Agent Orange Again

[jvclayman]

Jim Wessmar's article about the passing of my husband, former Captain Stanley David Clayman, was correct. He died on 02/03/04 having been diagnosed with Multiple Myeloma almost 2 years earlier. He endured 3 surgeries, a stem cell transplant and various drug treatments, all to
no avail. The US government has admitted that, as a helicopter pilot, his illness was the result of exposure to Agent Orange contracted while in Viet Nam. Does anyone out there know of any others who have been diagnosed or died from this exposure after the class settlement and what they/you are doing about it?

Judy Clayman
You can e-mail me at: jclayman@postal.grolen.com

[GMello]

Judy:

Noticed no one had replied to your query. Here is the latest on a suit brought by veterans and the Supreme Court decision which allows the suit to continue. Maybe you can contact the principles involved and obtain more info that may help you and your case....good luck and please keep me posted. Very sorry for your loss.

As an aside, I participated and worked in medical research labs twelve years after my separation from the Corps in 1969. During those years, I noticed a large number of vets dying from cancers, with four types dominating, myeloma, leukemias, liver cancer and intestinal cancers and the numbers far surpassed those of that age group statistically. I began to record their information with the exception of their names which was prohibited by the labs I worked in...wish now I had said the hell with it and should have written the names anyway. Needless to say, during those 12 years it was amazing. I forwarded the record to the VA and until this day and after repeated requests for nearly 30 years still no comment or reply, I have received nothing. Not even elected officials would help or intervene.

S/F Gordo


High Court Deadlocks on Agent Orange Case
GINA HOLLAND / AP 9jun03
[In depth look at causes of Gulf War syndrome]

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court deadlocked Monday on whether it's too late for sick Vietnam veterans to sue chemical companies over Agent Orange exposure, but allowed vets to continue lawsuits claiming they were wrongly shut out of a decades-old national settlement.

Business groups had feared a ruling that would threaten to reopen many class-action settlements at a cost of millions or possibly billions of dollars.

Instead, justices were divided 4-4. A ninth justice, Justice John Paul Stevens, did not participate in the case. He did not give a reason for his recusal, but his only son was a Vietnam veteran who apparently suffered from cancer before his death in 1996 at age 47.

The case raised an interesting question of how courts should handle claims from war veterans who got cancer and other diseases after the $180 million Agent Orange settlement was spent. Two veterans argued their constitutional due process rights were violated in the 1984 settlement.

In an unsigned opinion, the court ordered more consideration of the claims of Joe Isaacson, a vice principal in Irvington, N.J. The court, on a tie vote, left undisturbed a decision that allowed the lawsuit of Daniel Stephenson, a retired helicopter pilot living in Florida. Both men claim their cancers are related to Agent Orange, used in the 1960s and 1970s to clear dense jungle foliage that provided cover for enemy forces.

Although the Vietnam war ended 30 years ago, some war-related illnesses are just being discovered, the court had been told.

Companies that made the herbicide Agent Orange thought their liability ended with the 1984 class-action settlement. Dow Chemical Co., Monsanto Co. and other companies, tried to reach veterans with ads in local and national newspapers and magazines.

In this case, the court was asked two questions. First, whether people who are unaware of their involvement in a class action suit are allowed to argue later that they were not property represented. And second, what standard should be used if those lawsuits are allowed.

Justices, in issuing a two-paragraph unsigned opinion, did not deal with either question. The effect of tie votes, which are extremely rare at the court, is to affirm the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judgment and allow litigation to proceed in the lower court.

During arguments in the case in February, some justices seemed concerned that the settlement shut out veterans.

Groups like the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion urged the court to fix what they called an injustice against people "who survived the bullets and bombs of the enemy" but are now dying of cancer.

The case is Dow Chemical Co. v. Stephenson, 02-271.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Supreme Court Splits on Agent Orange Lawsuit
REUTERS 9jun03
WASHINGTON—The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday that one Vietnam War veteran diagnosed with cancer can sue Agent Orange's manufacturers over exposure to the defoliant, despite a 1984 global class-action settlement.

But it set aside a ruling that allowed a second veteran to sue, and sent his lawsuit back for further consideration.

The case involved Daniel Stephenson and Joe Isaacson, who alleged their exposure to the herbicide sprayed by the U.S. military during the war caused their illnesses.

Stephenson, a helicopter pilot who served in Vietnam from 1965 to 1970, was diagnosed with bone marrow cancer in 1998. Isaacson, in Vietnam from 1968 to 1969 while working at a base for airplanes that sprayed the chemical, was diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma in 1996.

An equally divided court, by a 4-4 vote, affirmed a U.S. appeals court ruling that Stephenson can sue. Justice John Paul Stevens did not take part in the case, but gave no reason why he did not participate.

A number of chemical companies, including Dow Chemical Co. and Monsanto Co., the two biggest makers of Agent Orange, had appealed to the Supreme Court.

The companies in the 1984 settlement agreed to pay $180 million to veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange and then died or became ill. The payments were made for 10 years, and the settlement provided no payments for death or disability occurring after Dec. 31, 1994.

A federal judge dismissed the lawsuits by the two plaintiffs on the grounds they were bound by the 1984 settlement.

But the appeals court disagreed and ruled that Stephenson and Isaacson learned of their alleged injuries only after the settlement fund expired in 1994. It said the two plaintiffs could not be constitutionally bound by the 1984 settlement.

A number of business groups supported the companies, saying that reopening settlements in later years will only deter future settlements. The plaintiffs were supported by veterans groups, trial lawyers and six states.

In a two-paragraph ruling, the Supreme Court did not reach the merits of the dispute. It sent the Isaacson case back for further consideration in view of a high court decision in a different case last year and it simply affirmed the appeals court ruling for Stephenson because the justices deadlocked.

More dirt on Monsanto

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dow, Monsanto Can Be Sued Over
Agent Orange
BLOOMBERG 9jun03
A Vietnam veteran with cancer can sue Dow Chemical Co. and Monsanto Co., makers of the defoliant Agent Orange, even though a 1984 settlement was supposed to resolve all claims, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled.

The justices' 4-4 decision affirmed a lower court ruling that allowed veteran Daniel Stephenson to sue. In the case of another veteran, the justices told a lower federal court to reconsider whether to let the case go forward in a state court.

Justice John Paul Stevens didn't participate in the case.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, et al., PETITIONERS v. DANIEL RAYMOND STEPHENSON et al.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit

[June 9, 2003]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Per Curiam.

With respect to respondents Joe Isaacson and Phyllis Lisa Isaacson, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further consideration in light of Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U. S. 28 (2002).

With respect to respondents Daniel Raymond Stephenson, Susan Stephenson, Daniel Anthony Stephenson, and Emily Elizabeth Stephenson, the judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.

Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...0&invol=02-271 9jun03


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Supreme Court Deadlocks On Agent Orange Case
Wall Street Journal 9jun03
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court deadlocked Monday on whether it is too late for sick Vietnam veterans to sue chemical companies over Agent Orange exposure, but allowed vets to continue lawsuits claiming they were wrongly shut out of a decades-old national settlement.

Business groups had feared a ruling that would threaten to reopen many class-action settlements at a cost of millions or possibly billions of dollars.

Instead, justices were divided 4-4. A ninth justice, Justice John Paul Stevens, didn't participate in the case. He didn't give a reason for his recusal, but his only son was a Vietnam veteran who apparently suffered from cancer before his death in 1996 at age 47.

The case raised an interesting question of how courts should handle claims from war veterans who got cancer and other diseases after the $180 million Agent Orange settlement was spent. Two veterans argued their constitutional due-process rights were violated in the 1984 settlement.

In an unsigned opinion, the court ordered more consideration of the claims of Joe Isaacson, a vice principal in Irvington, N.J. The court, on a tie vote, left undisturbed a decision that allowed the lawsuit of Daniel Stephenson, a retired helicopter pilot living in Florida. Both men claim their cancers are related to Agent Orange , used in the 1960s and 1970s to clear dense jungle foliage that provided cover for enemy forces.

Although the Vietnam war ended 30 years ago, some war-related illnesses are just being discovered, the court had been told.

Companies that made the herbicide Agent Orange thought their liability ended with the 1984 class-action settlement. Dow Chemical Co., Monsanto Co. and other companies tried to reach veterans with ads in local and national newspapers and magazines.

In this case, the court was asked two questions: first, whether people who are unaware of their involvement in a class-action suit are allowed to argue later that they weren't properly represented; and second, what standard should be used if those lawsuits are allowed.

Justices, in issuing a two-paragraph unsigned opinion, didn't deal with either question. The effect of tie votes, which are extremely rare at the court, is to affirm the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judgment and allow litigation to proceed in the lower court.

"A lot of veterans have been waiting for 10 years to hear this, their rights are vindicated," said Gerson Smoger of Oakland, Calif., the attorney for Messrs. Isaacson and Stephenson.

During arguments in the case in February, some justices seemed concerned that the settlement shut out veterans. Groups such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion urged the court to fix what they called an injustice against people "who survived the bullets and bombs of the enemy" but are now dying of cancer.

(Dow Chemical Co. v. Stephenson)

In a separate case Monday, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld an Iowa state law that taxes slot-machine proceeds at racetracks and riverboats at different rates. The ruling means Iowa won't have to refund as much as $100 million in taxes collected on racetrack slot machines, which are taxed at the higher level under the state's law.

"The state's differential tax rate does not violate the federal Equal Protection Clause," said Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote the high-court opinion.

The ruling overturns an Iowa Supreme Court decision, which had concluded the different tax rates were unconstitutional. The high court sent the case back to the state court for further proceedings in light of the decision. (Fitzgerald v. Racing Association of Central Iowa)

--Dow Jones Newswires reporter Mark Anderson contributed to this article


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bayer Knows Of No
South African Lawsuits Being Filed
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES 14apr03
FRANKFURT -- Bayer AG (G.BAY) said Monday it isn't aware of any lawsuits against it in South Africa over its supply of agrochemicals product Agent Orange during apartheid.

Bayer never produced Agent Orange , a Bayer spokesman said.

"Bayer hasn't been contacted by any alleged plaintiffs or the South African authorities," the spokesman added.

Bayer's comments come after a press report said Bayer was one of three companies, including Dupont (DD) and Eli Lilly & Co (LLY) possibly facing lawsuits from supplying the product.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Estimates Of US Defoliant
Usage In Vietnam Raised
AP 16apr03
NEW YORK—A study has increased the estimate of how much Agent Orange and other dioxin-tainted defoliants the U.S. military sprayed during the Vietnam War. But it remains unclear whether the increased amount raises the illness risk of those exposed, scientists say.

Re-examining military records, researchers at the Columbia University School of Public Health determined that about 21 million gallons of the herbicides were sprayed from 1961 to 1971 -1.84 million gallons, or 10%, more than previously believed.

About 55% of the defoliant was Agent Orange -nicknamed for the of the identification band on its storage containers. Scientists said the other herbicides, such as Agent Pink, were closely related to Agent Orange but even more potent.

Two-thirds of the herbicides were contaminated with the most dangerous form of dioxin, TCDD, which is associated with cancers, neurological disorders, miscarriages and birth defects.

Details of the study appear in the current issue of the journal Nature.

Agent Orange toxins persist in soil and water in parts of the southern half of Vietnam. Tree cover has regrown in many locations, but chemicals have migrated into the tissues of fish and fowl that local residents eat.

Studies by U.S. scientists show that blood samples from residents in exposed communities contain dioxin at levels 135 times higher than blood from areas that were not sprayed.

Last year, U.S. and Vietnam conducted their first joint conference on Agent Orange exposure.

In January, the Department of Veterans Affairs extended extra benefits to U.S. veterans suffering from a form of leukemia after researchers found a link to Agent Orange . About 10,000 Vietnam vets receive disability benefits related to the herbicide.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Top Court:
Agent Orange Suit Vs Dow Chem Can Continue
MARK H ANDERSON / Dow Jones News Wires 9jun03
WASHINGTON—In a deadlocked decision, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed Agent Orange cancer claims by a Vietnam veteran to continue against Dow Chemical Co. (DOW) and Monsanto Co. (MON), despite a 1984 global class-action settlement.

The 4-4 split means the high court didn't rule on the underlying issue in the case - whether a global class-action settlement could be reopened years after the fact. Still, the ruling leaves Dow Chemical and Monsanto exposed to new Agent Orange litigation.

The Supreme Court's ruling came as Justice John Paul Stevens recused himself from the case without explanation.

Two veterans had brought suit against the companies. Under the ruling, the first veteran, Daniel Stephenson, can continue pursuing his claims in federal court. The high court sent the lawsuit brought by a second veteran, Joe Isaacson, back to lower courts to decide whether the claim belongs in a state or federal court venue.

The veterans' lawsuits were brought against Dow Chemical, Monsanto Co. and other companies that manufactured Agent Orange . The companies appealed to block the lawsuits to the Supreme Court after the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the two veterans could proceed.

The companies settled a global $180 million class-action lawsuit in 1984 after Agent Orange claims began surfacing in the 1970s. Agent Orange is a defoliant chemical used by the U.S. military during the Vietnam War.

Both Stephenson and Isaacson, the veterans, sued the companies after being diagnosed in the late 1990s with cancer related to exposure to Agent Orange . The diagnosis came long after the class-action settlement, and the two said they weren't aware of it when they filed their suits.

A trial judge sided with the companies and dismissed their claims, saying they were diagnosed after a 1994 deadline for claims contained in the earlier Agent Orange settlement. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York reversed that decision.

Several business groups had urged the Supreme Court to block the lawsuits. The groups warned that allowing the Agent Orange claims to continue could expose companies to litigation of similar issues after a class-action settlement is reached.

If you have come to this page from an outside location click here to get back to mindfully.org
Please see the Fair Use Notice on the Homepage

[Jim Nabors]

Agent Orange is a topic that I have skimmed over until I was diagnosed with Myeloma this month. I’m in stage I. The cause is unknown but Agent Orange is worth consideration, so says Doctor Oncologist.

Thank you Gordo for you length reply to Judy. This was some the best information that I have found.

If anyone can add to this topic jump in as my research moves on.

[Tim Bastyr]

I was recently asked to perform an informal E-mail survey of HMM-265 members who have been diagnosed with prostate cancer (I currently maintain the HMM-265 database). The individual requesting the survey was one of our pilots who was diagnosed with prostate cancer a few years ago. I do not have enough data to calculate an incident rate or even hazard a guess as to the percentage of squadron members who have been affected. However, I can say that the results are very disturbing. The number of positive responses is much greater than expected.

From my E-mail conversations with our members, I can safely post the following facts:
* In general, only the individuals who have been diagnosed are aware of VA benefits available, including disability payments.
* In general, only the individuals who have been diagnosed are aware of the relevent lawsuits, cut off dates, etc.
* Most of us never knew that we were exposed to Agent Orange.
* Of the positive responses, it appears that about half of those diagnosed are deceased and half and climbing are just now being diagnosed, 35-40 years after the exposure.
* Although this NOTAM Board topic is very helpfull, many do not review this topic because they believe it does not apply to them.

Has Pop-A-Smoke developed, or considered developing an informative paper on this subject, including reminders for PSA tests and prostate examinations? I found several members who are very knowledgable and are councelling other Marines. My sense is that we have only seen the tip of this iceberg.

S/F
Tim Bastyr

[Ray Norton]

After reading about this issue and seeing colleagues from my squadron with this cancer, I discussed my situation with my doctor.

As a result, see a urologist twice a year. So, I have my PSA checked and that dreaded digital examination every six months!

I now have over ten years of PSA history, so we have a good idea of what is 'normal" for me.

I did have a spike a few years ago and had a biopsy. It turned out negative.

As I understand it, the cure for this thing is early detection.

Also, John Van Nortwick posted a very helpful article on this site some time ago about his story and what he did about his cancer. It should be on this site someplace. If not, I am sure he could re-issue it.

I am not sure how we can increase awareness, but it sure is a good idea.

[bonehead]

For those who are interested, you can find John Van Northwick's article on the HMH-463 web site,www.hmh-463-vietnam.com. Open the Reflection's icon(left side of page) and then open the Atricle icon.

[timothy]

Anybody diagnosed with prostate cancer should go to the VA and put in a claim. We were all exposed to Agent Orange.
S/F
Tim

[widow1]

Incredible wealth of information! Haven't been cruising by the site lately, will alter that habit!

My son and I were exposed to chlordane, dioxin, and a couple of other nasties, sometime back. I detailed some of it and shared what I found with some regulars here.

One of the greatest sources of self-help for me was the book "Prescription for Nutritional Healing" by Balch. There is much info on what you can do daily for yourself to minimize the effects these terrible poisons have on you. Please share it with your doctors.

Thanks for all the info I have gotten from y'all this past year...made it much more bearable.

[Ray Norton]

I just had another spike in my PSA and a second biopsy.

This time, the Doc had a new procedure where he numbed the area similar to the procedure a dentist uses.

It was still not fun, but compared with the last time I could call it pain free.

Not all Docs use this "painless" procedure.

If you get in the unfortunate position to need a biopsy, you might inquire about this "painless" one.

Thanks, John Van Nortwick for your write up. It allowed me to carry on an informed conversation with my Doc.

I'll know the results in two weeks. Fortunately, John's story has taken the fear out of it.

And thanks to everyone else for the information and assistance in every cagtegory on this site,

//ray//

[GMello]

Ray:

Guess we are in the same boat. Will be having another biopsy April 2 at the West Haven, CT VA. They do utilize the new method ie; numbing the area. This will be my fourth trip and I asked for some additional chemical intervention. They said no problem as long as you have someone to drive you home. After nine major operations in the past ten years I have become averse to suffering any pain whatsoever if I can help it.

Good luck with your results...hope all are negative.

S/F Gordo

[Ray Norton]

Well, it's "radar contact" on my prostate cancer.

Next is the bone scan and CTScan.

If anyone can offer advice beyond John Van Nortwick's excellent after action report, I would appreciate it.

[GMello]

Ray:

Sorry to hear the biopsies came back positive.

Bone scan and CTScan will determine the course of action. If contained to just the prostate you have a few options:

1. Radiation implant

2. Removal of the prostate

3. Cryogenic surgery to remove the cancer if it is a tumor, or encapsulated tumor.

If it has metastisized, and lets hope it has not the course of action would them probably include chemotherapy and probably surgery.

Do ask them about the antibody treatment available for testicular cancer. I'm not sure if they have a course of treatment for the prostate that is similar but it would not hurt to ask.

Good luck and Semper Fi...God be with you and you will be in our prayers.

S/F Gordon

[Dick Habeck]

I am finishing a book that all Viet Nam vets should read concerning the effects and exposure to the various agents we came in contact with. It also deals with the various studies, and how the VA has processed this problem. It is a must read if you have any cancer(s), diabetes, or numerous other afflictions. I am not connected with the author or the publisher in any way. The book though hard to read is an eye opener.
The title is "Vietnam's Orange, White, and Blue Rain Agents and Weapons of Mass Destruction". by author Charles Kelley.
I obtained a copy by going to www.corpsproductions.com and ordered on-line.

[GMello]

Dick:

Ordered the book and have just finished reading it...picked up some good additional information. And as fate would have it and on the day I finish the book, today, Saturday the 25th of March, I receive a multi-page letter from the VA informing me of the following;

A review of my disability percentages (no chance for a reduction) and asking if I have any additional info and my opinion about my ratings and how the VA has handled my claims for the past 37 years (the book and some of its info will come in handy).

I had heard and read the government was looking into variations of awards by region and found a discrepency from region to region for basically the same type of claim...one region would award say 20% and another 30%, while some awarded 50%. I am assuming this correspondence has something to do with there review.

As Kelley claims, it would be great if all Nam vets could unite on the issue of defoliants and demand the government stop their game of focusing in on just dioxin...bad stuff but so are a lot of other components of herbicides. And the issue of multiple exposures to multiple defloiants should be part of the program demanded by Nam vets. The book lays it all out...vets should read the book and pay attention.

S/F Gordon

[Ray Norton]

...my prostate removal.

It was done literally by a robot, a device called a da Vinci machine.

I do not know if it it better than the older style surgery, but I walked out of the hospital on my own after two and a half days. I am off pain medicine after three days.

It takes two weeks for the pathology report to learn if they got all the cancer.

I am told four to six weeks to get back to "normal activities" whatever that means!

I can't offer medical advice but I can share my experience if anyone is considering robotic surgery.

[GARY ALLS]

Ray,
Hope all goes well with the recovery. Another sea story to tell the grandkids!! Take care and get well soon.

S/F Gary Alls
HMM-263 '66-'67

[Joe Reed]

Ray,
Sorry for your health issues, but very glad you are still among us and are talking about it! Maybe we'll meet in DFW and talk of it.
All the best to you, Sir!

[Slick]

Ray, keep the faith. Thoughts and prayers with you.

Does anyone know if the VA accepts for disability presence of High-Grade Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia??

[Ron Luks]

I was on the original lawsuit in 1979, after going to the VA on the rash and problems, VA denied it was, after proving I handled it, they lost my records. I was approched by a lawyer in 1979 to be put on the original class action suit. I still have the papers from the lawyer but was never contacted after the class action suit was settled, due to the fact at that time the chemical companies would only pay if you did not have insurance or died, that was my interpetation of it. I had my prostate removed last Oct. 2006, filed another claim with VA to have the rating board add it to my disability.
In reading the posts on the subject am I entitled to sue?

[GMello]

Ron:

Sorry for the delay in responding. Had computer problems and finally got them squarted away.

As for the original law suit, there is no money left to distribute. They apparently reviewed information submitted by veterans and determined who and who would not receive a payment. The average payment was around $3,000.

There are two cases pending by veterans. Time will tell if they are successful.

Prostate cancer is a compensable. So, if you haven't submitted a new claim to the VA, do so ASAP.

I don't know the details of your claims Ron, past or present, but if you email me at uh34d@aol.com and outline what you are receiving, what you think you should be receiving, any past claims that were denied, your medical problems, I may be able to help. I've been doing this now for 38 years and have helped a lot of vets receive benefits and obtain increased benefits. Doing a lot of work with Iraqi vets at this time...the VA is really sticking it to these men and women...it is a crying shame.

S/F Gordo