Posts

Experienced Mississippi BP Oil Spill Lawyer Describes the Types of Medical Conditions Covered by the BP Oil Spill Settlement

If you have been reading articles or watching news reports related to the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, you know that there has been a settlement in many of the BP Oil Spill cases. That said, there is still no end in sight to litigation and compensation for many of those affected by the spill.  The first question people ask me when we start discussing Spill Settlements is, “what type of medical conditions are covered by the Settlement?” The quick answer is that any medical condition arising from exposure to oil or dispersants can be considered for compensation, but I have provided an overview of the most common conditions below. I wrote the following blog post to describe the types of medical conditions most frequently encountered in the compensation process.

Do you have a health condition arising from your contact with the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill? Did you participate in the cleanup effort or come into contact with dispersants? You may be entitled to a portion of settlement funds. If you think your health condition entitles you to some of the BP Deepwater Horizon settlement, having experienced counsel help you attain your fair share is critical. Barrett Law has expertise in BP Oil Spill litigation and has the experience to help you through this process.  Contact us now at (800) 707-9577.

Overview of BP Oil Spill-Related Medical Conditions

Overwhelming scientific evidence now suggests that people who came into any contact with oil and dispersants related to the BP Oil Spill are suffering a variety of medical conditions as a result.  This is not limited to those who came into direct contact with the oil and dispersants but also includes people who passively came into contact through air and water because of their relative proximity to the spill. One key to receiving compensation is to have documentation from a medical provider of your symptoms or condition.  If you have this sort of documentation, be sure to preserve it to provide to an experienced BP Oil Spill attorney.

The most frequently compensated conditions include sunstroke, chemical burns, asthma, rashes, respiratory problems, respiratory infections and sinus issues, pneumonia, and fainting or losing consciousness. The Spill Settlement also compensates affected people for non-specific symptoms such as skin infections, digestive system disorders, eye problems such as adnexa, heat rash and sunburn, general effects from inhaling toxins, allergic rhinitis and other unclassifiable symptoms. This is only a partial list, so do not give up just because you do not see your condition listed. Speak to an experienced BP Oil Spill attorney to understand your options.

What Should You Do If You Were Injured or Harmed By the 2010 BP Oil Spill?

If you were injured or developed one of the above health conditions as a result of the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill or its cleanup, you are due compensation for your medical costs, loss of work, and ongoing pain and suffering. You may have heard that it is too late to file a claim or that there is no longer a way to attain compensation for your damages. You may also be able to submit a new application if your earlier attempts were unsuccessful. Don’t let rumors and misleading information get in the way of attaining compensation—the exclusive way to fully understand your options is to hire an attorney with extensive experience in getting BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill claims paid.

Call Barrett Law now, an experienced Mississippi BP Oil Spill law firm, to represent you if you were harmed as a result of the Spill. Barrett Law has the experience to take on defense attorneys that are focused on denying your compensation for the harm you experienced.  Contact us now at (800) 707-9577.

 

 

/by

Experienced Mississippi BP Oil Spill Attorney Discusses Types of Spill-Related Medical Symptoms and Claims

Eight years after the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill devastated the Gulf region, over 35,000 people have made medical claims related to the spill. These claims range from the minor and short-term to devastating and life-long. Regardless of the type or severity of your spill-related medical condition, you deserve full compensation if you were affected by the spill.

Were you affected by the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill? Did you participate in the cleanup effort or come into contact with dispersants? Those activities may entitle you to a portion of settlement funds. If you think you are entitled to some of the BP Deepwater Horizon settlement, having experienced counsel help you attain your fair share is critical. Barrett Law has expertise in Gulf oil spill litigation and has the experience to help you through this process.  We offer straightforward advice to help you through the recovery process, contact us now at (800) 707-9577.

Medical Conditions Related the BP Gulf Oil Spill

It is somewhat shocking to me that 35,000 medical claims have been filed to be repaid under the BP Oil Spill compensation plan. That is a tremendous number of claims but is likely only a small percentage of those who experienced some medical effect from the spill, given that over 150,000 people worked on the spill response and cleanup.

People often ask me about the sort of medical conditions and symptoms my clients experience. People also come in wondering whether the mysterious symptoms they are enduring could be related to their 2010 contact with either Gulf oil or dispersants. I wrote the following blog post to help answer some of these questions.

Commonly Seen Medical Conditions Related to the 2010 BP Gulf Oil Spill

It is unknown whether the chemical dispersants or the oil itself was more toxic to those exposed the 2010 BP Gulf Oil Spill, but both have proven incredibly harmful to those who contacted them. Exacerbating that danger is the fact that response workers were frequently told not to utilize health-protecting safety equipment such as respirators. Because the degree and duration of contact varied greatly, the type and severity of the medical condition vary widely as well.

A list of common symptoms I see includes fainting, heart “fluttering” or palpitations, vomiting, slow or reduced brain function, migraines, bloody noses, memory loss, blood in urine. These symptoms are often harbingers of serious physical or mental degradation, and if you are experiencing them, you should seek medical help and speak to an experienced BP Oil Spill compensation attorney immediately.

If you are found to have a spill-related condition, you may be due compensation. The amount of compensation will depend upon the degree and duration of your condition. Compensation for minor, short-lived illnesses that did not require hospitalization has been lump sum payments of $1,300.  Similar conditions that required hospitalization or are ongoing have received lump-sum payments up to roughly $12,000. Compensation for serious, chronic conditions that continue to affect people exposed to oil or dispersants have been in the $50,000 to $60,000 range. Obviously, the compensation fund is not simply handing out checks, and these sorts of financial recoveries only come with the help of experienced counsel.

What Should You Do If You Were Injured or Harmed By the 2010 BP Oil Spill?

If you were harmed as a result of the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill or its cleanup, you might be due compensation for your losses. Hiring a general practitioner to handle a claim related to the spill is a serious mistake, as only an attorney with extensive experience in getting BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill claims paid will represent your interests adequately.

Call the experienced Mississippi BP Oil Spill Lawyer to represent you if you were harmed as a result of the spill.

Barrett Law has the experience to take on oil spill defense attorneys that are focused on denying your compensation for the harm you experienced.  Contact us now at (800) 707-9577.

 

/by

Mississippi BP Oil Spill Lawyer Advises About a Recent Court Decision Regarding Settlements

The 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill was a devastating event for the Gulf Coast economy, culture, and environment. While BP’s handling of the incident remains a source of negligence claims, new claims have also arisen that BP is distributing damages to claimants unfairly as well. A May 2017 decision by the U.S Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit found that BP was calculating compensation in violation of the Court Supervised Settlement Program for the Deepwater Horizon Economic and Property Damages Class Action Settlement (“the Settlement”), the agreement reached between those affected by the spill and BP.

At issue is this suit was how compensation for BP Spill victims—in legal terms “claimants”—would have their damages calculated under the Settlement. The Settlement allows for five Industry Specific Methodologies (ISMs) for determining the amount that each plaintiff received. Basically, because so many types of claims affecting disparate economies (e.g. construction, fishing, educations, agriculture, tourism, etc.) separate compensation formulas were required.  Claimants were supposed to be able to choose the methodology for compensation that best matched their industry and were supposed to be able to choose the applicable period of harm for which they would be compensated. The compensation period had to be composed of consecutive months between May and December 2010.

Policy 495 of the Settlement consists of five methodologies that the claims administrator can use to calculate claimant compensation.  Essentially, the policy divides claimants into two categories:  Those engaged in construction, education, agriculture and professional services are subject to certain ISMs, and those engaged in everything else are subject to an AVMM.

Again, under the Settlement, claimants were supposed to be able to choose a period for which they would be compensated; the period had to be composed of consecutive months between May and December 2010. Claimants whose industries were best suited to the Annual Variable Margin Methodology (AVMM) received a close to “dollar for dollar” accounting of their loss during the compensation period chosen. Unfortunately, those who found themselves under other ISM’s found that the Settlement’s claim administrator was averaging their losses over both the chosen and unchosen months of the claims period. This seemed to fly in the face of the clear intent to the Settlement.

The Fifth Circuit found that ISM’s are intended to provide claimants with the right to choose a period of compensation of consecutive months from May until December 2010, but the application of the methodologies where the claimants’ months were averaged really results in that choice being meaningless. The court held that the AVMM method, with its more exact accounting, actually complied with the spirit of the Settlement’s Policy 495. The panel also concluded that all claimants involved in construction, education, agriculture and professional services should be subject to the AVMM.

Have you been injured as a result of an improperly calculated or administered claim? Important deadlines, statutes of limitations, and filing requirements make consulting with an experienced plaintiffs’ attorney with BP oil spill experience a vital step to protecting yourself, your livelihood, and your rights if you have suffered as a result of the Deepwater Horizon spill or are a claimant under the Settlement.

Contact Mississippi BP Oil Spill Attorney Jonathan Barrett at Barrett Law immediately to protect your rights

Call Mississippi BP Oil spill Attorney Barrett to set up a free initial consultation. Your BP oil spill claims are not simple, and you should not trust them to an attorney lacking the plaintiffs’ law and BP oil spill experience attorney Barrett possess. Call us now at (800)-707-9577 to protect your livelihood and life.

 

/by

BP Seeks Limitations on Settlement Agreement

The saga of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill continues to rage on, and the debate continues to grow over the interpretation of the settlement agreement designed to compensate business and individuals that suffered losses as a result of the oil spill.  The newest debate centers on whether the settlement agreement should remain in force.

In August 2013, attorneys for businesses that suffered damages as a result of the oil spill and the BP settlement claims administrator made a joint request to United States District Court Judge Carl Barbier to expand covered losses to additional businesses and claims.  These businesses include those that sustained losses as a result of the temporary, six-month suspension by the Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, of deep water drilling activities.

On September 10, 2013, BP filed documents with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, located in New Orleans, objecting to the request for expansion, contending that the BP economic damages settlement, also referred to as the BP Spill Accord, was not intended to extend to moratorium-related losses.  The moratorium damages claims include those damages asserted by businesses in the offshore oil and gas industry, banks and financial institutions, and investment companies.

BP has again objected to paying claims—this time in a much more dramatic manner.  It has filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  BP is arguing that, unless it is successful in disputing certain payments to businesses that BP contends suffered losses not directly attributable to the oil spill, the Fifth Circuit should rescind Judge Barbier’s approval of the settlement agreement.  Judge Barbier granted final approval of the settlement agreement on December 21, 2012.

According to BP’s attorneys, the interpretations of the claims administrator (Patrick Juneau) regarding the settlement terms has resulted in the approval of millions of dollars of payments to businesses for unsubstantiated losses.  BP is essentially contending that what it agreed to in the settlement agreement is not being adhered to or properly applied by Judge Barbier or Patrick Juneau.  BP is further contending that Juneau’s interpretation creates a conflict amongst members of the class, because some members are seeking recovery for actual damages and some members are seeking recovery for non-existent injuries.

Judge W. Eugene Davis, during oral arguments, questioned the delay in BP objecting to the payments.  BP’s attorney’s response was that BP did object.

In addition to BP’s attorneys, attorneys representing thousands of victims are likewise contending that approval of the settlement agreement should be rescinded.  According to Brent Coon, the settlement class is not an appropriate class in that it is composed of distinct groups that are dissimilar except that they lived, worked, or owned property somewhere in the region affected by the oil spill when it occurred.

Earlier this fall, BP appealed Judge Barbier’s interpretation of the settlement agreement, and a panel of appellate court judges ordered review of the interpretation and issued an order to Judge Barbier to suspend certain payments until the concerns about the settlement agreement could be worked out.   Payments to be suspended included those related to business economic losses.

Although the claims period for filing a claim for damages resulting from the BP spill have passed for many groups of businesses and individuals, if you sustained damages as a result of the spill and have any questions about your rights, Barrett Law, PLLC can be reached at (800) 707-9577 to discuss your options.

/by

BP Seeks Limitations on Settlement Agreement

The saga of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill continues to rage on, and the debate continues to grow over the interpretation of the settlement agreement designed to compensate business and individuals that suffered losses as a result of the oil spill.  The newest debate centers on whether the settlement agreement should remain in force.

In August 2013, attorneys for businesses that suffered damages as a result of the oil spill and the BP settlement claims administrator made a joint request to United States District Court Judge Carl Barbier to expand covered losses to additional businesses and claims.  These businesses include those that sustained losses as a result of the temporary, six-month suspension by the Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, of deep water drilling activities.

On September 10, 2013, BP filed documents with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, located in New Orleans, objecting to the request for expansion, contending that the BP economic damages settlement, also referred to as the BP Spill Accord, was not intended to extend to moratorium-related losses.  The moratorium damages claims include those damages asserted by businesses in the offshore oil and gas industry, banks and financial institutions, and investment companies.

BP has again objected to paying claims—this time in a much more dramatic manner.  It has filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  BP is arguing that, unless it is successful in disputing certain payments to businesses that BP contends suffered losses not directly attributable to the oil spill, the Fifth Circuit should rescind Judge Barbier’s approval of the settlement agreement.  Judge Barbier granted final approval of the settlement agreement on December 21, 2012.

According to BP’s attorneys, the interpretations of the claims administrator (Patrick Juneau) regarding the settlement terms has resulted in the approval of millions of dollars of payments to businesses for unsubstantiated losses.  BP is essentially contending that what it agreed to in the settlement agreement is not being adhered to or properly applied by Judge Barbier or Patrick Juneau.  BP is further contending that Juneau’s interpretation creates a conflict amongst members of the class, because some members are seeking recovery for actual damages and some members are seeking recovery for non-existent injuries.

Judge W. Eugene Davis, during oral arguments, questioned the delay in BP objecting to the payments.  BP’s attorney’s response was that BP did object.

In addition to BP’s attorneys, attorneys representing thousands of victims are likewise contending that approval of the settlement agreement should be rescinded.  According to Brent Coon, the settlement class is not an appropriate class in that it is composed of distinct groups that are dissimilar except that they lived, worked, or owned property somewhere in the region affected by the oil spill when it occurred.

Earlier this fall, BP appealed Judge Barbier’s interpretation of the settlement agreement, and a panel of appellate court judges ordered review of the interpretation and issued an order to Judge Barbier to suspend certain payments until the concerns about the settlement agreement could be worked out.   Payments to be suspended included those related to business economic losses.

Although the claims period for filing a claim for damages resulting from the BP spill have passed for many groups of businesses and individuals, if you sustained damages as a result of the spill and have any questions about your rights, Barrett Law, PLLC can be reached at (800) 707-9577 to discuss your options.

/by

BP Files Documents Opposing the Extension of the BP Settlement Agreement to Moratorium Damages

It is hard to believe that two-and-a-half years have elapsed since the Deepwater Horizon oil spill occurred of the coast of the southeastern United States.  Yet the effects are still being felt, and the dispute about what damages BP should be required to pay as result of the spill rages on.

Last month, attorneys for businesses that suffered damages as a result of the spill and the BP settlement claims administrator made a joint request to United States District Court Judge Carl Barbier to expand covered losses to additional businesses and claims.  These businesses include those that sustained losses as a result of the temporary, six-month suspension by the Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, of deep water drilling activities.

The moratorium on deep water drilling activities was initially issued in May 2010, and was nullified by a restraining order issued by Judge Martin Leach-Cross Feldman.  The restraining order resulted from a lawsuit filed against Ken Salazar and the United States Department of Interior, among others, by Hornbeck Offshore Services, LLC, alleging that the moratorium was arbitrary and capricious and in violation of federal law.  In June 2010, Judge Feldman issue a restraining order, finding that Hornbeck Offshore Services, LLC, would likely ultimately succeed in establishing that the moratorium was arbitrary and capricious.  Several days after issuance of the restraining order, the United States Department of Interior appealed Judge Feldman’s ruling, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to stay enforcement of the restraining order.  As a result, in July 2010, the United States Department of Interior revised the previously-issued moratorium, which allowed certain drilling under certain conditions.  The United States Department of Interior lifted the revised moratorium in October 2010.

On September 10, 2013, BP filed documents with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, located in New Orleans, contending that the BP economic damages settlement, also referred to as the BP Spill Accord, was not intended to extend to moratorium-related losses.

Moratorium damages claims include those damages asserted by businesses in the offshore oil and gas industry, banks and financial institutions, and investment companies.  BP has consistently opposed paying such claims.  BP has asserted that the moratorium damages sustained were the result of the United States Department of Interior’s actions, not the actions of BP.  Furthermore, BP has argued that under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which is the key act governing BP’s liability for damages resulting from the spill, BP is not responsible for these types of damages.

The request for the extension of damages to a new class of businesses comes amidst recent allegations of wrongdoing and conflicts of interest against the claims administrator, Patrick Juneau, and several other attorneys in the handling of the BP settlement.  Former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and former federal judge, Louis Freeh, was appointed by Judge Barbier to conduct an independent investigation into the alleged wrongdoing.  Judge Freeh concluded that Juneau had engaged in no wrongdoing, but did determine that several of Juneau’s staff engaged in conduct that appeared to be improper, unethical and possibly criminal.  On September 6, 2013, Judge Freeh recommended that the United States Department of Justice engage in further investigation, but he also recommended that the payment of claims from the BP Spill Accord continue.  Judge Freeh will also continue his investigation.

The estimated costs associated with the Deepwater Horizon spill have risen to at least $9.6 billion, and will likely continue to increase as the matter continues proceeding through the court system.

Although the claims period for filing a claim for damages resulting from the BP spill have passed for many groups of businesses and individuals, if you sustained damages as a result of the spill and have any questions about your rights, Barrett Law, PLLC can be reached at (800) 707-9577 to discuss your options.

/by