply are known to be very toxic to the human body and have been linked to cancer, birth defects, and neurologic disorders. Scientific and medical evidence has shown that chronic exposure to the chemicals TCE and PCE can cause increased rates of certain types of cancer.

The types of cancer that have been scientifically linked to the consumption of harmful chemicals contaminating the water at Camp Lejeune include:

Exposure to these chemicals has also been linked to other health conditions, including aplastic anemia (and other myelodysplastic syndromes) and neurologic disorders such as Parkinson’s disease.

Non-Cancer Camp Lejeune Injuries

The science and medical evidence continue to build links to other injuries besides cancer. They include:

Infertility and Miscarriage
Birth Defects
Birth Injuries
Brain Injuries
Cardiac Defects
Fatty Liver Disease
Neurobehavioral Effects
Plastic anemia and other bone marrow conditions
Renal Toxicity
Scleroderma
Hepatic Steatosis
ALS (Lou Gerhrig’s Disease)
Parkinson’s Disease

Contaminated Water at Camp Lejeune Caused Birth Defects

Birth defects are one of the big tragedies of Camp Lejeune. Over the years, thousands of pregnant women were exposed to toxic water at Camp Lejeune. In 2013, the CDC released a study that confirmed that children born to mothers who lived on Camp Lejeune or drank the water supply had four times the rate of birth defects such as spina bifida.

The CDC also indicated that children exposed to the contaminated Camp Lejeune water during fetal gestation had an increased risk of developing childhood cancers like leukemia. These same children may also have a higher risk of adult cancer.

Camp Lejeune Victims Can Now Get Compensation

The water contamination at Camp Lejeune has negatively impacted the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who lived or worked at the base over the years. Many people have developed cancer, died, and suffered other diseases.

So far, most of the Camp Lejeune water contamination victims have never been able to get justice or compensation. North Carolina (where the base is located) has a law known as a “statute of repose,” which puts a maximum year limit on how long someone can wait before filing a civil lawsuit, even if they could never have known that the water issues caused injuries until after the deadline to sue had already passed.

Victims Could Not Bring a Camp Lejeune Lawsuit Under the Old Law

Under North Carolina’s statute of repose, no civil tort lawsuit can be filed after more than ten years. This law has effectively blocked Camp Lejeune victims from bringing lawsuits seeking financial compensation. In 2016, multi-district litigation involving 850 former Camp Lejeune residents (Straw v. the United States) was dismissed based on the North Carolina repose statute.

In 2012, the Janey Ensminger Act was passed, authorizing the U.S. government to pay medical care costs to family members harmed by the contaminated water at Camp Lejeune.

The Ensminger Act had limitations. It was basically disability benefits. Worse, Marines’ families were excluded.

Many in Congress think Marines and their families should not be limited to VA benefits. That thinking led to the Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2022.

Camp Lejeune Settlement Amounts

Settlement compensation for Camp Lejeune injuries will be based on the extent of the victims’ injuries and your drinking water contamination lawyer’s ability to tie the injuries or death to the toxic water. There are so many types of injuries from this toxic drinking water. You can expect Camp Lejeune per person settlement payouts to be tailored to victims’ injuries.

Settlement Amount Projections By Type of Camp Lejeune Claim

That is a big gap in the settlement ranges above, right? There is no question that the settlement amount will vary based on the type of claim. Our lawyers have made Camp Lejeune compensation payout projections for specific types of Camp Lejeune claims:

Bladder Cancer	Parkinson’s Disease
Kidney Cancer	Liver Cancer
Lung Cancer	Esophageal Cancer
Birth Defects	Aplastic Anemia
Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma	Prostate Cancer
Leukemia	Breast Cancer
Multiple Myeloma	Colorectal Cancer
Miscarriage	Brain Cancer
Aplastic Anemia	ALS
Myelodysplastic Syndrome	Thyroid Cancer
Soft Tissue Cancer	Cervical Cancer

Cancer and Parkinson’s Disease Settlement Amounts

You can expect the largest Camp Lejeune settlement amounts to go to cancer victims, their families, and Parkinson’s disease lawsuits. The average individual settlement for Parkinson’s disease cases we originally thought could reach between $1 million and $1.5 million. Of course, the Elective Option settlements have not reflected numbers that high, and losing the right to a jury trial – as we did at least temporarily in 2024 – will decrease the projected average settlement payout for Lejeune. So an average of over a million was probably too aggressive. Still, our lawyers think will see compensation offers in some of these cases that approach seven figures.

You need to remember that the average is just an average. We do not have a situation where everyone gets the same settlement compensation payout. Instead, there is likely to be a complex points award system per person that compensates victims based on a laundry list of facts, which should provide more excellent settlement amounts to victims who have suffered the most.

Our Lawyers Will Narrow Settlement Compensation Projections

Granted, this is a broad range of settlement amounts, and there will likely be Camp Lejeune settlement payouts that are higher and lower than this range. But it is still early in the litigation. Our Camp Lejeune attorneys will know more as the litigation progresses. Our lawyers will update and narrow our Camp Lejeune settlement amount as we go.

$22 Billion Allotted to Camp Lejeune Settlements

Unlike most class action lawsuits, the decision as to the settlement amounts to compensate victims will involve politics and policy instead of projected jury compensation payouts. One looking glass to the ultimate settlement: the government has allocated $22 billion to pay Camp Lejeune settlement amounts and jury payouts. This final settlement number could go up or down. So it is a bit of an artificial number. But it is a strong anchor for the Justice Department when it starts offering settlement amounts to Camp Lejeune victims.

So you can do some back-of-the-napkin math to calculate average settlement compensation payouts. But the critical question is how many Lejeune class action claims will be filed. For example, if there are 110,000 claims accepted, that would be an average per-person Camp Lejeune settlement amount of $200,000. In June 2024, the last count was over 232,000 claims. But how many of those are viable claims? We are probably back close to that 110,000 estimate.

Political Pressure to Raise Camp Lejeune Lawsuit Payouts

The low range of the average Camp Lejeune lawsuit payout our attorneys projected above was $150,000. The question is: Is this what Congress intends? The politics of compensating veterans for the harm done to them probably do not jive with an average Camp Lejeune lawsuit settlement amount of $150,000. This is why the likely average per-person Lejeune claim will probably be more than double that amount of money.

Type of Camp Lejeune Lawsuits Are Lawyers Are Seeing

What are the most common Camp Lejeune water contamination lawsuits?

This is a list of our law firm’s Camp Lejeune lawsuits, ranked by the number of cases we have for each injury or sickness.

How Many Camp Lejeune Settlements Have Their Been So Far?

At last count, in August 2024, 64 people have accepted settlements for their injuries from the toxic water at Lejeune, totaling $26 million. These figures are no longer announced so we no longer have an active count of settlements.

What Will Lejeune Victims Have to Prove to Get a Settlement Payout or Verdict?

Individuals who meet the qualifying criteria under the CLJA (i.e., lived or worked at Lejeune for 30 days during the applicable period) will NOT automatically qualify for settlement compensation.

Rather, these individuals will have the right to file a lawsuit for their alleged injuries. To get financial compensation, plaintiffs who file lawsuits under the CLJA will still need to prove that the contaminated water caused their injuries at Lejeune.

The CLJA establishes a lower burden of proof, making it easier for plaintiffs who bring Camp Lejeune water lawsuits under the CLJA to prove their case. Specifically, section (b)(2) of the CLJA provides that Lejeune plaintiffs can satisfy their burden of proof with a scientific study concluding that their alleged injury (i.e., kidney cancer, etc.) could be linked to exposure to the water at Camp Lejeune:

Use of Studies – A study conducted on humans or animals, or from an epidemiological study that ruled out chance and bias with reasonable confidence and which concluded, with sufficient evidence, that exposure to the water described in subsection (a) is one possible cause of the harm, shall be sufficient to satisfy the burden of proof described under paragraph (1).

This provision suggests that plaintiffs under CLJA will be allowed to prove their claims if they can cite a single study suggesting a link between their type of cancer (or other injuries) and the Lejeune water. This would eliminate the requirement of expert witness testimony, although it is not entirely clear who to interpret this provision..

How Camp Lejeune Wrongful Death Claims Work?

The newly enacted CLJA allows tort claims to be brought on behalf of former Camp Lejeune residents or employees who are now deceased because of injuries related to the water contamination.

Exposure to the contaminated water at Camp Lejeune occurred in North Carolina, so these cases would involve wrongful death and survival claims under North Carolina law. In this section, our Camp Lejeune attorneys provide a brief overview of death claims in North Carolina.

North Carolina Wrongful Death Claims

North Carolina law allows two types of tort claims that can be filed on behalf of someone after their death: (1) wrongful death claims; and (2) a survival action. Both causes of action are created by statute.

North Carolina Gen. Stat. § 28A-18-2 allows the estate of a deceased person to bring a wrongful death claim against any person who negligently or intentionally caused the decedent’s death.

Only Personal Representative Can Bring Camp Lejeune Wrongful Death Lawsuit

Unlike other states which allow wrongful death claims to be brought by any close family member of the decedent, North Carolina only permits the personal representative of the decedent’s estate to bring suit If the wrongful death claim is successful, the settlement proceeds or damages are distributed to the decedent’s heirs (not just the personal representative).

Camp Lejeune Wrongful Death Damages

In a North Carolina wrongful death claim, damages can be awarded for:

medical expenses
pain & suffering of the decedent
loss of the decedent’s income, personal services and companionship, and
funeral expenses

Camp Lejeune Survival Actions

The survival claim can recover for pre-death injuries that are separate and distinct from the wrongful death claim. Just like wrongful death cases, North Carolina law only allows the personal representative of the decedent’s estate to bring survival claims.

Rules of Camp Lejeune Wrongful Death Claims

Under the newly passed CLJA, wrongful death claims can be brought by the estate of any former residents or employees of Camp Lejeune who died because of injuries related to their exposure to the contaminated water.

Personal representatives could also bring survival claims under the CLJA, although they would have to show that this claim seeks pre-death damages based on separate and distinct actions.