Space: The Final Defense Base Act Frontier

From SpaceX’s multi-billion dollar NASA contracts, to the newly created United States Space Force, will the Defense Base Act be applied to this new world of defense spending? Controlling law suggests that the Defense Base Act will indeed apply, with such contracts representing a viable growth industry for Defense Base Act insurance companies, underwriters and defense contracting companies.

            The Defense Base Act (“DBA”) is a federal workers’ compensation program providing benefits to those injured while working on U.S. governmental agency contracts in furtherance of any military purpose or public work.  The DBA, 42 U.S.C.S. § 1651-1654, was enacted by Congress on August 16, 1941 to provide disability compensation benefits to a previously neglected subset of the American workforce, namely, overseas governmental contractors.

            At the time of the creation of the DBA, the concept of space exploration was but a dream, and the United States would not walk on the moon for another twenty-eight years. Seventeen years after the enactment of the DBA, president Dwight D. Eisenhower created The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”) under the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958. NASA was created as an independent agency of the United States Federal Government responsible for the Nation’s space program, as well as aeronautic and aerospace defense applications.

            Although NASA’s public-facing perception is primarily a “civilian” agency, in practice NASA has acted as the United States military’s arm in space since its inception. According to Smithsonian Magazine:

“NASA and the military also maintain a strong relationship. Over the decades, the vast majority of NASA astronauts have been military service members. During the heyday of the space shuttle, NASA would routinely ferry classified payloads into orbit for the Department of Defense among other projects the agencies have collaborated on.”

            In reviewing NASA’s publicly awarded contracts, it becomes clear that they are more redacted and classified than most Defense Department and Department of State Contracts awarded to the same or similar companies. The gross majority of the redactions cite “(b)(2)” and “(b)(4)” as justifications for censoring the topic. This alludes to the U.S. redactions codes, with “(b)(4)” withholding on the basis that it would “reveal information that would impair the application of state-of-the-art technology within a U.S. weapon system.” This fact obviously highlights the overall military leaning nature of NASA as a federal agency.

            In fiscal year 2017, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) awarded approximately $18.3 billion in contracts, the majority of which ($16.4 billion) was for “services” including research and development, engineering and technical services, operation and maintenance of laboratories and facilities, and housekeeping. Under the existing contracts for commercial resupply services, NASA plans to award more than $20 billion for commercial cargo and crew transportation services to the ISS through 2024. Further, congress has provided $22.75 billion for NASA in fiscal year 2020 alone, and increase of $1.2 billion since fiscal year 2019. Current NASA contracts can be found here.

            Current NASA contractors include many large established defense contractors, namely, The Boeing Company, Paragon Space Development Corporation, Sierra Nevada Corporation, Anadarko Industries, Wyle Laboratories, MRI Technologies, Science Application International Corporation (“SAIC”), Chenega Security, DynCorp International, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Al-Razaq Computing Services, Tecolote Research, Inc., KBR/Service Employees International, L & M Technologies, CSC Applied Technologies, LLC, Pacific Architects and Engineers (“PAE”), and Elon Musk’s Space Exploration Technologies (“SpaceX”).

            According to the United States Department of Labor’s annual Industry Report Card, from the period of 09/01/2001 - 06/30/2019 these very NASA contractors have had countless DBA claims: KBR/Service Employees International – 34,939; DynCorp International – 10,248; Wyle – 3; Chenega –21+; MRI Technologies – 5; SAIC – 427; Lockheed – 700+; CSC – 8; and PAE –1500+ claims. 

            With so much money at stake, the question arises: will workers injured while working on contracts entered into with NASA and similar agencies be provided the protections of the DBA. The answer is a resounding yes. 

            In examining the nature and location of all reported DBA claims, it becomes clear that the DBA is liberally applied to most contractors operating in the United States, in the United States in preparation for overseas work, in U.S. territories, and in foreign countries. According to the Department of Labor’s annual Industry Report Card, Defense Base Act claims stem from over 194 different countries, on all 7 continents. Additionally, claims occurring on U.S. soil are the fourth highest reported location, comprising of over 2,829 claims.

            Of importance, “in-flight” injuries are the tenth highest reported location and noted as a separate location of incident, with 643 occurring during the time period of 09/01/2001 - 06/30/2019. Due to the vast territorial scope of the DBA, there is no reason to doubt that a court would apply the DBA to contractors of a space agency injured en route to outer space, near earth orbit, or killed during a failed launch attempt.

            The Defense Base Act sets forth six categories of contracts that come within the purview of the Act. The DBA covers any contract that is:

(1) at any military, air, or naval base acquired after January 1, 1940, by the United States from any foreign government; or

(2) upon any lands occupied or used by the United States for military or naval purposes in any Territory or possession outside the continental United States (including the United States Naval Operating Base, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and the Canal Zone); or

(3) upon any public work in any Territory or possession outside the continental United States (including the United States Naval Operating Base, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and the Canal Zone), if such employee is engaged in employment at such place under the contract of a contractor …

(4) under a contract entered into with the United States or any executive department, independent establishment, or agency thereof (including any corporate instrumentality of the United States), or any subcontract, or subordinate contract with respect to such contract, where such contract is to be performed outside the continental United States and at places not within the areas described in subparagraphs (1)–(3) of this subdivision, for the purpose of engaging in public work, …

(5) under a contract approved and financed by the United States or any executive department, independent establishment, or agency thereof (including any corporate instrumentality of the United States), or any subcontract or subordinate contract with respect to such contract, where such contract is to be performed outside the continental United States, under the Mutual Security Act of 1954, …

(6) outside the continental United States by an American employer providing welfare or similar services for the benefit of the Armed Forces pursuant to appropriate authorization by the Secretary of Defense, irrespective of the place where the injury or death occurs, and shall include any injury or death occurring to any such employee during transportation to or from his place of employment, where the employer or the United States provides the transportation or the cost thereof.

            It may be argued that NASA contracts are not “military” in nature, thus falling outside DBA coverage. As noted previously, this argument would most likely fail due to the widely understood military nature of their agency and the redactions found within their publicized contracts. However, it cannot be refuted that NASA contracts are surely considered “public work”, thus bringing them under the purview of the DBA. The black letter law, and our Court’s interpretation of the same, make this conclusion all but inevitable. Under the DBA, the definition of “public work” is set forth in Section 1651(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 1651(b)(1), as follows:

(1) the term “public work” means any fixed improvement or any project, whether or not fixed, involving construction, alteration, removal or repair for the United States or its allies, including but not limited to projects or operations under service contracts and projects in connection with the national defense or war activities, dredging, harbor improvements, dams, roadways, and housing, as well as preparatory and ancillary work in connection therewith at the cite or on the project;

            The salient legislative history explaining the 1958 revision to the definition of “public work” may be found in the Senate Committee Report;

To redefine the term “public work” so as to clarify its meaning and make it construe consistently with federal court decisions. It was the intention of Congress that this term would cover both fixed and moveable projects, including service projects. Some State court decisions have disregarded this Congressional intent, presumably because the purpose is not explicitly spelled out in the Act, and have imposed further state liability [222(BRB)] upon employers in a manner inconsistent with the underlying purposes of the Act. By redefining the term “public work” to include the words “whether or not fixed,” the original intention to have it apply to projects of all kinds otherwise in the definition, including service contract projects, is reaffirmed.

S.Rep. No. 1886, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. 5, 1958 U.S. Code Cong. and Administrative News 3324. 

            Even if the primary basis for establishing coverage under “any military purposes” is rebutted, clearly coverage for such NASA contracts is established under the “public work” clause of the DBA. Therefore, it would be strongly advised that any contractor of NASA or similar governmental agency procure DBA coverage to limit their tort liability and protect their officers from criminal liability for failure to obtain coverage.

            In 1980, The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit made an important distinction between NASA contracts and NASA grants, ruling that the latter falls outside of DBA coverage. The court held in University of Rochester v. Hartman, 618 F. 2d. (2nd Cir. 1980), that a scientist injured in Antarctica while working on a scholarly research project funded by a grant from NASA and the National Science Foundation fell outside of DBA coverage. The Court reasoned that work done under a mere federal grant is not covered by the DBA because a grant is not a “contract” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1651(a)(4)- even if an injured worker is engaged in “public work”, as defined by Section 1651(b)(1). Applying the criteria established by Congress, NASA, and NSF, the Court rightly held that the project was a “grant instrument” as (1) the initial proposal was not solicited by the Government, (2) the Government did not retain close control over the objectives, methods, or timetable of the project, (3) the purpose of the project was to supplement a Professor’s long-term research, (4) it did not require a service ordered by the Government to solve a specific problem, (5) the direction of the project was entirely controlled by the grantee, and (6) the grantee was not required to submit a final report to the Government until he had completed his research. It should be noted that the Benefits Review Board’s finding that a defense or military purpose is not a pre-requisite to DBA coverage remains undisturbed and controlling today.

            A key distinction found in all of the publicly available NASA contracts today is that they are clearly not grants. Rather, they are (1) subject to FAR regulations, (2) are actually called “contracts”, (3) NASA retains close control over the objectives and time tables of each contract, (4) they involved services ordered by the government, (5) the contractor does not have total control of the services, and (6) the contractors have strict regular reporting requirements. Furthermore, they satisfy all of the common law requirements of a valid contract in that there is a formal offer, bidding, formal acceptance, valid legal purposes, and consideration exchanged.

            In that line, NASA’s Federal Acquisition Regulations require a contractor to obtain adequate workers’ compensation insurance prior to the awarding of a contact. FAR 1852.228-75 controls, and states in pertinent part:

1852.228-75 Minimum Insurance Coverage. As prescribed in 1828.372, insert the following clause: MINIMUM INSURANCE COVERAGE (OCT 1988) The Contractor shall obtain and maintain insurance coverage as follows for the performance of this contract: (a) Worker's compensation and employer's liability insurance as required by applicable Federal and state workers' compensation and occupational disease statutes. If occupational diseases are not compensable under those statutes, they shall be covered under the employer's liability section of the insurance policy, except when contract operations are so commingled with the Contractor's commercial operations that it would not be practical. The employer's liability coverage shall be at least $100,000, except in States with exclusive or monopolistic funds that do not permit workers' compensation to be written by private carriers.

            With the creation of our nation’s sixth military branch, The United States Space Force, the United States expands our reaches into near earth orbit and the expanse of outer space. The intended purpose of this newly created branch of the military is primarily to “maximize warfighting capability” and “organize, train and equip our space warfighters with next-generation capabilities”. This surreal fact, coupled with the significant increase in the use of NASA contractors to provide needed extra-planetary mission support, contractors such as KBR, DynCorp, PAE, SpaceX, Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin need to be aware of their Defense Base Act insurance and reporting obligations to provide injured workers with proper remedies when injured or killed. Furthermore, these companies need to be aware that procurement of DBA coverage will be necessary in order to avoid (1) inevitable tort law suits where they are precluded from raising any defenses to liability, (2) personal criminal liability for their president, secretary, and treasurer, (3) personal criminal sentencing of up to 1 year for their president, secretary, and treasurer, and (4) joint corporate criminal liability.

Contact Diamond Law Practice today at (212) 220-7134, or JDiamond@DiamondLawPractice.com for a free claim consultation.

U.S. Department of Labor Announces Increase in Maximum Benefit Rate for Defense Base Act Claimants

The United States Department of Labor, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs has confirmed the increase in cost of living adjustments for all beneficiaries receiving death benefits and permanent total disability compensation benefits under the federal Defense Base Act. As of October 1, 2019, the maximum benefit rate increases by 3.26% to $1,560.08. This 3.26% increase is the largest percentage increase in benefits since fiscal year 2009.

 Section 10(f) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, as extended by the Defense Base Act controls this issue. This section states in pertinent part:

(f) Effective October 1 of each year, the compensation or death benefits payable for permanent total disability or death arising out of injuries subject to this Act shall be increased by the lesser of —

(1) a percentage equal to the percentage (if any) by which the applicable national weekly wage for the period beginning on such October 1, as determined under section 6(b) [33 USC § 906(b)], exceeds the applicable national average weekly wage, as so determined, for the period beginning with the preceding October 1; or

 (2) 5 per centum.

The Department of Labor’s updated maximum compensation rate can be found here, and here.

If you have a pending Defense Base Act claim for death compensation benefits or permanent total disability compensation benefits and do not receive an increase in your benefit rate, contact us for a free claim assessment.

USCENTCOM Reports 55,135 Deployed Contractors Supporting DoD's Overseas Effort

The United States Department of Defense (“DoD”) has reported deployed private contractor numbers for the second quarter of 2019. The report includes data on DoD contractors deployed overseas in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria. In short, the DoD reports 55,135 deployed contractor personnel, which represents an increase of approximately 2,073 from the previous reported figures. The full report can be found here. Below, I touch on some of the highlights of the report.

As noted above, the April 2019 DOD report breaks down deployed contractors by country. Afghanistan has about 30,500 deployed contractors, while Iraq and Syria have a combined 6,900. Additionally, the DOD breaks down the compilation of contractors by citizenship. The majority of contractors in Iraq and Syria are U.S. citizens, while the number of Third Country Nationals and Local National Contractors outnumber U.S. citizen contractors deployed in Afghanistan.

Concerning Iraq and Syria, the majority of contractors deployed are in Logistics and Maintenance (35.2%), Base Support (17.8%) and Translator/Interpreting (12.8%). Medical/Dental (.3%) and Training (.5%) represent the smallest faction. This report unfortunately highlights the little emphasis placed upon the health and well being of our contractors deployed overseas in war zones. When injured, contractors are provided little to no remedies except those afforded under the Defense Base Act.

As applicable in Afghanistan, the majority of contractors deployed are in Logistics and Maintenance (31.6%), Security (19.2%) and Base Support (13.7%). Unfortunately, Medical/Dental (.3%) and IT/Communication (3.2%) represent the smallest faction of deployed contractors. Again, this report highlights how little emphasis is placed upon the health and well being of contractors deployed overseas in Afghanistan.

Of importance, all injured contractors working under the above contracts are covered under the Defense Base Act, regardless of citizenship. The Defense Base Act is a federal workers’ compensation framework that provides medical benefits and compensation benefits to injured contractors, and funeral expenses and death compensation benefits to deceased contractors. The Defense Base Act is an injured workers’ sole remedy for injury, so retaining an experienced attorney to handle your claim at the outset is absolutely critical. Please contact us here should you have any questions about your entitlement to Defense Base Act compensation benefits.

$82 BILLION Awarded to Four Defense Contractors in Historic LOGCAP V Program

The United States Army has named four defense companies as prime contractors on its massive $82 billion Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (“LOGCAP”) contract. LOGCAP is an international program administered by the U.S. Army to provide contracted support to bolster the Army force overseas. In December 2001, LOGCAP III was awarded to Kellogg, Brown and Root (“KBR”). Under LOGCAP IV, KBR competed for task orders with two other bidding contractors, namely DynCorp International, LLC and Fluor Intercontinental Inc. The US Army’s declassified PowerPoint presentation on the LOGCAP program can be found here.

Through date, 13 task orders have been awarded under the LOGCAP program including project management offices, services in Kuwait, services in Afghanistan, relief effort to aid the victims of the earthquake in Haiti, and to provide logistics, transportation, and postal services in Iraq.

According to the U.S. Army Contracting Command, $82,000,000,000.00 in LOGCAP V contracts have been awarded to four contracting companies to provide support services to the U.S. Military at military installations across the globe. The relevant Request for Proposal (RFP) number associated with the award is W52P1J-16-R-0001. 

The companies awarded the $82 Billion dollar contract include Vectrus Systems, Pacific Architects and Engineers (“PAE”), KBR, and Fluor.

• PAE-Parsons Global Logistics Services, LLC was awarded $34,596,500.37 on April 12, 2019 to perform contract number W52P1J-19-D-0047. This contract is specifically with SOUTHCOM Setting the Theater Task Order. Additional details can be found here. PAE Careers can be found here.

• Fluor Intercontinental, Inc. was awarded $137,222,537.90 on April 12, 2019 to perform contract number W52P1J-19-D-0046. This contract is specifically with AFRICOM Setting the Theater Task Order.  Additional details can be found here. Fluor International Careers can be found here.

• Vectrus Systems Corporation was awarded $1,382,769,941.05 on April 12, 2019 to perform contract number W52P1J-19-D-0045. This contract was awarded for two support missions, namely, PACOM Setting the Theater Task Order, and CENTCOM Setting the Theater Task Order. Additional details can be found here. Vectrus Systems careers can be found here.

• Kellogg Brown and Root Services, Inc. was awarded $1,949,337,514.05 on April 12, 2019 to perform contract number W52P1J-19-D-OO44. This contract was awarded to support three missions, namely, EUCOM Setting the Theater Task Order, NORTHCOM Setting the Theater Task Order, and The Afghanistan Performance Task Order. Additional details can be found here. KBR careers can be found here.

Of importance, all injured contractors working under the above contracts are covered under the Defense Base Act, regardless of citizenship. The Defense Base Act is a federal workers’ compensation framework that provides medical benefits and compensation benefits to injured contractors, and funeral expenses and death compensation benefits to deceased contractors. The Defense Base Act is an injured workers’ sole remedy for injury, so retaining an experienced attorney to handle your claim at the outset is absolutely critical. Please contact us here should you have any questions about your entitlement to Defense Base Act compensation benefits.

Private Patriots: America's Most Misunderstood Freedom Fighters

As a practicing Defense Base Act attorney, I have been granted invaluable insight into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. During my practice, I have read thousands of pages of incidents reports detailing countless terrorists attacks perpetrated against American forces, and viewed numerous photos memorializing the aftermath of the same. I have met those wounded in the war, heard their stories, and spoken with the families of those who have lost their loved ones. It is an honor and a privilege to fight on their behalf every morning I wake up. 

It goes without saying that I am disheartened when I encounter people who know little about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The three main glaring omissions from America's current consciousness I have observed are: (1) people fail to realize that the current war in Afghanistan is America's longest war by a large margin, (2) few are aware that there are more contractors than actual soldiers fighting the war, (3) even fewer people truly understand the sacrifices undertaken by the men and women who make up America's defense contractor community. 

In his new book entitled Zero Footprint, author Simon Chase highlights the men and women who make up America's defense contractor community:

If you haven't found yourself in the middle of shit in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan or Syria recently, you probably have little understanding of what we do. Or that we're sometimes called upon to perform missions too sensitive and top secret for even Delta Force or SEAL Team 6. We're mostly guys, and some women, who live in your neighborhoods, drive fast cars, work out a lot, and spend long periods of time away from home...There are hundreds of thousands of us living in the United States working for companies like G4S, DynCorp, Unity Resources Group, Erinys, Triple Canopy, and AEGIS Defense Services. They hire us to do the dirty and dangerous jobs the military and intelligence services can't or don't want to do.

In a real sense, America's defense contractors are our elite super heroes. Unfortunately, respect for these men and women has been lost through media manipulation centered around the misconduct of one notorious defense corporation during the early part of the war. In my experience, this portrayal is unfair, and inaccurate. 

Our contractors fight overseas alongside their military counterparts, yet oftentimes fail to receive the adoration deserved for their valuable service. They do not get to wear the regalia, their families are not afforded military funerals, they do not receive metals for untold acts of bravery, they don't have their own federal holiday, and they are oftentimes ignored by the establishment in times of need. Defense contractors compromise the "tip of the spear" fighting the war on terror in hostile territory, and deserve the respect they have earned by risking their lives for America's freedom. 

In many ways, members of the defense contracting community are victims of circumstance. The President, and our politicians, know that continuing the war on terror is an absolute necessity. However, they also realize that continuing to send servicemen into battle and instituting a nation-wide draft is political suicide. Even more politically unpopular are newspaper headlines featuring American soldier casualties. Our politicians have tactfully avoided the political downside of the war effort by turning to private contractors to continue America's dirty work, while simultaneously withdrawing troops to garner political accolade. 

Oftentimes, defense contractors are former elite veterans seeking the higher income needed to provide a better life for their families. They transfer the valuable skills developed in the military to the private sector in order to put their children through college, or pay their mortgages. With high risk, comes high reward. It is unfortunate, but our politicians and bureaucrats at the U.S. Agency for Veterans Affairs simply do not provide adequate compensation to our soldiers who risk their lives overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan. This continued policy of underfunding military personnel has prompted many servicemen to go into the private sector.   

Below, you will find my commentary on a few pieces which highlight the harrowing environments our defense contractors face each and everyday. Hopefully, this raises awareness of the sacrifice America's defense contractors make fighting the war on terror in furtherance of our contiued freedom stateside:

Inside Blackwater: Iraq's Most Controversial Private Military Contractor

This short documentary features the operation of Blackwater and Armor Group in Iraq & Afghanistan. This video contains interesting footage of company compounds, training techniques, protocol for protecting clientele, training and insurgent ambushes. In addition, the filmmakers follow Nepalese contractors training local national troops who work for far less wages than their British counterparts. This documentary also contains an interview with Armor Group executives and recruiters which highlights the stringent qualifications needed to be a defense contractor. 

Finally, this documentary is concluded with a piece concerning the tragic death of Blackwater employee Stephen Scott Helvenston who made the ultimate sacrifice. Overall, this piece did a decent job at showing (1) the dangers faced by defense contractors in combating terrorism, and (2) the magnitude of the sacrifice of America's defense contractors. 

VICE: Superpower for Hire: Rise of the Private Military

This documentary examines the rise of international Private Military Companies ("PMC"). It follows Security Contractors in Venezuela as they escort high profile client. Additionally, the filmmakers interview Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater (Xe/Academi), who provides insight on the increased use of defense contractors in the theater of war. Furthermore, this video gives an inside look at the Anti-terror Training Academy locate in Czech Republic, which is Europe's leading PMC training facility.

The Defense Base Act : A Brief History and Explanation of the Administration of Benefits

The Defense Base Act is a federal workers' compensation program, which provides medical and wage-replacement benefits to military contractors injured while working on a wide variety of U.S. defense projects worldwide. Defense Base Act Attorney John-Austin Diamond explains the history and administration of the Defense Base Act below.

Background and History of the DBA

The 77th Congress of the United States enacted the Defense Base Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 1651-1654, on August 16, 1941 to provide disability benefits to a previously neglected portion of the American workforce, namely, overseas military contractors. For years, defense contractors working alongside US military forces risked their lives with no guarantee of traditional military benefits provided to their counterparts by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs.

Prior to the enactment of the Defense Base Act, military contractors who sustained serious injuries while contributing to the American war effort found themselves in a “no mans land” when it came to obtaining disability benefits. Although vital to the strength and operation of the American military, these contractors were not entitled to traditional benefits available to active military members.   Likewise, as their employment was performed overseas, many of these injured contractors were unable to file for workers’ compensation benefits in their home state. To remedy this frustrating conundrum, Congress enacted the Defense Base Act, which provides lifelong medical benefits and compensation benefits to those injured in the course and scope of their employment at US military bases abroad.

In order to fully understand Congress’ intent in passing the Defense Base Act, one must examine the history of the United States during the later half of 1941. During this historic time period, the country was gearing up for World War II. On July 2, 1941, the Empire of Japan enacted measures to mobilize a standing army of over one million men. On August 9, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt met with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill onboard a navy ship to formulate the Atlantic Charter which established united military goals for the Allied powers. On December 7, 1941, The Imperial Japanese Navy attacked US military forces at Pearl Harbor. The United States then officially entered the war on December 8, 1941, and the rest is history.

Remobilizing America’s military following the carnage of World War I required a uniquely capitalistic approach to achieve victory in World War II. To maximize America’s war efforts, President Roosevelt deployed both military and non-military personnel throughout Europe and the South Pacific with the aid of the newly enacted Defense Base Act. As President Roosevelt’s then Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson famously proclaimed, “If you are going to try to go to war, or to prepare for war, in a capitalistic country, you have got to let business make money out of the process or business won’t work.” Thus, the widespread use of military contractors in war zones was born, and America prevailed in the Second World War.

The use of military contractors has grown exponentially since the inception of the Defense Base Act. According to a Congressional Research Study from May 2013, defense contractors accounted for 50% or more of the total military force in Afghanistan and Iraq during America’s longest war, The War on Terror.

Governance and Administration of Benefits Under the DBA

The Defense Base Act is a federal workers' compensation program administered by the United States Department of Labor's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Division of Longshore & Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. All new injuries reported under the DBA are processed through the Department of Labor's Second Compensation District office in New York, New York.

Upon receiving notice of an injured defense contractor, all employers must report the injury to the New York office of the Department of Labor through the filing of Longshore Form LS-202 First Report of Injury or Occupational Illness. This report is to be filed in duplicate with the District Director of the Second Compensation District, and is required to be filed within 10 days of a work-related injury. 33 U.S.C. 930(a). Any employer or insurance carrier who fails to submit this report within 10 days will be subject to a civil penalty up to $11,000 for each such failure. 33 U.S.C.930(e).

Once a claim is created, the responsible insurance carrier will either approve the claim and file a Form LS-206 Payment of Compensation Without Award, or deny the claim by filing a Form LS-207 Notice of Controversion of Right to Compensation. In the event the insurance carrier controverts your claim, the Department of Labor will schedule an Informal Conference wherein the insurance company's trained attorneys will argue why your claim should be denied. If no resolution is achieved during the Informal Conference, the matter is referred to the Office of Administrative Law Judges for a formal hearing. Appeals are then taken to the Benefits Review Board, Federal District Courts, and ultimately to the Supreme Court of the United States.

In the event that your injury is controverted or denied by your insurance carrier, immediately contact an attorney who is knowledgeable in the field of Defense Base Act law. Contact Diamond Law Practice today at (212) 220-7134, or JDiamond@DiamondLawPractice.com for a free claim consultation.