Defense Base Act (DBA) claims can arise anywhere in the world. Claims adjusters and attorneys may handle claims filed by employees in Peru, Uganda, the Philippines, Macedonia, India, and many other countries.

These foreign claims often raise evidentiary questions, including:

• May a foreign claimant provide sworn testimony from abroad?
• If so, what procedures apply?

In October 2021, Chief Administrative Law Judge Stephen Henley issued an Administrative Notice requiring parties to certify compliance with applicable foreign evidentiary requirements. Since then, DBA litigants have had to identify the legal requirements for sworn testimony from countries with varying legal systems.

The Impact of a Recent Procedural Order

Certification of foreign evidence and administration of an oath to a foreign witness recently came before Judge Panagiotis in the Covington District Office of the OALJ.

In Jbur v. CSMI Technology Services, 2024-LDA-02957 (Apr. 6, 2026), the claimant sought to offer live testimony from Baghdad, Iraq, through an Iraqi-Arabic interpreter, with the ALJ administering the oath. Judge Panagiotis issued a Procedural Order stating that “Congress has not empowered an ALJ in the Department of Labor with the authority to administer a valid testimonial oath to a foreign claimant seeking to testify from a foreign country.” He ordered counsel to submit a proper Foreign Evidence Certification identifying the applicable foreign and U.S. law, certifying compliance, and attaching exhibits from an “Iraqi governmental agency documenting the administration of a legally binding testimonial oath in that country.”

The issue soon returned to Judge Panagiotis, this time involving live testimony from South Africa. The claimant argued that South African law need not be followed to administer a valid testimonial oath. In a June 17, 2026, Procedural Order, ALJ Panagiotis rejected that argument, noting that although claimant’s counsel claimed his client was being “prohibited” from testifying, he had “admit[ted] the contrary: his client can testify, it is just that it is a ‘lengthy and expensive process.’” The ALJ added that, as a foreign citizen, the claimant had procedural due process and a “meaningful opportunity to present [his] case,” but only after complying with procedural requirements and court orders. Cooney v. Falcon Group, 2024-LDA-05895 (June 17, 2026).

Conclusion

Judge Panagiotis’s Procedural Orders highlight the need for procedural compliance and adherence to court directives. For foreign testimony, certification may require vendors or foreign counsel to determine the relevant country’s testimonial requirements.