Veterans File Class Action Lawsuit Over Medical Retirement Due to Burn Pit-Related Illnesses

Two veterans file a class action lawsuit against Army for refusing to classify illnesses associated with burn pit exposure as combat-related, a designation that would have meant they were medically retired. pay no taxes.

Retired Sgt. 1st Class Kyle Smoke and retired Lt. Col. Jennifer McIntyre filed the claim on October 15 in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., over the retirement they were awarded after they were exposed to burn pits during their service. deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan in McIntyre’s case.

Smoke had debilitating asthma that left him unfit for duty, and McIntyre was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer that had spread to her liver and lymph nodes, according to court documents.

Both conditions are considered Department of Veterans Affairs be caused by exposure to burn pits.

In Smoke’s case, an informal Army Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) ruled that the soldier should be medically discharged due to his condition, but that the illness was not the result of a combat injury.

The official commission disagreed, saying the disabilities were combat-related and caused by “instruments of war”—burn pits used in wartime sites where proper waste disposal was a problem. A board member disagreed with that assessment, and the highest court body known as the Army Disability Agency (PDA) ruled that Smoke’s illness was medically retiring but not combat-related.

The Army later approved Smoke’s asthma claim for special combat-related compensation, saying the illness was a “certified combat-connected disability due to a weapon of war,” according to the documents.

However, Smoke receives a regular medical pension and must pay taxes on it.

McIntyre left the military after 19 years, and her informal PEB concluded that her illness was service-related, not combat-related. The official PEB supported this conclusion, despite her arguments that she was diagnosed with cancer while on duty in a combat zone.

The CCP supported this decision, concluding that burn pits were not automatically weapons of war.

Soldiers argue that burn pits should be considered wartime necessities, given that there were few other waste disposal options in combat zones. And they claim that those who retired for medical reasons after undergoing PACT Law — In fiscal year 2022 alone, 10,000 Army soldiers will not have to pay taxes on their benefits.

“The Army (Physical Evaluation Board) has a systematic practice and policy of denying combat results for purposes of medical retirement due to non-compliance with the terms of the PACT Act on the grounds that military burn pits do not qualify as (instruments of war),” – their lawyers wrote. in court papers.

They added that the Army’s practice of releasing soldiers for medical reasons under the PACT Act is contrary to the law.

“The Army’s refusal to classify weapons of war burn pits under the disability rating system ignores the fact that Department of Defense regulations define military burn pits only in the context of combat, which is unique to the military,” said a senior official at the National Veterans Legal Services Program. . Managing attorney Esther Leibfarth said in an Oct. 30 statement.

Burn pits have been used in Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries to burn waste generated at military installations overseas, including plastics, medical waste and industrial waste.

The PACT Act, signed into law in August 2022, expanded health care and benefits for post-9/11 veterans exposed to pits and other environmental hazards at these sites. It identified nearly two dozen illnesses and related conditions believed to be related to military service, opening the door for injured veterans to receive expedited medical care and disability compensation.

The attorneys cited the PACT Act as support for their argument that these conditions are combat-related and that Department of Defense regulations state that if the disability was suffered “during any period of service as a result of… injury or illness caused by fumes , gases or explosion of military ammunition, vehicles or materials”, the criteria of a combat nature are met.

The lawsuit seeks to overturn the decisions of soldiers with PACT Act-listed conditions who received medical compensation upon retirement by granting them tax-exempt combat-related ranks.

“Soldiers who valiantly serve our country should know that injuries sustained while serving are fully covered by the benefits to which they are entitled,” Emily Wexler, a pro bono attorney at the Chicago law firm Sidley Austin, said in a statement.

The army did not respond to the publication’s request for comment. Historically, the Department of Defense and the military services have not commented on ongoing litigation.

Connected: Supreme Court weighs arguments in lawsuit alleging veterans receive ‘benefit of doubt’ in claims rulings

The story continues