From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Broudy v. Mather

United States District Court, D. Columbia
Mar 4, 2005
Civil Action No. 02-2122 (GK) (D.D.C. Mar. 4, 2005)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 02-2122 (GK).

March 4, 2005


ORDER


Plaintiffs represent approximately 220,000 individuals who participated in activities associated with atomic weapons test detonations between 1945 and 1962 in New Mexico, Nevada and various locations in the Pacific Ocean. They also represent approximately 195,000 individuals who served as occupation forces in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan after World War II in 1945 and 1946. Plaintiffs are collectively referred to herein as "Atomic Veterans."

Defendants, sued in both their individual and official capacities, are Susan H. Mather, the Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") Chief Public Health and Environmental Hazards Officer; Neil S. Otchin, VA's Clinical Matters Program Chief; Robert H. Roswell, VA's Under Secretary for Health; Steven M. Younger, the Director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency; D. Michael Schaeffer, the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program Manager in the Defense Threat Reduction Agency Technology Development Directorate; and other unnamed government officials, employees and contractors. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have engaged, and continue to engage, in affirmative misconduct which precludes them from presenting evidence to support their claims for service-related death and disability veterans benefits resulting from exposure to radiation from United States atomic detonations, in violation of their rights under the First and Fifth Amendments of access to the courts and to petition to obtain redress for their grievances.

Defendants Mather, Otchin and Roswell are collectively referred to herein as "VA Defendants."

Defendants Younger and Shaeffer are collectively referred to herein as "DTRA Defendants."

This matter is now before the Court on Defendants' Motion for a Ruling on the Defense of Qualified Immunity or, in the Alternative, for Enlargement of Time in which to Answer the Complaint. Upon consideration of the Motion, Opposition, Reply, and the entire record herein, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby

ORDERED Defendants' Motion [ #26] is granted; it is further

ORDERED that a Status Conference is scheduled for March 18, 2005 at 1:45 p.m.


Summaries of

Broudy v. Mather

United States District Court, D. Columbia
Mar 4, 2005
Civil Action No. 02-2122 (GK) (D.D.C. Mar. 4, 2005)
Case details for

Broudy v. Mather

Case Details

Full title:ALICE P. BROUDY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SUSAN H. MATHER, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, D. Columbia

Date published: Mar 4, 2005

Citations

Civil Action No. 02-2122 (GK) (D.D.C. Mar. 4, 2005)