Brink v. Xe Holding, LLC, 910 F. Supp. 2d 242

Plaintiffs are thirty-one civilian government contractor employees and/or relatives who allege DBA/DBA-related injuries in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Defendants include contractor and insurer entities involved in DBA administration and benefit payments.
Plaintiffs assert DBA/LHWCA, RICO, ADA, and various common-law tort claims arising from handling of medical benefits.
Court has fourteen motions to dismiss; court adopts exclusivity of DBA/LHWCA as basis for dismissal.
SAC seeks broad damages and injunctive relief; court dismisses under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
DBA/LHWCA provide exclusive remedy and forum; administrative procedures precede federal court review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does DBA/LHWCA exclusivity preempt state law claims	Plaintiffs argue exceptions to exclusivity apply.	Defendants contend exclusivity bars state law claims.	Yes; state-law claims barred by exclusivity.
Does exclusivity bar RICO claims	Plaintiffs rely on RICO against DBA non-compliance.	Defendants rely on Danielsen-like preclusion under exclusive remedies.	Yes; RICO claim dismissed.
Does exclusivity bar retaliation/2 948a claims	Discrimination claims fall outside exclusive remedies.	Discrimination claims must exhaust exclusive DBA remedies.	Yes; Count I dismissed.
Are ADA claims viable	Plaintiffs allege failure to accommodate and discrimination.	Plaintiffs fail to show disability or requested accommodations.	No; ADA claims dismissed.

Hall v. C&P Tel. Co., 809 F.2d 924 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (LHWCA exclusivity preempts tort claims arising from delayed/denied benefits (Hall II))
Hall v. C&P Tel. Co., 793 F.2d 1354 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (Hall I; early recognition of exclusivity in workers’ compensation scheme)
Atkinson v. Gates, McDonald & Co., 838 F.2d 808 (5th Cir. 1988) (Exclusivity of LHWCA preempts state tort claims for failure to pay benefits)
Barnard v. Zapata Haynie Corp., 975 F.2d 919 (1st Cir. 1992) (Precludes intentional/failure-to-pay claims under LHWCA/DBA)