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 and updates:
📅 June 28, 2025 – Progress in Camp Lejeune Litigation Settlement
The latest update in the Camp Lejeune litigation gives us a glimpse into what may finally be a serious push toward resolution. Settlement mediations are on track, at least for the selected 25 Track 1 bellwether cases for mediation, grouped by injury type. These are bladder and kidney cancer, Parkinson’s, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and leukemias. The mediations are scheduled to begin in late July and conclude by late August.
Most readers, of course, are not one of those 25 cases. But the resolution of these cases should help shape a larger settlement matrix. So this is a meaningful development.
The goal is to use both the mediation results and data from a forthcoming claimant questionnaire to build a settlement matrix. That matrix would help standardize offers across thousands of claims based on injury type, exposure history, and other factors.
In other words, while we are not yet at the point of issuing individual settlement offers broadly, the structure for getting there is finally taking shape. If the mediation process moves efficiently and the parties can agree on reasonable values for the Track 1 conditions, we could see global resolution discussions accelerate in the fall. It is progress, but for now, most claimants will need to wait until these initial steps play out.
📅 June 16, 2025 – Plaintiffs Move to Exclude Key Government Expert After Court-Ordered Deposition
Plaintiffs’ lawyers are seeking to file a supplemental Daubert motion to exclude additional testimony from the government’s expert, Dr. Remy Hennet. This follows a court-ordered second deposition, which was granted after the government failed to comply with earlier discovery deadlines, failures that had previously blocked plaintiffs from fully examining Dr. Hennet’s opinions.
Exposure Pathway Under Scrutiny
During the June 4 deposition, plaintiffs finally confronted Dr. Hennet about his conclusions regarding supply well HP-651 at Hadnot Point, an essential component of the government’s exposure theory. Plaintiffs argue that his conclusions about the effects on finished water rely on flawed assumptions and unsupported modeling that should be excluded.
Motion Timeline and Opposition
The government opposes the motion, asserting that plaintiffs missed their opportunity to object earlier. But plaintiffs point out that they were denied access to the relevant data until after the initial deposition, which prompted the court to order sanctions and allow additional questioning.
Why It Matters
Plaintiffs argue that this limited extension is critical to preserve the integrity of the record. The admissibility of Dr. Hennet’s expert opinions could shape the outcome of litigation affecting nearly half a million claimants. The dispute highlights the escalating battles over expert credibility in one of the most consequential toxic tort cases in U.S. history.
📅 May 16, 2025 – Discovery Tensions Escalate Ahead of Camp Lejeune Trials
While the Track 1 Camp Lejeune trials continue to move forward, the discovery process is experiencing major turbulence behind the scenes. With nearly 3,000 lawsuits pending and more than 410,000 administrative claims filed, momentum is building, but concerns about fairness are also piling up quickly.
Damages Data Arrives Months Late
The government recently produced key damages-related records—VA disability, Medicare, and TRICARE files—that their experts are now using to argue for offsets. The problem? These records were produced roughly eight months after the discovery deadline, long after plaintiffs’ expert reports were completed. Plaintiffs are evaluating options to challenge the use of this late data, which could dramatically reduce award calculations if left unchallenged.
Expert Laptop Controversy Raises New Flags
Tensions rose sharply during the deposition of one of the government’s key expert witnesses, Dr. Peter Shields. He showed up with a DOJ-issued laptop containing linked materials used to support his opinions. Plaintiffs, however, were never given an accessible version of these files in advance. When a copy was finally sent the night before the deposition, most of the hyperlinks were broken or nonfunctional. The deposition proceeded anyway, without the plaintiffs having a working version of the expert’s reference materials, which is ridiculous. The deposition remains open, and further challenges are expected.
Plaintiffs Press for Withheld Evidence
Delays and missing documents continue to cause problems and frustration. The government has yet to produce compensation records from a key consulting firm related to earlier Camp Lejeune work. There are also disputes over expert notes, contract versions, and disclosures that are critical to understanding the scope of expert involvement. These issues are not isolated—they point to a broader pattern of obstruction that undermines transparency and erodes trust.
What’s Next:
- Rebuttal expert deadlines continue into mid-June, with Parkinson’s cases closing last.
- Plaintiffs are preparing motions to exclude late-produced offset evidence and may seek additional deposition time for affected experts.
- The first Track 1 trials are on the horizon, but unresolved discovery fights could delay proceedings.
📅 May 8, 2025 – Court Sanctions Government Expert in Camp Lejeune Site Visit Dispute
A federal judge has ruled that the DOJ violated court scheduling orders when one of its experts, Dr. Remy Hennet, conducted a surprise site visit to Camp Lejeune in February 2025. The visit occurred well after expert disclosure deadlines and was not disclosed in advance to plaintiffs’ attorneys. During the visit, Dr. Hennet took measurements, photographs, and made observations directly relevant to the volatile chemical exposure issues at the heart of the case.
Late Disclosure Crossed the Line
The court found that the visit and the evidence it produced—notes, measurements, and photos—were not valid supplements to Dr. Hennet’s prior report, but instead constituted impermissible “bolstering” done in reaction to the plaintiffs’ rebuttal expert. While the court stopped short of fully excluding the new evidence, it agreed with the plaintiffs that the defense had violated the rules by attempting to strengthen its case outside of deadlines imposed by the court. The judge emphasized that allowing this type of post-deadline activity would undermine the integrity of expert discovery and delay the Track 1 trials.
A Partial Win for Plaintiffs
Instead of striking the evidence entirely, the court issued a lesser sanction: it granted plaintiffs an extra four hours to re-depose Dr. Hennet, giving them a fair opportunity to question him about the February visit. The deposition must happen within 30 days, and the parties must jointly report any potential scheduling impacts. While not a full exclusion, the ruling is a clear rebuke of the government’s tactics and a warning against further procedural violations.
What’s Next:
- Dr. Hennet will face a supplemental deposition, limited to four hours, to address the disputed visit.
- The parties must update the court within a week of that deposition with any new scheduling impacts.
- Evidence from the visit can be used, but only after plaintiffs have a chance to respond on record.
📅 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 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.
Camp Lejeune Lawsuit – Where We Are in 2025?
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.
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.
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 had a profoundly negative impact on 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 from 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 last year, will decrease the projected average settlement payout for Lejeune. So an average of over a million was probably too aggressive. Still, our lawyers think we 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 the 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 how 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 a Personal Representative Can Bring a 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.