In prior posts, I addressed the psychological diagnoses and medications which may preclude redeployment to CENTCOM following a Defense Base Act injury. This post addresses the physical injuries which may preclude deployment or redeployment. In short, the military wants contractors who have the physical capability of performing their work and completing their mission. The Code of Federal Regulations says as much. See 32 C.F.R. 158.7(k). While it is true that medical waivers may be granted, those waivers are few and far between. In fact, waivers “are unlikely for contractor personnel.” Id. If a contractor wants an waiver for a particular employee, then “an explanation should be given as to why other persons who meet the medical standards could not be identified to fulfill the deployed duties.” Id. So, what are the physical conditions which may preclude deployment? Actually, the Department of Defense has prepared non-exhaustive lists that identify those conditions. The newest version ofRead more

An employee must meet minimum standards of physical and psychological fitness to work with a defense contractor in CENTCOM. Typically, when an employee is hired, there is a pre-employment physical. During that physical, medical professionals will examine the claimant and take blood and urine samples. After the physical is passed, the employee may begin working for the defense contractor. Importantly, these standards of fitness also apply to a defense contractor’s employee who was injured on the job. At some time during the disabled employee’s treatment, a question will arise as to whether an employee can return to the same job the employee performed at the time of injury. To re-deploy to CENTCOM for work with a defense contractor, the employee must again satisfy the physical fitness requirements. Consequently, when assessing an ongoing disability, a potentially-determining issue is whether the defense contractor can pass a re-deployment physical. To pass a physical meansRead more

Recently, I was asked questions about the ethical obligations of psychologists who perform defense medical examinations. Are there ethical obligations? Yes, of course. There are ethical obligations for all licensed psychologists. For ease of reference, and to offer a quick example, here is the text for Texas Administrative Code’s “Evaluation, Assessment, Testing, and Reports” statute: (a) Scope and Purpose. (1) Licensees clearly describe the scope and purpose of evaluation, assessment, and testing to patients before they provide these psychological services. (2) Licensees produce reports that clearly state and accurately reflect the scope and purpose of evaluation, assessment, and testing. (b) Reliability and Validity. (1) Licensees verify, by signature and date, that every evaluation, assessment, test result, report, recommendation, or psychological diagnostic or evaluative statement produced is based on information and techniques sufficient to provide appropriate substantiation for its findings. (2) Licensees administer, score, interpret or use assessment techniques or testsRead more

It’s time for an important discussion about the statute of limitations for psychological injury claims. Quite simply, psychological injuries (including but not limited to PTSD) stemming from war zone work are classified as occupational diseases. They are given a two-year statute of limitations. Below, I present a survey of sorts. You will find the statutory language as well as language from multiple Office of Administrative Law Judges decisions which conclude that PTSD is an occupational disease. Section 13—The Statute of Limitations: The statute of limitations for Defense Base Act claims is the same as it is for Longshore claims. For nearly all injuries (with the exception being hearing loss), the statute of limitations is found at Section 13 of the Longshore Act. It states: (a) Time to file.  Except as otherwise provided in this section, the right to compensation for disability or death under this Act shall be barred unlessRead more

In today’s post, I’m going to discuss video games. It probably seems a little odd to discuss games in connection with a Defense Base Act claim. In my opinion, it’s odd too. But, because I have recently fielded some inane arguments about the effect of video games on a claimant with a psychological injury, I thought it best to address the topic. And, believe it or not, this is not the first time I have heard this argument. Back when I used to be a defense attorney, the video game argument was batted around as a potential defense. Ultimately, the argument was dismissed—too laughable to pursue. The argument is fairly simple to grasp. An insurance carrier argues that its liability for benefits has been severed because video games are a stressor that aggravated the injured worker’s psychological injury or created a new psychological injury. Essentially, the carrier is using theRead more