Lawsuit Information Center
This page provides Camp Lejeune lawsuit updates. Our lawyers are still working to give the latest update on the litigation, even though we are no longer taking new cases.
We have also recently reopened the comments below to answer any questions you may have or simply give you a chance to share your thoughts.
Latest Camp Lejeune Lawsuit Updates for 2025
Let’s start with a quick summary of the latest news:
📅 April 28, 2025 – Discovery Dispute Over Privilege Fight
As the Camp Lejeune litigation continues to move toward trial, a major dispute has arisen over a document that the Department of Justice claims is privileged. During the deposition of one of the government’s expert witnesses, plaintiffs’ attorneys used a document that the government had not previously identified as privileged. After the expert was questioned about the document, the DOJ asserted privilege and demanded that the document be withdrawn from the record. Plaintiffs strongly dispute the privilege claim and have requested that the court review the document in camera.
Privilege Claim Under Scrutiny
Plaintiffs argue that the document should never have been considered privileged and that the government’s late objection is another example of unfair discovery tactics. According to plaintiffs’ attorneys, the document was not flagged in advance, and there is no clear legal basis for protecting it under the work product doctrine. The issue remains unresolved, but it highlights the ongoing challenges plaintiffs face in obtaining full and fair access to evidence in this litigation.
Broader Impact on the Case
This privilege fight is just one part of a larger pattern of discovery disputes. Plaintiffs continue to encounter resistance from the government when seeking information about expert witnesses, compensation records, and medical evidence that has evolved over time. With the Elective Option settlement process offering limited relief for most claimants, many victims believe that a full trial will be necessary to achieve fair compensation. Battles over evidence and discovery protocols will likely shape the fairness and outcome of the upcoming Track 1 trials.
Number of Cases Update
Since our last update, the Camp Lejeune litigation has continued to move forward, although there have been some familiar obstacles along the way. Approximately 2,900 lawsuits are pending in the Eastern District of North Carolina, and the Navy is managing over 400,000 administrative claims.
What Is Next?
- The court will decide whether the disputed document should be protected or made available for use at trial.
- Discovery disputes over expert reports, supplemental evidence, and privilege claims are expected to continue.
- Trial preparation for Track 1 plaintiffs remains underway, with key deadlines approaching.
📅 April 17, 2025 – Plaintiffs Seek Sanctions Over Surprise Government Site Visit
A major procedural dispute has erupted in the Camp Lejeune litigation, as plaintiffs’ lawyers have filed a motion to block the government from using any evidence tied to a February 2025 site visit by one of its experts. The visit, conducted by geochemist Dr. Remy Hennet, took place two months after the expert disclosure deadline and long after plaintiffs had submitted their rebuttal reports. During the visit, Dr. Hennet gathered new data, took photographs, interviewed facility employees, and observed equipment—all without notifying the court or the plaintiffs in advance.
Unfair Tactics Alleged: Plaintiffs’ lawyers argue that the Department of Justice knowingly violated court scheduling orders by introducing new expert materials outside the allowed timeline. They note that Dr. Hennet’s activities go beyond confirming prior opinions and include fresh observations and conclusions that were not part of his December 2024 report. Despite having already visited the site twice before, Dr. Hennet waited until after plaintiffs submitted rebuttals to conduct this follow-up. When plaintiffs asked for their own expert to receive similar access, the government refused unless they agreed to new, unrelated depositions.
Why It Matters: The plaintiffs are calling on the court to exclude all evidence stemming from the February site visit, including notes, photographs, and oral testimony. They argue that allowing the government to benefit from an unsanctioned, one-sided discovery effort undermines the integrity of the process and places an unfair burden on plaintiffs who were not given the same opportunity. With trial preparation underway and expert discovery near completion, the stakes are high. The court’s ruling on this motion could shape the evidentiary boundaries of the upcoming Track 1 trials.
What’s Next:
- The court is expected to rule soon on the motion to exclude the late-produced expert materials.
- Additional arguments may arise over fairness in expert access and the scope of permissible testimony at trial.
- Trial prep continues under increasing pressure as parties navigate tight deadlines and evidentiary disputes.
This latest conflict highlights the importance of procedural discipline as the litigation enters its most critical phase.
📅 April 3, 2025 – Discovery Friction and Trial Prep Challenges
As of the end of March, 2,770 lawsuits have been filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act. Over 408,000 administrative claims are still pending with the Department of the Navy, and about 6,000 of those are being reviewed for potential resolution under the Elective Option. Track 1 cases—focused on leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma—are now assigned to Judge Dever, and discussions are ongoing about breaking them into trial-ready subgroups.
Expert Discovery Developments: Expert discovery is nearing completion across Phases I, II, and III, but disputes over fairness and access continue to surface. In February, a government expert conducted a site visit to Camp Lejeune, collecting new data and making observations long after the deadline for expert disclosures. The plaintiffs’ counsel requested equal access to their expert but was denied. Instead, the government requested new depositions, creating added friction as deadlines approach.
Medical Updates Complicate Scheduling: Sadly, one Track 1 plaintiff was recently diagnosed with bladder cancer after expert reports had already been submitted. Plaintiff’s lawyers promptly informed the DOJ and are working to supplement the reports. The government, citing tight timelines, raised concerns about its ability to respond by the April 8 disclosure deadline. Discussions are ongoing to find a workable solution that respects both process and fairness.
Procedural Tensions Remain: Plaintiffs continue to respond to frequent requests for supplemental disclosures, including updates to medical records and information about non-retained experts. These issues have added to the pressure of meeting deadlines, and both sides remain in talks to prevent unnecessary motion practice. The case is moving forward, but the path remains uneven.
What’s Next:
- Government’s Phase III expert reports are due April 8, 2025.
- Disputes over site access, supplemental expert opinions, and profile form updates remain unresolved.
- Plaintiffs’ counsel may submit further supplementation regarding evolving medical issues, such as Mr. Mousser’s new diagnosis.
While discovery challenges persist, trial preparation continues. The court is expected to address several of these disputes in the coming weeks as the first Track 1 trials draw closer.
📅 March 24, 2025 – The Latest on Settlement
The court-appointed Settlement Masters have regularly met with the Department of Justice and the Plaintiffs’ Leadership Group to work toward a potential global settlement. This process has been running alongside the ongoing litigation, meaning cases are still moving forward while discussions take place.
Right now, the focus is on gathering information that will help determine how claims might be valued. To do that, a questionnaire will be finalized and sent to a randomly selected group of 2,500 claimants. At the same time, bellwether mediations—essentially test cases that help both sides understand how claims might be evaluated in settlement talks—are expected to begin by this summer. These mediations and legal rulings that emerge from the ongoing litigation will play a big role in shaping a potential settlement structure.
One of the most important discussions happening now is about creating a settlement matrix. This would establish a system for determining compensation based on specific factors, like the severity of injuries and how they are linked to Camp Lejeune’s contaminated water. But for now, that framework is still being developed, and no final decisions have been made.
The goal, according to the Settlement Masters, is to have a structured settlement process in place by the end of 2025. That does not mean individual payouts will happen immediately, but it does mean that steps are being taken to lay the groundwork for resolution. For now, claimants should know that discussions are ongoing, key decisions are still ahead, and the legal process continues to move forward. If you are frustrated by the pace of all of this, you are not alone. But progress is being made.
Here are some more notes of interest:
📂 Over 408,000 claims have been submitted, but only $38.8 million has been paid out to about 400 claimants.
🧑⚖️ Government slow-walking claims? Plaintiffs’ lawyers accuse the Justice Department of deliberately stalling cases by disputing diagnoses and causation links.
📜 Expert Discovery Nearing Completion: All expert reports have been exchanged, with most depositions finalized. The last expert depositions are set for March 27 and April 3.
What’s Next:
📌 A March 25 hearing in North Carolina will determine trial scheduling and case management. The upcoming court hearing will address issues related to Phase One: Water Contamination. Both sides will present statements (Plaintiffs first, followed by Defendants) and answer the Court’s questions, but no expert or fact witnesses will testify at this stage. The hearing will also discuss litigation updates, settlement efforts, and trial scheduling with the Settlement Masters.
⚖️ Legal Deadlines Ahead: Opening briefs for Phase One are due April 29, with final briefing completed by July 3. General and Specific Causation discovery will continue, with briefing wrapping up by October 31.
🚨 Veterans and advocacy groups are ramping up pressure to hold the government accountable for delays.
📅 February 22, 2025 – Camp Lejeune Litigation Heats Up
The Camp Lejeune water contamination litigation is accelerating, with major battles over depositions, expert testimony, and trial preparation. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are pushing back against repeated government deposition requests, while the DOJ continues to challenge expert reports and causation evidence.
📂 2,635 lawsuits have now been filed, and 408,000 claims remain pending with the Department of the Navy.
⚖️ The PLG and DOJ are clashing over re-deposing sick plaintiffs, arguing about whether deteriorating health justifies another round of questioning.
🧑⚖️ The government lost its motion to block leukemia and lymphoma cases from moving forward. You never thought that motion had a chance…but it still nice to win.
🔬 A March 25, 2025, Phase I hearing will be critical in determining how the court defines water contamination and its link to illness.
🩺 Independent Medical Exams (IMEs) remain a point of contention, with plaintiffs objecting to invasive questioning and overreach by government-hired doctors.
What’s Next:
🚨 The February 27, 2025, status conference will likely set the tone for trial scheduling and key rulings on discovery disputes.
📢 Plaintiffs continue to push for a Rule 16 conference to keep the litigation from stalling.
📌 The DOJ wants more time to replace its Parkinson’s disease expert (for an understandable reason), but plaintiffs are resisting further delays.
📅 February 18, 2025 – Status Conference
The next status conference will be on February 27, 2025. Hopefully, that hearing will provide a better roadmap for what lies ahead in the litigation.
📅 February 6, 2025 – Lawsuit Filings and Pending Claims
The Camp Lejeune water contamination lawsuits continue progressing, with significant developments in both litigation and administrative claim processing.
🏛️ 2,458 lawsuits have been filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina since February 2023.
❌ 103 cases have been dismissed, most voluntarily.
📂 408,000 administrative claims are pending before the Department of the Navy.
⚖️ About 6,000 cases are being reviewed for potential early settlements. Depressingly, that is about 1.5% of claims.
Upcoming Trial Developments:
📌 The parties are debating what proof is needed to establish water contamination and causation.
🔬 Expert testimony is under review, with the U.S. government considering objections to plaintiffs’ reports.
🩺 Medical exams for some plaintiffs are still being scheduled.
What’s Next:
📢 The court will soon rule on Track 2 discovery plans and expert deposition procedures.
⚖️ Plaintiffs continue pushing for a Rule 16 conference. The goal is to keep the litigation moving forward.
📅 February 3, 2025 – Bellwether Plaintiff Mental and Physical Exams
The court has issued an Amended Stipulated Order (CMO 16) regarding expert examinations of plaintiffs in the Camp Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA) cases.
Issue: Plaintiffs claim the DOJ’s proposed medical exams are excessively long.
Argument: Plaintiffs’ exams last 35 minutes to 2.6 hours, while the DOJ demands longer exams.
Request: The court is being asked to ensure reciprocity in exam durations.
📅 January 25, 2025 – EPA Bans TCE & PCE
Big win for environmental safety. The EPA has officially banned TCE & PCE, the chemicals responsible for Camp Lejeune’s water contamination.
- TCE Ban: Effective March 17, 2025, for manufacturing.
- PCE Ban: 10-year phase-out begins June 2026.
- Legal Concern: A regulatory freeze may affect enforcement.
📅 January 9, 2025 – Case Statistics
Current lawsuit & claim numbers:
🏛️ 2,298 lawsuits filed under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA).
📂 480,000 administrative claims are pending before the Navy (not all are viable claims).
⏳ Track 1 Cases: Focused on leukemia & non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
📅 January 6, 2025 – Too Late to Bring a Claim
Many victims are now realizing that they have missed the deadline to file claims under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act. Our firm continues to get phone calls from victims, and it is very depressing to turn away these worthy claims.
📅 The two-year window to file a claim closed in August 2024.
😞 Some victims, particularly those with recent diagnoses (which was an awful mistake in the drafting of this bill), are frustrated that they cannot pursue compensation.
⚖️ Advocates are pushing for an extension, but no official action has been taken.
Camp Lejeune Lawsuit – Where Are in 2025?
More Camp Lejeune Updates
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 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
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:
Litigation Timeline
| 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 plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs 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:
- Leukemia
- Bladder cancer
- Brain cancer
- Breast cancer
- Esophageal cancer
- Kidney cancer
- Liver cancer
- Lung cancer
- Multiple myeloma
- Aplastic anemia
- Myelodysplastic syndrome
- Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
- Ovarian cancer
- Cervical cancer
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:
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 110,000 claims are 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 average per-person Lejeune claim will probably be more than double that amount.
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
- 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.