Bill Overview
Title: Protect Camp Lejeune VETS Act
Description: This bill limits attorney's fees for claims involving individuals who were exposed to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, between August 1, 1953, and December 31, 1987.
Sponsors: Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK]
Target Audience
Population: People exposed to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune between 1953 and 1987
Estimated Size: 500000
- Camp Lejeune was a major U.S. Marine Corps base, operational during the specified time, where military personnel and their families, as well as civilian workers, were exposed to contaminated water.
- The exposure period of 1953-1987 spans over three decades, indicating a potentially large and multi-generational group of people affected.
- The bill targets mainly those seeking legal claims for damages due to exposure, thus individuals who lived or worked at Camp Lejeune during the specified period are directly impacted.
- This includes veterans, their families, and potentially civilian employees working on the base.
- The bill addresses legal claims, and thus primarily impacts those who are pursuing or will pursue legal action.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects veterans, their families, and civilians who were exposed to Camp Lejeune's water contamination and are pursuing legal claims.
- A significant factor is the economic relief in terms of reduced legal fees, which could mean more compensation to claimants or less financial burden when seeking justice.
- Given the budget constraints, not all affected individuals will experience significant change in financial terms, hence varying impacts.
- The policy changes are legal/financial, therefore mainly affecting those in the process or planning to file claims.
- The impact on wellbeing could be directly tied to financial relief and a sense of justice or fairness being served, leading to potential improvements in mental health.
Simulated Interviews
retired (Jacksonville, NC)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad there's a cap on lawyer fees. It's about time someone thought of the little guy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
retired nurse (Richmond, VA)
Age: 72 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reducing lawyer fees is good, but what about the funds to support families with medical needs?
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 2 |
attorney (Boston, MA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could reduce the number of claimants I can help because it limits legal fees.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
accountant (Miami, FL)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the fees cap. I hope my father gets fair reparations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
retired (San Diego, CA)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This cap is necessary to prevent exploitation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
historian (New York, NY)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I find the historical context of this policy interesting but have no personal stake.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
retired teacher (Austin, TX)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a start, but there needs to be more comprehensive support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
tech worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad this is happening but more direct aid is needed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
civilian contractor (Chicago, IL)
Age: 56 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will help reduce legal financial stress.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
healthcare worker (Fayetteville, NC)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Limit on fees is good but we need more accessible health care.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)
Year 2: $1300000 (Low: $900000, High: $1800000)
Year 3: $1100000 (Low: $800000, High: $1600000)
Year 5: $1000000 (Low: $700000, High: $1500000)
Year 10: $500000 (Low: $300000, High: $800000)
Year 100: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $200000)
Key Considerations
- Large number of potential claimants due to extensive exposure period.
- Legal landscape might shift, with lower attorney fees altering legal strategy and claim pursuit.
- Potential long-term savings depend on whether the capped fees deter frivolous claims or expedite genuine settlements.
- Key benefit is intended to be equitable compensation rather than cost savings or revenue impacts.