Monsanto settles 'Agent Orange' case with US victims

W.Va. judge OKs settlement in Agent Orange lawsuit against Monsanto; $84M medical fund set up

Monsanto settles 'Agent Orange' case with US victims

Activists protest against Monstanto, which has settled with US victims of 'Agent Orange'. Photograph: Nigel Treblin/AFP/Getty Images

Long-running suit claimed residents of Nitro, West Virginia were exposed to the carcinogenic Vietnam-era chemical weapon

Chemicals giant Monsanto has reached a settlement with US residents who claimed they were poisoned by chemicals used in the manufacturing of the Vietnam-era chemical weapon Agent Orange.

The long-running suit was brought by residents living near a now-defunct Monsanto plant in Nitro, West Virginia that between 1949 and 1971 produced the agricultural herbicide 2,4,5 trichlorophenoxyacidic acid, a key ingredient in Agent Orange.

The weapon was used extensively during the Vietnam war, killing and maiming an estimated 400,000 people and leading to 500,000 birth defects. In 2005 a US court rejected a case brought by Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange.

The suit – filed on behalf of tens of thousands of people who lived, worked and went to school in Nitro after 1949 – claimed Monsanto spread toxic substances including dioxins, which have been linked to cancer, all over the town.

The plaintiffs say they were exposed to levels of dioxins 100,000 times higher than acceptable levels. "Dioxin is a known human carcinogen and is so hazardous to human health that no "safe" level of exposure has been established," the suit claimed.

As part of the settlement, the chemicals firm has set up a 30-year medical monitoring programme. Thousands of people who lived or worked in the Nitro area during the time period covered by the lawsuit will be eligible to apply for benefits. The company said that a $21m fund has been set up to pay for medical testing with a further $63m available over the 30-year life of the screening programme.

In addition Monsanto agreed to pay $9m for the professional cleaning of eligible homes in the Nitro area. The company also agreed to the Nitro residents' court-approved legal fees and litigation costs.

The settlement made no findings of wrongdoing against Monsanto.

Scott Partridge, Monsanto's vice president, said: "These settlements ensure that both individual and community concerns are addressed, and services are made available for the people of Nitro. We are pleased to resolve this matter and end any concerns about historic operations at the Nitro plant."

Nitro has a long history with warfare manufacturing. The town was given its explosive name when it was created in 1917 to service one of the US's main ammunition plants. source:

WINFIELD, W.Va. — A West Virginia judge approved a settlement Friday in a class-action lawsuit filed by residents who say that chemical manufacturer Monsanto Co. burned dioxin wastes left over from the production of Agent Orange, polluting the area with unsafe levels of the chemical.
Putnam County Circuit Judge Derek Swope acted in the lawsuit filed on behalf of between 5,000 and as many as 80,000 current and former Nitro residents against St. Louis-based Monsanto and several related companies that operated the plant.
The settlement creates an initial $21 million fund, plus up to $63 million more for Nitro residents to have their health monitored over 30 years at a local hospital. It also provides $9 million to pay for professional cleaning of thousands of homes. Monsanto also has agreed to pay the residents’ legal fees.
Under the agreement, thousands of people who lived, worked or attended school in the Nitro area will be eligible to apply for benefits.
The plant operated between 1949 and 2004, manufacturing herbicides and other chemicals. Its production of warfare chemical Agent Orange created dioxin as a toxic chemical byproduct, and the lawsuit alleged that blood samples from some residents and dust samples from homes turned up extremely high dioxin concentrations.
“I’m glad it’s behind us,” Nitro Mayor Rusty Casto said Friday when told of the judge’s approval. “I’m glad it won’t be on the front page of the papers for the next three months.”
The long-running litigation began with a class-action case by plant workers in the 1980s, Casto said, but no one in the community really talks about it anymore.
Still, the prospect of seeing the word “dioxin” linked to “Nitro” more than necessary was an unwelcome prospect, said Castro, who said he doesn’t know any of the plaintiffs involved.
Several previous mediation attempts failed, and jury selection was under way this week in the case.
“These settlements ensure that both individual and community concerns are addressed, and services are made available for the people in Nitro,” Monsanto vice president Scott Partridge said in a statement Friday.
The residents’ lawyer, Stuart Calwell, said the litigation’s main goal was to gain long-term health monitoring and cleanup.
“The settlements provide needed medical benefits and remediation services to the people of Nitro and the broader community,” Caldwell said in a statement.
Dioxin has been linked to cancer, birth defects, learning disabilities, endometriosis, infertility and suppressed immune functions. It builds up in tissue over time, so even small exposures can accumulate to dangerous levels.
The Charleston Gazette (http://bit.ly/zkIlOA) reports that a June 18 hearing has been set to give those involved a chance to object to the deal before it becomes final.

A U.S. Court of Appeals Shoots DEA Agent's Foot Case down

A U.S. Court of Appeals has taught a U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) agent two important rules.

DEA Agent In Foot Shoot Suit

Seeks damages for distribution of humiliating gun accident video

A U.S. Court of Appeals has taught a U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) agent two important rules. Rule 1: when demonstrating gun safety to a group of kids, do not shoot yourself in the leg. Rule 2: do not let anybody record a video of you violating Rule 1.
During an April 9, 2004 presentation to a group of children and their parents on the dangers of illegal drugs, an undercover DEA agent pulled out his DEA-issued pistol and told the audience that firearms should be handled only by professionals like himself, when according to court documents, he accidentally shot himself in the thigh.

With the DEA agent's knowledge, one of the parents had video-recorded the entire presentation, including the accidental shooting. The parent turned the hour-long Mini-DV video over to DEA agents who soon arrived to investigate the incident.

Well, you can probably guess what happened to the "smoking video" once it made it back to DEA headquarters. Several copies were made. While some of the copies were properly sent to appropriate DEA officials involved in the investigation, "a few" additional copies were not so properly sent to various "friends" associated with the DEA.

After a shortened, 4-minute, 9-second (4:09) version of the video featuring the shooting incident began showing up on the Internet and on the DEA's internal email system, the "star" DEA agent filed suit against the DEA, charging that the agency had violated the Privacy Act and Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).

Among other things, the Privacy Act gives individuals the right to sue the U.S. government for allowing unauthorized access to their personal information.

With some exceptions, the Federal Tort Claims Act makes the United States government liable for injuries resulting from negligent or willfully wrongful acts or omissions by any federal employee committed while acting in their official capacity, in accordance with the laws of the state where the wrongful act or omission took place. "Injuries" under the FTCA can include physical, emotional and economic harm.

Both a lower district court and now the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia sided with the DEA.

In its decision, the Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that the release of the 4:09 version of the video did not violate the Privacy Act because it was not an "intentional or willful" act, and because the video had not been taken from an established government "system of records."



In finding that the video had not been taken from a system of government records, the appeals court stressed that the DEA agent was not identified in the video. "In addition, at no point was the 4:09 video retrievable or retrieved by Paige's name or other identifying particular," wrote the court.

The court also dismissed the DEA agent's claim that the DEA had violated the Federal Tort Claims Act because the incident occurred in a public place and because the DEA agent knew he was being video-recorded at the time.

Not all good for the DEA: While it sided with the DEA, the court of appeals sternly criticized the agency for its mishandling of the incident.

"The widespread circulation of the accidental discharge video demonstrates the need for every federal agency to safeguard video records with extreme diligence in this internet age of iPhones and YouTube with their instantaneous and universal reach," wrote the court. "The DEA's treatment of the video-recording--particularly the creation of so many different versions and copies--undoubtedly increased the likelihood of disclosure and, although not an abuse of a system of records, is far from a model of agency treatment of private data."  source:

APRIL 11--A Drug Enforcement Administration agent who stars in a popular online video that shows him shooting himself in the foot during a weapons demonstration for Florida children is suing over the tape's release, claiming that his career has been crippled and he's become a laughingstock due to the embarrassing clip's distribution.

Lee Paige, 45, blames the video's release on DEA officials in an April 7 federal lawsuit filed against the U.S. government. A copy of the pro se complaint by Paige, a DEA agent since 1990, can be found here.

According to the lawsuit, Paige was making a "drug education presentation" in April 2004 to a Florida youth group when his firearm (a Glock .40) accidentally discharged. The shooting occurred moments after Paige told the children that he was the only person in the room professional enough to carry the weapon.

The accident was filmed by an audience member, and the tape, Paige claims, was turned over to the DEA. The drug agency, he charges, subsequently "improperly, illegally, willfully and/or intentionally" allowed the tape to be disseminated.

As a result, Paige--pictured at left in a still from the video--has been the "target of jokes, derision, ridicule, and disparaging comments" directed at him in restaurants, grocery stores, and airports. Paige, who writes that he was "once regarded as one of the best undercover agents, if not the best, in the DEA," points to the clip's recent airing on popular television shows and via the Internet as the reason he can no longer work undercover. He also notes that he is no longer "permitted or able to give educational motivational speeches and presentations."