Strongpoint Law Firm, LLC - Defense Base Act Lawyers

08/27/2026

“Your Base Closed Anyway” Is Not a Defense to a Defense Base Act Claim

I expect we are going to hear this argument frequently as military bases and contractor operations in Iraq close or scale back:

“You are not entitled to continuing disability benefits because your base closed. You would have lost that job anyway.”

There is a major problem with that argument.

The Benefits Review Board recently addressed essentially the same issue in Woolum v. ARMA Aviation, a published Defense Base Act decision.

Mr. Woolum worked as an aircraft mechanic in Kabul, Afghanistan. He sustained a compensable nasal and sinus injury that prevented him from returning to his former work. He later obtained lower-paying employment in the United States.

Then the United States withdrew from Afghanistan.

The employer argued that once the withdrawal eliminated the Kabul jobs, Mr. Woolum should no longer receive disability benefits. In other words: the employer argued that claimants may not receive lost earning capacity from a job that no longer exists.

The Board rejected that argument. And that makes sense.

Defense Base Act disability is not determined by asking whether the exact base, contract, or overseas position where someone once worked still exists. Disability concerns the worker’s loss of wage-earning capacity because of the work injury.

Those are two very different questions.

Consider an Iraqi contractor who earned substantial wages working for an American contractor at an Iraq base. While that job still existed, the contractor developed PTSD and became unable to return to war-zone employment. Two years later, the base closes.

The closure did not cure the PTSD. It did not restore the contractor’s ability to work overseas. And it does not retroactively transform the contractor’s pre-closure wage-earning capacity into zero.

That is an important part of Woolum. The Board explained that the Longshore Act does not allow the parties to go back and recalculate a worker’s average weekly wage because of later events that might have affected the worker’s employment anyway. The statute establishes the compensation formula based on the worker’s earning capacity at the relevant time.

A later geopolitical event does not rewrite history.

There is also a practical problem with the “base closed” argument.

A contractor’s earning capacity was rarely limited to one particular gate, building, or military installation. People who worked in Iraq often possessed experience that allowed them to pursue contractor work in Kuwait, Afghanistan, Africa, Europe, or elsewhere. The relevant question, then, is what the injured worker could realistically earn after the injury—not whether one particular installation remained open forever.

To be clear, the parties can litigate suitable alternative employment and post-injury earning capacity. But that is very different from saying: “The base closed, therefore your disability disappeared.”

A military withdrawal does not cure an injury. A contract ending does not restore wage-earning capacity. And a base closure does not automatically extinguish Defense Base Act benefits.

That distinction may become increasingly important for contractors who worked in Iraq.

08/16/2026

You kept working after returning home. Does that mean you were not psychologically injured under the Defense Base Act?

No.

Many civilian contractors continue working after symptoms begin. They need the income. They may take a less demanding job, struggle privately, or function at work while deteriorating at home.

Some contractors avoid another overseas deployment without realizing that anxiety, PTSD, insomnia, anger, or hypervigilance influenced that decision.

Continued employment is relevant, but it does not answer every question.

A contractor may have a work-related psychological condition requiring treatment without immediately losing wages. Another contractor may remain capable of domestic work but no longer be able to return to the overseas job that produced substantially higher earnings.

The legal analysis should separate three issues:

• Did the contractor sustain a psychological injury?
• Does the condition require medical treatment?
• Has the condition reduced the contractor’s realistic wage-earning capacity?

A delay in treatment does not automatically defeat the claim, either. But the claimant should be prepared to explain what happened between the deployment and the first psychological appointment.

The important question is not simply whether the contractor performed any work after returning home. It is what the contractor can realistically and safely earn while living with the work-related condition.

If you developed psychological symptoms after overseas contract work—even if you continued working or waited to seek treatment—Strongpoint Law can evaluate the deployment history, medical evidence, treatment gap, and effect on your ability to earn wages.

This post provides general information and is not legal advice. Every claim depends on its particular facts and medical evidence.

08/07/2026

What Benefits Are Available Under the Defense Base Act?

If you were injured while working overseas under a U.S. government contract, the Defense Base Act may provide much more than payment of your medical bills.

Depending on your circumstances, DBA benefits can include:

• Medical treatment for your work-related injury. This can include ongoing treatment, medication, testing, medical mileage reimbursement, and other reasonable and necessary medical care. You generally have the right to choose your treating physician.

• Wage-loss benefits if your injury prevents you from returning to work or reduces what you are able to earn. For total disability, compensation is generally based on two-thirds of your average weekly wage, subject to the applicable maximum compensation rate.

• Death benefits for eligible survivors when a covered employee dies from a work-related injury or condition.

One common question asked is whether pain and suffering is available under the Defense Base Act. It is not. Nor are punitive damages. The DBA is federal workers' compensation, not a tort suit.

The Defense Base Act applies to many civilian contractors who worked overseas in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, and other locations supporting U.S. government operations.

A DBA claim can involve questions about medical treatment, disability, average weekly wage, and whether an injury is connected to overseas employment.

If you worked overseas under a U.S. government contract and are dealing with an injury that has affected your health or ability to work, it is worth understanding what benefits the Defense Base Act may provide. You're invited to reach out to Strongpoint Law Firm for a free consultation.

*This post provides general information and is not legal advice. Every claim depends on its individual facts.*

07/31/2026

What is the Defense Base Act?

The Defense Base Act is a federal workers’ compensation law that protects many civilians who work overseas under contracts connected to the United States government.

It may cover workers injured while supporting military operations, construction projects, security missions, logistics, maintenance, translation services, and other government-related work outside the United States.

Benefits may include:

• Medical treatment
• Weekly disability payments and impairment rating payments
• Death benefits for surviving family members

The law may cover both physical injuries and psychological conditions, including PTSD, anxiety, and depression caused or aggravated by overseas work.

Further, the Defense Base Act applies to both U.S. citizens and foreign nationals provided certain jurisdictional requirements are met.

Defense Base Act claims can become complicated quickly. Insurance carriers may dispute whether an injury is work-related, whether a worker can return to employment, or how much compensation is owed.

Strongpoint Law represents injured overseas contractors in Defense Base Act claims worldwide.

07/29/2026

Recently, a defense attorney declared that once an employee with a back or psychological injury has received five years of temporary partial disability (TPD), "all disability benefits stop."

That is simply not what the statute says.

Yes, Section 8(e) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (which applies under the DBA) limits temporary partial disability to a maximum of five years. But that does not mean compensation ends forever.

The question after five years isn't, "Do benefits stop?"

The real question is: What is the claimant's actual disability status now?

If the claimant has reached maximum medical improvement (MMI), the analysis changes.

First, if the worker can return to suitable alternate employment but has a permanent loss of wage-earning capacity, the claim converts to permanent partial disability under Section 8(c)(21) (or the schedule if applicable).

Second, if the worker still cannot perform their usual employment and the employer cannot establish suitable alternate employment, permanent total disability may be appropriate under Section 8(a).

And even if a compensation order already exists, Congress anticipated that disability status changes over time. That's exactly why Section 22 (33 U.S.C. § 922) exists.

Section 22 allows modification of an award based upon:
• a change in conditions, or
• a mistake in a determination of fact.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that Section 22 was designed to ensure compensation reflects a claimant's current disability—not to freeze benefits based on an earlier snapshot.

The Benefits Review Board has repeatedly explained that modification exists to adjust awards when a claimant's physical or economic condition changes. It is not an extraordinary remedy—it's part of the statutory framework.

So no, the expiration of five years of temporary partial disability does not magically erase an injured worker's disability.

It simply means that temporary partial benefits have reached their statutory limit.

If the evidence establishes permanent partial disability, permanent total disability, or another compensable disability status, the Act provides mechanisms for compensation to continue. If an order exists, the claimant will likely have to pursue a Section 22 modification proceeding.

If a carrier is treating TPD as a permanent cap or refusing to reassess disability after 5 years, Strongpoint Law can evaluate whether that position is consistent with the Defense Base Act and Longshore Act framework.

This post provides general information and is not legal advice. Every claim depends on its particular facts and medical evidence.

07/24/2026

A rocket does not have to hit you before the Defense Base Act may cover a psychological injury.

Civilian contractors may develop serious psychological symptoms after repeated attacks, drone warnings, alarms, sheltering, witnessing casualties, or living under a persistent threat of violence.

The Longshore Act—which supplies much of the law governing DBA claims—does not require a psychological injury to include actual or threatened physical harm. The Fourth Circuit addressed this issue in Ceres Marine Terminals, Inc. v. Director, OWCP, 848 F.3d 115 (4th Cir. 2016).

The real questions are:

• Did the contractor suffer psychological harm?
• Did the overseas working conditions cause, aggravate, or contribute to that harm?
• Did the psychological harm affect the contractor’s ability to work or redeploy?

Continuing to work after an attack does not necessarily mean the contractor was uninjured. Many contractors minimize their symptoms because they fear losing income, security clearances, or future deployment opportunities. And even a contractor with a psychological injury may work at their home of record and still maintain a DBA claim for partial disability.

Of course, these claims still require evidence. Personally we like to see attack information, security notices, witness names, deployment records, travel logs, and medical documentation.

If you developed psychological symptoms after attacks or persistent threats while working overseas under a U.S. government contract, the Defense Base Act may apply.

This post provides general information, not legal advice. Contact Strongpoint Law for an evaluation of your specific circumstances.

07/18/2026

I’m incredibly proud of the team we’ve built at Strongpoint Law Firm. Each person brings talent, dedication, and a genuine commitment to the DBA and Longshore claimants we serve.

Soon, Strongpoint Law Firm will publish its updated website. And with an updated website comes updated firm photos. In this photo, there are multiple SuperLawyers, multiple SuperLawyer Rising Stars; multiple WILG Top Injured Workers' Attorneys; and a team that works together to get the best result for our clients.

L to R: Aubrey Baudean, III; Christina Bentley; Beth Bernstein; Garrett Dahm; Brent Bartholomew; and Jon Robinson.

07/18/2026

Jeffboat, Inc. v. Director, OWCP, helps injured workers with pulmonary injuries. The published decision applies to all Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act claims, including Longshore Act extensions like the Defense Base Act. Here are the key takeaways:

• Section 20(a)’s prima facie burden remains light for claimants—“some evidence” is enough.

• A claimant does not need a perfect diagnostic label; symptoms and physical impairment can establish harm.

• Preexisting conditions do not defeat a claim when workplace exposure contributes to or worsens the condition.

• ALJs may credit the better-explained medical opinion, especially when the opposing expert leaves key reasoning gaps.

Contact Strongpoint Law Firm if you have any questions about the new Jeffboat decision.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/24-2234/24-2234-2026-06-23.html

05/03/2026

Strongpoint Law Firm is proud to congratulate Jon Robinson and Beth Bernstein on their selection to Super Lawyers, and Brent Bartholomew on his selection to Rising Stars.

We are grateful for this recognition because it reflects the work our whole team does every day for injured workers and their families. At Strongpoint Law, we have worked hard to build a focused, prepared, and dedicated team to represent workers injured in Defense Base Act claims.

These cases are often complex, and our clients are often facing serious injuries, denied benefits, delayed medical care, and uncertainty about the future. We are proud to stand with them and fight for the benefits they are owed.

Congratulations to Jon, Beth, and Brent — and thank you to our clients for trusting us with this important work.

04/29/2026

Some Defense Base Act insurance carriers argue that a claimant injured in Afghanistan is no longer disabled because his job is not available after the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan. Not so. In Wollum v. ARMA Aviation and Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, the Benefits Review Board rejected that argument outright.

Defense Base Act disability compensation does not end based on geopolitical factors like the withdrawal from Afghanistan.