Premises Liability Blog - michaelehline.com

3 Mysterious Bahamas American Death Causes Revealed

Written by MichaelEhline on January 25, 2025. Posted in Premises Liability Blog.

Just recently, three tourists from the United States of America were found dead at a resort in the Bahamas. Initially, their causes of death were a complete mystery. However, the latest report has revealed the cause of their death. According to the findings, poisoning from carbon monoxide became the reason for death for all three tourists. The surviving families will likely want to sue for wrongful death. But can they sue in a U.S. Court? Or will they be restricted to suing in the Bahamas?

Do the Bahamas even have a wrongful death statute?

Dead Americans In the Bahamas

Is Foul Play Suspected?

Learn about the three tourists from the United States of America and the mysterious causes of death while attending a resort in the Bahamas.

Details of the Victims

The people found dead at the Bahamas resort were 64-year-old Vincent Paul Chiarella (confirmed by his son, Austin Chiarella) from Florida, 65-year-old Robbie Philips, and 68-year-old Michael Phillips from Tennessee.

Michael Phillips and Robbie Philips were husband and wife, while Vincent Paul Chiarella’s wife, Donnis Chiarella, was also at the Bahamas resort. Luckily, Donnis Chiarella was found alive, but she was ill and in critical condition. The Bahamas resort they were visiting was the Sandals, Emerald Bay. They were reportedly found dead on May 6 inside their Sandals Emerald Bay villas at the particular resort.

The Toxicology and Autopsy Report

One of the local newspaper publishers in the Bahamas, Nassau Guardian, has been involved in covering the entire progress of the case. The publisher has reported that the respective departments have finished the toxicology and autopsy reports and shared them for review.

The examination of the medical team confirmed that the cause of death was carbon monoxide, which resulted in the poisoning of the victims. No more information has been shared or released on the matter by the authorities.

Possibility Surrounding Carbon Monoxide Being the Culprit

The presence of poisoning due to carbon monoxide suggests that a combustion source must be the main culprit in the case. It could be an engine or a combustion motor installed internally into the enclosed area.

As the Bahamas has a warm climate, a heating source is out of the question. If it is not the heating source, the head of the carbon monoxide could likely be a generator for the electric supply.

It is a high possibility that the combustion from an on-site generator for electricity generation could be the reason. It could have released enough carbon monoxide in its surroundings, causing poisoning.

As per the sources the sources of water heating and air conditioning are being investigated. The authorities are looking for any possible leaks in the water heater or the air conditioners.

Dead Tourists’ Families

The Tourist’s families are not satisfied with the autopsy, demanding another one. This information has been confirmed by the Health Minister of the Bahamas, Dr. Michael Darville. According to the minister, the investigation is still ongoing, and they are still looking into the matter. Checks and inquiries at the Sandals Emerald Bay resort are getting to the bottom of the case.

He also added that they found no traces of trauma during the autopsy and medical examination. Most importantly, they have never seen foul play in such cases. Austin Chiarella Talks about his Parents Austin Chiarella, the son of Mr. and Mrs. Chiarella, stated that his parents were so happy and excited before they left for the Bahamas.

They were visiting the Bahamas to celebrate their wedding anniversary. He revealed that he had never imagined that something like this would happen to his parents. Austin revealed that his mother could not move as she woke up and saw his dad on the floor. His mother said that she felt her entire body was swollen, and she had to scream for help.

The Bahamas Police Commissioner, Paul Rolle, has also confirmed that none of the victims had eaten food from the same place before eating. They all went to different places, and the timings of their treatments were also different.

Prime Minister Chester Cooper said the cause of death is unknown but suspected no foul play. It is expected that more information may soon be released surrounding the matter by the Bahamas’ local authorities.

Choice of Law?

Assuming there is a Bahamanian Wrongful Death statute, plaintiffs and defendants will face many jurisdictional and financial hurdles like dismissals for forum non-conveniens. The bottom line is the parties will face a conflict of law issues and diversity issues over the rights and duties of the parties. (Here is a sample brief of how to sue Sandals) Only a crack team of legal experts can take on Sandals. Are you ready to sue? Let’s go!

Schedule a Free Consultation With a Personal Injury Lawyer Today

Believe it or not, even though the families of the three Americans found dead may be hard-pressed to sue a foreign hotel in the Bahamas, their loved ones may have a solid wrongful death claim against other parties.

These may be defendants in the U.S., including travel agents who sold the tickets to the Great Exuma Island resort or American-based sister companies of the hotel. Don’t let the statute of limitations expire by sleeping on your rights. You could be entitled to significant financial compensation for this health emergency with the help of our superior personal injury attorneys in Los Angeles.

To learn more about your rights to sue and recover wrongful death compensation, call the serious injury attorneys in Los Angeles at Ehline Law Firm today. Call us at (213) 596-9642 or feel free to use our convenient online contact form for identification purposes only and prompt return phone call.

Citations:

Mysterious Cruise Ship Illnesses

CAMP LEJEUNE Health & Disability Benefits for the Veteran and Family – What to Know

Written by MichaelEhline on January 10, 2025. Posted in Government Tort Blog, Premises Liability Blog.

Deadly Base Water Storage Claims – What You Must Know!

Ultimate Guide to Compensation for Toxic Base Water

The primary source of contamination was because of on-base storage tank leaks and other industrial activities completed on the base. There was also an off-base dry cleaner spewing chemicals. It’s estimated that these contaminants have been in the water supply from the 1950s through February 1985, as the wells were shut down.

However, contamination could have occurred through 1999, when the military base was closed. People with disabilities may wish to see if they qualify for various programs and resources based on their required treatment.

Choose Ehline Law Firm

After receiving detailed information about the effects of drinking contaminated water, most people require support and training about any illness they get. Families are often broken, and some conditions people face flow down to them.

Ehline Law Firm works with sensitive information and understands why it’s essential to keep that data private. We don’t disclose anything about people with disabilities who work with us. The following topics can help you understand what contamination can do and how it affects military service members and caregivers.

If you were denied benefits and are concerned that your condition or illness comes from the contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune, please call us at (833) LETS-SUE to see if you have a case. Our services are here to help!

Information You Should Know

The benefits for veterans and family members stationed at Camp Lejeune include health care for about 15 conditions listed in the Camp Lejeune Families Act in 2012. Veterans may receive health care and disability for eight presumptive conditions, also available to people with disabilities.

Health Care Benefits

Veterans and other family members of those who served at Camp Lejeune for 30 days (non-consecutive or consecutive) between 1953 and 1987 are likely eligible for Priority Group 6 and can access VA healthcare.

Eligibility Timeframe

National Guard veterans, family members, and reserve members who lived on the Camp Lejeune base for 30 days or more between 1953 and 1987 are eligible.

Areas Included

The areas included in this benefit consist of the Marine Corps Air Station New River and Camp Lejeune boundaries. We can help you determine if you were at the location during that time and get compensation in the form of money to help you deal with your current conditions.

The Historic Drinking Water Database for Camp Lejeune

The Marine Corps must maintain a database of information for anyone who could have been exposed to drinking water contaminants at Camp Lejeune between the dates of August 1, 1953, through December 31, 1987.

How to Get Added to the Notification Database

You may visit this website to get added to the notification database or to learn more information. We want to provide as many resources as possible to service members and their families.

Likewise, the Marine Corps works diligently to identify registrants and communicate with them by email updates and mailing information. Consider sharing this information with other Marine Corps who might have been located here between those dates and ask them to participate.

Should You Get Notified of Changes to the Historic Drinking Water Database?

Those in the Marine Corps and other branches need to seek appropriate resources and health services. Veterans have rights to disability benefits and treatment through different programs. In this situation, many families suffer, and some conditions might move to the children. Therefore, multiple people could qualify for this program and others.

You can stay updated about changes to this database through the VA department. It’s your only hope of getting resources about services available in your area.

Health Care for the Veterans and Their Family Members

The Camp Lejeune Act in 2012 provided health care assistance to veterans and their family members who were Marine Corps or other personnel and lived on the base. However, they must meet the service date requirement, time-on-station, and have a covered condition. These include:

Qualifying Health Conditions

Scleroderma
Renal Toxicity
Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
Neurobehavioral Effects
Myelodysplastic Syndromes
Multiple Myeloma
Miscarriage
Lung Cancer
Leukemia
Kidney Cancer
Hepatic Steatosis
Female Infertility
Esophageal Cancer
Breast Cancer
Bladder Cancer.

People with disabilities unrelated to Camp Lejeune can still be part of the Camp Lejeune Act and are eligible for health care, whether in the Marine Corps or other branches. They’re not required to pay anything if they’ve got the 15 covered conditions or eight disability conditions.

Reimbursement for Family Member Health Care

A dependent family member of a veteran who lived at Camp Lejeune during the period is eligible for out-of-pocket medical reimbursement if they have any of the covered conditions. Refunds for such claims could be paid for care at least one year or up to two years before the application date of benefits.

Applying for Reimbursement

Veterans, family members, or caregivers of a person at the Camp can apply online for reimbursement and might have to submit claim evidence. This includes:

Legal dependent relationship to the veteran, such as a birth certificate or marriage license
Documentation indicating you lived on that base for 30+ days during the time period
Documentation of medical records showing that you had to pay healthcare expenses for the covered illness or condition.

Veterans’ Disability Compensation

Unlike Medicare, or Medicaid, along with everything else, the Department of Veterans Affairs has set up a presumption connection for eight conditions associated with exposure to contaminants found in Camp Lejeune’s water supply. They were determined after much review of medical and scientific literature.

Overall, the presumption applies to reserve, active duty, Marine Corps, and National Guard members who were exposed to the contaminants within the water supply between 1953 and 1987 and included these conditions:

Parkinson’s Disease
Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
Bladder Cancer
Liver Cancer
Aplastic Anemia (or Other Myelodysplastic Syndromes)
Kidney Cancer
Adult Leukemia
Multiple Myeloma.

The VA offers local resources for these newly discovered conditions because medical evidence supports the connection between Camp Lejeune and your service-related, created the injury.

If you’re diagnosed with one of those conditions, the VA automatically assumes that your services at the Camp were responsible, so you can receive disability benefits without proving your case. If you have problems, we may be able to offer more tips during your free consultation.

Evidence Requirements

Veterans must still submit documentation that they served at the MCAS New River or Camp Lejeune between those dates and spent 30 days or more in reserve, active duty, or a National Guard capacity.

Medical evidence should show that you’ve got a current disease from the presumptive conditions list because you served your country.

How to Apply for Your Disability Benefits

Marine Corps and other service members may apply online and include on the application that they’re filing for a presumed Camp Lejeune illness. Though people can do it alone, it’s often best to work with an attorney who understands the laws regarding military personnel. Ehline Law Firm can assist!

Is Social Security Disability Insurance the Same As Veteran’s Disability Benefits?

The United States government provides Social Security benefits and Supplemental Security Income for those with disabilities. They could be veterans, but that’s not a requirement.

Veteran’s disability benefits are not the same and are only offered to those who served their country. They might be entitled to VA, Social Security, and Supplemental Security Income.

Should You Call the Local Social Security Office?

Those who want to see if they’re eligible for Social Security in one or more forms should contact the Social Security Administration for more resources. There are various programs available.

Is Health Coverage Included for Reimbursement?

Those with health insurance through private companies can be reimbursed for their medical expenses if they meet the criteria listed above. However, Social Security works differently.

A veteran might have trouble dealing with the government to claim their benefits, and Ehline Law Firm can assist during this crisis. We explore the many programs and services available, help you appeal denials you feel are incorrect, and much more.

How Can Ehline Law Firm Help?

No one wants to feel like they were tricked, and that’s what military service members believe after being stationed at Camp Lejeune. The government has set up different program options to help you or your family member make claims to money set aside for you, whether you were in the Marine Corps or another branch.

Often, this is on top of your regular VA benefits, but things get highly complicated for a single person moving through the system. Therefore, it’s best to call Ehline Law Firm for assistance and support.

I’m Michael Ehline, and I’m an inactive U.S. Marine. My father joined the service before me and had health issues because he was stationed. Now, I focus on helping other Marines understand the programs and services available through the government. As a veteran myself, it angers me when people are negligent. They should pay restitution, and I make sure that happens. My firm will advance costs and fight hard to final victory, Semper Fi, do or die.

VA Finalizes Presumptive Diseases Rule for Camp Lejeune – Toxic Water and What You Should Know

Written by MichaelEhline on January 10, 2025. Posted in Premises Liability Blog, Service Related Cancer Blog.

Camp Lejeune was a Marine Corps base camp in North Carolina and the site of significant water contamination at housing facilities, the base hospital, and even recreational facilities for more than three decades. From January 1, 1953, to December 31, 1987, the water at Camp Lejeune was contaminated through various industrial activities and off-base dry-cleaning facilities.

Are You One of the Approximately One Million Exposed?

How Can You Recover Compensation for Toxic Base Water?

Sadly, roughly one million veterans and families living on the base were exposed to toxic substances and chemicals like vinyl chloride, benzene, perchloroethylene (PCE), and trichloroethylene (TCE). Service at Camp Lejeune meant using the contaminated drinking water for cooking, bathing, and more. These toxic chemicals caused veterans to develop severe medical conditions. So victims inhaled it, made skin contact with it, or ingested it at some point whiled cased there. The Department of Veterans Affairs has been working to finalize the Presumptive Diseases Rule based on what the Agency of Toxic Substance and Disease Registry says and did so in 2017. Now, these service members can receive appropriate disability compensation.

Military veterans with health problems might determine that these conditions were caused by contaminated water at Camp Lejeune. Such volatile organic compounds are dangerous and lead to certain diseases. If you were a National Guard member or in the Air Force, you might be entitled to compensation, and Ehline Law Firm can help. Please call (833) LETS-SUE today!

What’re the Presumptive Diseases Rule for Camp Lejeune?

The VA released a document called the Presumptive Diseases Rule based on the facts about the Camp Lejeune water contamination. It states that eight presumptive conditions are primarily service-connected and explains the scientific evidence and who might be eligible for any disability compensation. The effective date for the rule was March 14, 2017.

What’s the Presumptive Service Connection Mean?

The phrase “presumption of service connection” indicates that the VA can automatically assume that any listed illnesses were caused by a direct service connection in the military service. If the eligible member can prove that they have one of those eight diseases, they’re entitled to appropriate disability compensation.

Who Does the Rule Apply To?

You could be eligible for compensation if you provided service at Camp Lejeune and these requirements apply:

You’re a veteran, former National Guard member, or former reservist who has been honorably discharged.
You had been stationed within the borders of the MCAS New River, North Carolina base, or Camp Lejeune.
You served anywhere from August 1, 1953, and December 31, 1987, with at least 30 days (could be non-consecutive).

This rule doesn’t apply to the family members who might have lived on the base and even suffered radiation exposure, Agent Orange, Asbestos, and even Mustard Gas! However, we can help children and spouses of Marines who served here during that time period, as well as former reservists. So if you have symptoms of adult Leukemia, including fatigue, difficulty swallowing, easy bruising, pale skin, or Aplastic Anemia, you may have a claim for damages, even if you have a family history of certain or other forms of cancers, and health issues, other health problems, etc.

Of Note

Eligibility of the presumptive service connection for exposure at Camp Lejeune isn’t established for those who served on vessels docked at the camp or were in satellite camps unless their military orders reflect another service at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, including base housing at the military base. It’s a bit convoluted, so call us better to understand your rights, duties, and obligations.

Claims Impacted

Disability compensation claims filed with the VA after March 14, 2017, or claims pending before these time periods are impacted. There’s no retroactive provision. If you had a claim that was previously denied, you should start a new one because of this rule.

Are Former National Guard Members Included?

Yes, these members are eligible for VA benefits, and the rule could apply to them.

What Illnesses Are Covered by the Presumptive Diseases Rule for Camp Lejeune?

VA health care benefits can be provided to Camp Lejeune veterans and others if they have any of these diseases associated with service-connected disabilities:

Aplastic anemia/similar other myelodysplastic syndromes
Bladder cancer
Parkinson’s Disease
Multiple myeloma
Adult leukemia
Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
Liver cancer
Kidney cancer.

There’s no known complete date for when these presumptive conditions must come about or develops before being included.

How Can You Get Disability Compensation?

If you believe you’re eligible for compensation because of the Camp Lejeune Presumptive Disease Rule, you should file a claim through the VA.

You may do so:

Online
At a VA regional office
Through an accredited representative
By hiring an attorney.

When filing the claim, the VA should ask you to submit medical evidence and other proof, such as:

Military records of serving or official documentation of service department records that prove you had active duty at MCAS New River or Camp Lejeune between 1953 and 1987 for 30 days or more
Medical records showing that you’ve got one of the eight listed presumptive illnesses

Can You Receive Compensation for Other Illnesses Related to Military Service at that Time?

Countless other diseases aren’t listed in the service connection rule that victims of contaminated water exposure might suffer from, including:

Scleroderma
Renal toxicity
Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
Neurobehavioral effects
Myelodysplastic syndromes
Multiple myeloma
Miscarriage
Lung cancer
Leukemia
Kidney cancer
Hepatic steatosis
Bladder cancer
Esophageal cancer
Breast cancer
Female infertility.

The VA determined that there wasn’t enough evidence to add those things to the presumptive connection rule. However, veterans with those illnesses are still entitled to receive paid health care expenses.

Do You Need an Attorney if You Were Stationed at the Marine Corps Air Station?

The Camp Lejeune Families Act focuses on the people who lived and worked at the Marine Corps base. Overall, the Department of Veteran Affairs researched the claims of contaminated water and has come up with a list of eight conditions primarily caused by drinking or bathing in the water in the period beginning in 1953 and ending in 1987.

It would help if you had a current diagnosis of one of those illnesses and had been stationed at Camp Lejeune during the time period.

While you could file for benefits, it’s often difficult to do so. Therefore, many people turn to an attorney with knowledge of military laws. I’m Michael Ehline, and I served my country, so I know the issues you face and can help you through this challenging journey.

Why Should You Hire a Chemical Exposure Lawyer?

Yes! The VA only offers disability benefits for small groups of people who might have suffered because they were exposed to contaminated water. However, thousands of people have come forward with claims of the Camp Lejeune water contamination scandal because of the Camp Lejeune Act of Justice created in 2022.

Many veterans previously filed their claims for health conditions related to military service on the base and were denied. They now have two years longer to file a new claim to get the compensation they deserve.

Did you live, work, or serve on the Camp Lejeune base for 30 or more days between 1953 and 1987? You can file a claim through the Justice Act if you have one of the eight conditions listed above.

However, you require an experienced and knowledgeable legal team to offer assistance. We have the skills needed to handle extensive paperwork, track down your medical records, and collect evidence on your behalf and for your case. Get us on the line so we can help you make Christmas come early!

Lets our inactive Marines work to your advantage and help cover your pain and suffering, as well as treatment as these sad symptoms manifest. Although civilians are not covered yet, we are in the process of working, most notably with the Paul Ehline Ride, to make this happen and get it finalized once and for all.

Ehline Law Firm Can Assist Military Base Toxic Chemical Exposure Victims Today!

If you served at Camp Lejeune, you’ve likely learned about the risk factors of the Camp Lejeune contaminated water. Many veterans and their families bathed in, cooked in, and drank from the water supply. Confusion over your rights is

Qualifying service members are at an increased risk, and many of the chemicals used in the wells could get into your body through regular skin contact.

Justice for you and other victims is long overdue. We can help you get your VA disability benefits. Contact us at (833) LETS-SUE to request a free consultation or use the online form. It’s time to stand up for your rights once again!

In Ehline's hands air, land or sea. In Ehline's hands air, land or sea.

Neurobehavioral Effects of Camp Lejeune – Contaminated Water Exposure and Compensation

Written by MichaelEhline on January 10, 2025. Posted in Premises Liability Blog, Service Related Cancer Blog.

Were you stationed at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, and thought you had moved on with your life? Maybe you started to develop coordination, sensory disturbances, confusion, depression, tension, trouble concentrating, etc. Maybe later, you started developing sicknesses and cancer, like your other buddies, the base-housed moms, their now grown kids, or base employees?

Were You Exposed to Toxic Water on a Marine base?

You May Be Entitled to Benefits

Sadly, unless the U.S. Senate acts, only some military veterans of the United States could be eligible to receive disability benefits for specific diseases or a neurobehavioral effect resulting from exposure to Camp Lejeune’s contaminated drinking water, as will be discussed. First of all, benefits are only available for presumptive conditions. However, if things change, others, including Camp Pendleton personnel, their children, a civilian mother, father, or base employees with deficits in attention reaction or lack of coordination sensory may be eligible to seek benefits for long-term exposure to toxis drinking and bathing water.

First, they must receive a proper diagnosis. If your headache turned into liver cancer, our fingers are crossed on your behalf until the legislative process is completed on behalf of the Marines.

Presumptive Adverse Health Effects?

The veteran doesn’t need to prove their service connection. Instead, the V.A. presumes that your conditions are connected to the military service because you meet certain criteria. One common example is Vietnam veterans qualifying for conditions related to Agent Orange exposure. The Paul Ehline Memorial Ride was designed to aid in this legislative process, as it is the responsibility of fellow Marines to care for each other, which is part of what makes us different.

However, a lesser-known example coming to light for presumptive conditions is related to the contaminated water supply at the Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune. Veterans, civilians, family members, and reservists stationed here during a particular time period are presumed to have long-term exposure to contamination of statistical significance.

Where Do You Turn to For Help?

As former military myself, I understand the increased risks you face as things come to light. You may have drunk contaminated water at Camp Lejeune and experienced a slow onset of multiple sclerosis, mood swings, slow reaction times, and other issues. Likewise, positive trends indicate deficits in attention, even at low concentrations of the contaminants. These lead to behavioral problems, and you should receive disability compensation because you served at that time period.

What’s Camp Lejeune?

Camp Lejeune is the only U.S. military base with severe enough contamination to carry presumptive conditions. Men and women stationed there from 1953 and 1987 are presumed to have drunk contaminated water. It contained chemicals such as Perchloroethylene/Tetrachloroethylene (PCE), vinyl chloride, and Trichloroethylene (TCE), which could damage health impacts and effects.

Roughly one million reservists, active-duty military, family members, and civilians are in this exposure group. In fact, the water they drank on site was so contaminated that the V.A. had to create the Camp Lejeune Families Act in 2012 and the VA Rule 38 CFR 3, which became effective in March 2017. Overall, this made certain health conditions presumptive so that a military family member or veteran could receive free health care if they had been stationed at the site.

Qualifying Health Conditions Identified

The Camp Lejeune program includes various health conditions and brings on more, recently adding Parkinson’s Disease to the list.

They include:

Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
Multiple Myeloma
Liver Cancers
Kidney Cancers
Bladder Cancer
Aplastic Anemia (With Other Myelodysplastic Syndromes)
Adult Leukemia.

Healthcare Benefits for the Veterans and Their Families

You or a family member could also suffer from these qualifying health conditions, though they aren’t presumptive for compensation:

Scleroderma
Miscarriage
Infertility (female)
Hepatic Steatosis
Lung Cancer
Leukemia
Breast Cancer
Renal Toxicity
Esophageal Cancer
Other Neurobehavioral Effects.

Since the conditions listed above aren’t presumed to have happened because of your military service, you must apply to the Camp Lejeune legislation coordinator through the Department of Veterans Affairs to get reimbursed for treatment costs and show evidence of your eligibility into the program.

If the committee concludes that you did not fall ill because of your time at Camp Lejeune, you may contact Ehline Law Firm for assistance if you live in one of the areas we serve.

Who Was Exposed to the Drinking Water at Camp Lejeune?

Military and their family members stationed at Camp Lejeune from 1953 to 1987 for 30 days or more are considered eligible for presumptive benefits, health care, and health care reimbursements. This includes active duty military, the National Guard, reservists, and exposed workers for the listed conditions above.

Camp Lejeune includes a 246-square-mile area East of Padgett/St. Rd 50, South of Holly Ridge, West to Hubert, and North to Jackson.

Several studies have shown a neurobehavioral impairment from TCE in low doses, and people with histories of organic solvent exposure are described to have panic disorders, schizophreniform psychosis, and PTSD.

These toxic substances lead to the patients developing severe health problems of all sorts. However, neurobehavioral issues are one of the worst. Finally, the V.A. clinical guidance came up with legislation to protect military personnel and get them appropriate health care.

While these studies had limitations, including recall bias, few statistics, and little incidence data pertaining to certain conditions, the committee recommends that Parkinson’s Disease be included.

The Environmental Protection Agency believes that all health care should be paid to the people exposed to toxins at Camp Lejeune. It’s up to them to fight for their rights.

Various studies have been conducted, including one from the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. The ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) found TCE, PCE, and benzene in well water at Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. The levels reached higher than what regulations considered to be safe, and experts claim it was the most contaminated water ever discovered in the history of the U.S.

Neurobehavioral Effects Caused by Contaminated Drinking Water – Exposures Reported

The term – neurobehavioral effects – refers specifically to conditions related to the nervous system actions and behaviors. While it currently doesn’t include neurologic diseases, such as Alzheimer’s Disease or Parkinson’s Disease, things are likely changing.

The symptoms of such neurobehavioral effects can include:

Headaches
Trouble Concentrating
Tension
Depression
Confusion
Sensory Disturbances
Lack of Coordination.
Alterations in neurobehavioral tests that could indicate deficits in reaction time, attention, motor function, visuomotor coordination, digit symbol, or contrast sensitivity
Certain neuropsychological disorders, including learning or behavioral disorders

Most people had no idea that they were consuming contaminated drinking water.

Neurobehavioral Deficits/Tests

Many tests and reports have been created by different companies, including various national academies and universities. It’s complicated to identify and test for such neurobehavioral deficits because there are thousands of practices, and it’s a science to determine which one is best for a particular disorder.

WHO NCTB (Neurobehavioral Core Test Battery)

The WHO (World Health Organization) found a screening battery sampling the widest range of functions people could complete in one hour. The seven most-used toxins were included, including carbon disulfide, mercury, and lead. Exposed subjects were accurately tested, but it took a lot of money and time.

NES (Neurobehavioral Evaluation System)

The NES was created in the mid-1980s to offer computer-based testing focused on the adverse effects of workplace exposure to certain toxins in the ’90s.

AENTB (Adult Environmental Neurobehavioral Test Battery)

This was created when NES and NCTB recommendations expanded with a broader array of functions and sensitivity to lower exposures found within the environment.

Studies from the University of Pittsburgh

The University of Pittsburgh also studied toxic solvents and how they affected people. The findings included poor concentration, social alienation, and much more.

NCBI (National Center for Biotechnology Information) Study

One NCBI study showed that long-term exposure, even to lower concentrations of TCE, could cause neurobehavioral issues.

NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) Findings

The NRC even agrees that the V.A. should cover and include the neurobehavioral effects of consuming the contaminated water at Camp Lejeune.

Why Should You Be Tested for Adverse Health Effects?

Testing can help doctors identify the dysfunction and function of chemical exposure and determine if such neurobehavioral symptoms are the reason for your illness.

Is Health Care Through the V.A. Available?

V.A. health care is available for anyone in the military, whether on disability or not, if they were at Camp Lejeune during that period. Health care and reimbursements are open to civilians and family members who experience the 14 qualifying conditions.

Could You Get Disability Benefits or Compensation for Exposure to Contaminated Water at Camp Lejeune?

Yes, presumption claims from the water contamination at Camp Lejeune must meet these eligibility requirements:

Be a National Guard, reservist, or veteran member who was not dishonorably discharged
Served at Camp Lejeune for a minimum of 30 days (non-consecutive or consecutive) between August 1, 1953, and December 31, 1987
Have a current disease from the presumptive condition list related to Camp Lejeune

Evidence requirements include:

Official orders to Camp Lejeune or the Marine Corps Air Station in North Carolina during those periods
Be on active duty or reserve
Be diagnosed with a current disease.

Other Ways to Get Compensation for Veterans and Their Families

If you didn’t meet the 30-day requirement and feel that your water contamination and chemical exposures resulted from Camp Lejeune, you may apply for the direct connection listing.

Reasons to Seek Compensation Now

We understand how the law works.
We gather evidence and challenge it as needed.
We ensure you file the proper documents.
We present a strong case.
We know how to negotiate.

Ehline Law Firm

If you served at Camp Lejeune while in the Marine Corps, you could be entitled to disability compensation because of the water contamination. Your health conditions might be covered, and we can help. Please call (833) LETS-SUE today!

There are two justice systems in the United States: the civil justice system and the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system uses criminal law to punish the defendants, while the civil legal system uses tort law to provide a remedy to the plaintiffs for their injuries or harm. Let's explore the tort litigation system with Ehline Law and our personal injury attorneys. History of Tort Law The reflection upon tort law dates way back to the time of Aristotle and made its way into medieval discussions. Aristotle, in his writings, made a distinction between the roles of the court in providing the public with a remedy for private disputes from the role of government officials. It wasn't until the 20th century when philosophical writing of torts developed, and jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr was a pioneer in making the study of law more approachable since civil law jurisdictions drew on the excessive formalism of legal scholarship and education writing. Holmes worked with an English legal scholar, Sir Frederick Pollock, and set a pair of questions for tort theory that played a crucial role in modern tort law. What Is Tort Law? Tort law covers legal proceedings in the civil court besides contractual disputes, which fall under contract law. The primary aim of tort law is to "fix" harm or injury to a person by the defendant and provide them with relief, in most cases, in the form of monetary compensation. Tort law recognizes any damages or harm caused by the actions of an individual for which the law provides a remedy. These damages include lost wages, medical expenses, and pain and suffering. However, in some cases, the court may also award in excess of the compensation, and these are punitive damages aimed at punishing the defendant. Understanding Tort Law There are three categories the tort law is divided into, and these are: Negligent torts: A negligent tort is a wrongful act arising from one's failure to ensure reasonable care. The court uses the reasonable person standard to determine whether the defendant is at fault. The following are typical examples of negligence torts: slip and fall accidents, car accidents, and medical malpractice. Intentional torts: An intentional tort is a wrongful act carried out intentionally or, in other words, willful misconduct. The following are some of the common intentional torts: assault, battery, defamation, infliction of emotional distress, and trespass. Strict liability torts: Unlike negligent and intentional torts that deal with the person causing harm, strict liability focuses on the act. If someone carries out an act, they will be liable for any injury regardless of their intentions or whether they exercised reasonable care. What Is the Tort Litigation System? The basis of personal injury cases is the tort system that helps injured parties hold people or entities responsible for the damages suffered from their actions. Most tort cases arise out of another's negligence, and in such cases, it is essential to prove the elements of a negligence case, which are as follows: The plaintiff must establish that the defendant had a duty to exercise reasonable care. The plaintiff must show that the defendant breached the duty to exercise reasonable care. The plaintiff must prove causation, a link between the injuries caused and the breach of the legal duty. The plaintiff must show that they suffered losses, injuries, or damages. These elements vary slightly for intentional torts and strict liability torts. Classic Examples of Tort Law Let's go over a few classic examples of tort law to help you understand the concept and tort liability under each category of tort law. Negligence Tort Claim In the case of Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co, the plaintiff was waiting at a railway station when the two men boarding the train before her, assisted by the railroad employees, dropped a fireworks package that exploded. The explosion caused a large coin-operated scale to fall onto the plaintiff, causing injuries that eventually caused her to stammer. The plaintiff sued the railroad company for their employee's negligence at the Kings County Supreme Court, leading to a jury verdict of $6,000. However, the defendant appealed the decision, but the appellate division ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed again. Chief Judge Benjamin Cardozo found the appellate division decision flawed and ruled in favor of the defendant, stating that the railroad employee assisting the man did not have a duty toward the plaintiff as the injury was not foreseeable harm. Cardozo's concept of tort liability arising from the breach of duty causing injuries to another person became widely accepted into American law. Intentional Tort Claim In the Garratt v. Dailey case, the defendant, a 5-year-old child, moved a chair on which the plaintiff was about to sit, causing her to fall and suffer injuries. The plaintiff brought a civil action against the defendant for battery in the Supreme Court of Washington. The trial judge ruled in favor of the defendant, stating that the boy did not have the intent, but the plaintiff appealed the decision. According to the court, there could be battery if the defendant knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would sit on the chair. The absence of the intent to injure or to play a joke does not eliminate the liability for the defendant. Under these descriptions, the court sent the issue back to the trial court to find whether the defendant knew with substantial certainty. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating that the defendant knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would sit on the chair, which was sufficient to show intent. Strict Liability Claim In the case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co, a plaintiff suffered injuries when one of the wheels of his 1909 Buick Runabout collapsed, causing the plaintiff to sue Buick. The defendant argued that they did not manufacture the wheel but only installed it. The court found that the inspection could've revealed the defective wheel and prevented the accident from happening. The defendant denied responsibility, stating that the plaintiff purchased the vehicle from the car dealer, not the manufacturer. Cardozo stated that the defendant's duty is to ensure that their vehicles and the components they install in them are safe. The defendant cannot escape liability because the plaintiff did not have a direct contract with the company manufacturing the parts. This decision removed the privity of the contract and became grounds for torts involving strict liability. Schedule a Free Consultation with Ehline Law Ehline law and our personal injury attorneys have over 15 years of experience handling tort claims and tort lawsuits. If you suffered injuries due to another's fault, contact us at (833) LETS-SUE for a free consultation, as you may be eligible for compensation. There are two justice systems in the United States: the civil justice system and the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system uses criminal law to punish the defendants, while the civil legal system uses tort law to provide a remedy to the plaintiffs for their injuries or harm. Let's explore the tort litigation system with Ehline Law and our personal injury attorneys. History of Tort Law The reflection upon tort law dates way back to the time of Aristotle and made its way into medieval discussions. Aristotle, in his writings, made a distinction between the roles of the court in providing the public with a remedy for private disputes from the role of government officials. It wasn't until the 20th century when philosophical writing of torts developed, and jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr was a pioneer in making the study of law more approachable since civil law jurisdictions drew on the excessive formalism of legal scholarship and education writing. Holmes worked with an English legal scholar, Sir Frederick Pollock, and set a pair of questions for tort theory that played a crucial role in modern tort law. What Is Tort Law? Tort law covers legal proceedings in the civil court besides contractual disputes, which fall under contract law. The primary aim of tort law is to "fix" harm or injury to a person by the defendant and provide them with relief, in most cases, in the form of monetary compensation. Tort law recognizes any damages or harm caused by the actions of an individual for which the law provides a remedy. These damages include lost wages, medical expenses, and pain and suffering. However, in some cases, the court may also award in excess of the compensation, and these are punitive damages aimed at punishing the defendant. Understanding Tort Law There are three categories the tort law is divided into, and these are: Negligent torts: A negligent tort is a wrongful act arising from one's failure to ensure reasonable care. The court uses the reasonable person standard to determine whether the defendant is at fault. The following are typical examples of negligence torts: slip and fall accidents, car accidents, and medical malpractice. Intentional torts: An intentional tort is a wrongful act carried out intentionally or, in other words, willful misconduct. The following are some of the common intentional torts: assault, battery, defamation, infliction of emotional distress, and trespass. Strict liability torts: Unlike negligent and intentional torts that deal with the person causing harm, strict liability focuses on the act. If someone carries out an act, they will be liable for any injury regardless of their intentions or whether they exercised reasonable care. What Is the Tort Litigation System? The basis of personal injury cases is the tort system that helps injured parties hold people or entities responsible for the damages suffered from their actions. Most tort cases arise out of another's negligence, and in such cases, it is essential to prove the elements of a negligence case, which are as follows: The plaintiff must establish that the defendant had a duty to exercise reasonable care. The plaintiff must show that the defendant breached the duty to exercise reasonable care. The plaintiff must prove causation, a link between the injuries caused and the breach of the legal duty. The plaintiff must show that they suffered losses, injuries, or damages. These elements vary slightly for intentional torts and strict liability torts. Classic Examples of Tort Law Let's go over a few classic examples of tort law to help you understand the concept and tort liability under each category of tort law. Negligence Tort Claim In the case of Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co, the plaintiff was waiting at a railway station when the two men boarding the train before her, assisted by the railroad employees, dropped a fireworks package that exploded. The explosion caused a large coin-operated scale to fall onto the plaintiff, causing injuries that eventually caused her to stammer. The plaintiff sued the railroad company for their employee's negligence at the Kings County Supreme Court, leading to a jury verdict of $6,000. However, the defendant appealed the decision, but the appellate division ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed again. Chief Judge Benjamin Cardozo found the appellate division decision flawed and ruled in favor of the defendant, stating that the railroad employee assisting the man did not have a duty toward the plaintiff as the injury was not foreseeable harm. Cardozo's concept of tort liability arising from the breach of duty causing injuries to another person became widely accepted into American law. Intentional Tort Claim In the Garratt v. Dailey case, the defendant, a 5-year-old child, moved a chair on which the plaintiff was about to sit, causing her to fall and suffer injuries. The plaintiff brought a civil action against the defendant for battery in the Supreme Court of Washington. The trial judge ruled in favor of the defendant, stating that the boy did not have the intent, but the plaintiff appealed the decision. According to the court, there could be battery if the defendant knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would sit on the chair. The absence of the intent to injure or to play a joke does not eliminate the liability for the defendant. Under these descriptions, the court sent the issue back to the trial court to find whether the defendant knew with substantial certainty. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating that the defendant knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would sit on the chair, which was sufficient to show intent. Strict Liability Claim In the case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co, a plaintiff suffered injuries when one of the wheels of his 1909 Buick Runabout collapsed, causing the plaintiff to sue Buick. The defendant argued that they did not manufacture the wheel but only installed it. The court found that the inspection could've revealed the defective wheel and prevented the accident from happening. The defendant denied responsibility, stating that the plaintiff purchased the vehicle from the car dealer, not the manufacturer. Cardozo stated that the defendant's duty is to ensure that their vehicles and the components they install in them are safe. The defendant cannot escape liability because the plaintiff did not have a direct contract with the company manufacturing the parts. This decision removed the privity of the contract and became grounds for torts involving strict liability. Schedule a Free Consultation with Ehline Law Ehline law and our personal injury attorneys have over 15 years of experience handling tort claims and tort lawsuits. If you suffered injuries due to another's fault, contact us at (833) LETS-SUE for a free consultation, as you may be eligible for compensation. There are two justice systems in the United States: the civil justice system and the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system uses criminal law to punish the defendants, while the civil legal system uses tort law to provide a remedy to the plaintiffs for their injuries or harm. Let's explore the tort litigation system with Ehline Law and our personal injury attorneys. History of Tort Law The reflection upon tort law dates way back to the time of Aristotle and made its way into medieval discussions. Aristotle, in his writings, made a distinction between the roles of the court in providing the public with a remedy for private disputes from the role of government officials. It wasn't until the 20th century when philosophical writing of torts developed, and jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr was a pioneer in making the study of law more approachable since civil law jurisdictions drew on the excessive formalism of legal scholarship and education writing. Holmes worked with an English legal scholar, Sir Frederick Pollock, and set a pair of questions for tort theory that played a crucial role in modern tort law. What Is Tort Law? Tort law covers legal proceedings in the civil court besides contractual disputes, which fall under contract law. The primary aim of tort law is to "fix" harm or injury to a person by the defendant and provide them with relief, in most cases, in the form of monetary compensation. Tort law recognizes any damages or harm caused by the actions of an individual for which the law provides a remedy. These damages include lost wages, medical expenses, and pain and suffering. However, in some cases, the court may also award in excess of the compensation, and these are punitive damages aimed at punishing the defendant. Understanding Tort Law There are three categories the tort law is divided into, and these are: Negligent torts: A negligent tort is a wrongful act arising from one's failure to ensure reasonable care. The court uses the reasonable person standard to determine whether the defendant is at fault. The following are typical examples of negligence torts: slip and fall accidents, car accidents, and medical malpractice. Intentional torts: An intentional tort is a wrongful act carried out intentionally or, in other words, willful misconduct. The following are some of the common intentional torts: assault, battery, defamation, infliction of emotional distress, and trespass. Strict liability torts: Unlike negligent and intentional torts that deal with the person causing harm, strict liability focuses on the act. If someone carries out an act, they will be liable for any injury regardless of their intentions or whether they exercised reasonable care. What Is the Tort Litigation System? The basis of personal injury cases is the tort system that helps injured parties hold people or entities responsible for the damages suffered from their actions. Most tort cases arise out of another's negligence, and in such cases, it is essential to prove the elements of a negligence case, which are as follows: The plaintiff must establish that the defendant had a duty to exercise reasonable care. The plaintiff must show that the defendant breached the duty to exercise reasonable care. The plaintiff must prove causation, a link between the injuries caused and the breach of the legal duty. The plaintiff must show that they suffered losses, injuries, or damages. These elements vary slightly for intentional torts and strict liability torts. Classic Examples of Tort Law Let's go over a few classic examples of tort law to help you understand the concept and tort liability under each category of tort law. Negligence Tort Claim In the case of Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co, the plaintiff was waiting at a railway station when the two men boarding the train before her, assisted by the railroad employees, dropped a fireworks package that exploded. The explosion caused a large coin-operated scale to fall onto the plaintiff, causing injuries that eventually caused her to stammer. The plaintiff sued the railroad company for their employee's negligence at the Kings County Supreme Court, leading to a jury verdict of $6,000. However, the defendant appealed the decision, but the appellate division ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed again. Chief Judge Benjamin Cardozo found the appellate division decision flawed and ruled in favor of the defendant, stating that the railroad employee assisting the man did not have a duty toward the plaintiff as the injury was not foreseeable harm. Cardozo's concept of tort liability arising from the breach of duty causing injuries to another person became widely accepted into American law. Intentional Tort Claim In the Garratt v. Dailey case, the defendant, a 5-year-old child, moved a chair on which the plaintiff was about to sit, causing her to fall and suffer injuries. The plaintiff brought a civil action against the defendant for battery in the Supreme Court of Washington. The trial judge ruled in favor of the defendant, stating that the boy did not have the intent, but the plaintiff appealed the decision. According to the court, there could be battery if the defendant knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would sit on the chair. The absence of the intent to injure or to play a joke does not eliminate the liability for the defendant. Under these descriptions, the court sent the issue back to the trial court to find whether the defendant knew with substantial certainty. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating that the defendant knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would sit on the chair, which was sufficient to show intent. Strict Liability Claim In the case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co, a plaintiff suffered injuries when one of the wheels of his 1909 Buick Runabout collapsed, causing the plaintiff to sue Buick. The defendant argued that they did not manufacture the wheel but only installed it. The court found that the inspection could've revealed the defective wheel and prevented the accident from happening. The defendant denied responsibility, stating that the plaintiff purchased the vehicle from the car dealer, not the manufacturer. Cardozo stated that the defendant's duty is to ensure that their vehicles and the components they install in them are safe. The defendant cannot escape liability because the plaintiff did not have a direct contract with the company manufacturing the parts. This decision removed the privity of the contract and became grounds for torts involving strict liability. Schedule a Free Consultation with Ehline Law Ehline law and our personal injury attorneys have over 15 years of experience handling tort claims and tort lawsuits. If you suffered injuries due to another's fault, contact us at (833) LETS-SUE for a free consultation, as you may be eligible for compensation.

Do Police Have a Duty to Protect Subway Passengers?

Written by MichaelEhline on May 6, 2023. Posted in Premises Liability Blog, Train Accidents Blog.

No. Not unless they assume a duty of care. The question of whether police have a duty to protect the public, including subway passengers, is a complex legal and societal issue. According to the Supreme Court ruling in Warren v. District of Columbia (discussed here), the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect individuals from harm. This ruling establishes that the primary responsibility of law enforcement agencies is to enforce the law and maintain public order, as well as protect municipal property, rather than providing specific protection to individuals in every circumstance.

Police Officers Are Instruments of the Government

The reasoning behind this ruling is rooted in the concept of limited resources and the practical challenges of providing constant protection to all members of the public. Police departments must prioritize their efforts and allocate resources to address a wide range of public safety concerns. As a result, individual citizens often bear the responsibility of taking necessary actions to protect themselves in dangerous situations.

New York City Police Department Had No Duty To Protect Subway Car Passengers

The case described in the recent New York news, where a Marine Corps veteran allegedly killed Jordan Neely in a rear naked choke, highlights the reality that individuals may need to rely on their own abilities to defend themselves in certain circumstances. In this specific incident, the Marine, Daniel Penny, claimed to have acted in self-defense and protected other passengers after Neely threatened them aggressively. The video evidence captured the intensity of the situation and the actions taken by Penny to restrain Neely.

While it is essential for individuals to take measures to protect themselves and others when faced with imminent harm, it is important to note that every situation is unique, and the appropriate response depends on the specific circumstances. In this case, Penny’s attorney argued that his actions were a result of a perceived threat to his safety and that of others, highlighting the need for individuals to make split-second decisions when facing potential harm. Even if there were police officers; they could have simply looked the other way.

Example of Subway System Police Officer Ignoring Subway Crime

Joe Lozito, was a Philadelphia resident stabbed while riding a subway train after he was approached by madman killer, Maksim Gelman. The New York City subway train altercation occurred on February 12, 2011, with Gelman using his knife to stab Lozito in the face. With the police just standing there, Lozito was forced to fend off and subdue the knife wielding Gelman. The courts ruled that the police officers had no duty to protect subway ridership, including Joseph Lozito. No Supreme Court case has decided otherwise, either.

It is worth considering the broader implications of this reality, including the importance of personal safety awareness and self-defense training if you want to ride the subway system. If you are riding a subway train, you should probably make local community efforts to ensure public safety and consider learning Judo or grappling. These incidents underline the significance of understanding self-defense laws and being prepared to respond to potential threats in various settings, including public transportation on subway trains.

Nevertheless, it is crucial to acknowledge that the expectation for individuals to protect themselves does not absolve law enforcement agencies and society as a whole from the responsibility of creating safe environments. Police forces and NYPD officers, in particular, have no affirmative duty to protect individuals because no legal obligation exists at common law. LEO will not always address subway crime, and the local politicians do not seem too concerned about the underlying issues contributing to crime and violence. The balance between individual responsibility and societal support in promoting public safety remains an ongoing discussion and a subject of policy debates.

Conclusion

Just because the train operator has a special relationship and special duty of care to its passengers, it appears policing is not one of these duties when the state or local municipality is involved. Cops have “no constitutional duty” to protect people. Can you think of reasons why officers should be a special duty to protect subway passengers? What about the fact you can’t use a gun to defend yourself from wild killer the state sets loose? We want to hear your comments.