In Woolum v. ARMA Aviation, the U.S. Department of Labor Benefits Review Board (BRB) addressed various issues arising under the Defense Base Act (DBA), namely, whether a claimant’s post-injury wage loss remains compensable when the overseas employment market later disappears as a result of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

In this matter, Claimant worked in Kabul, Afghanistan, as an aircraft mechanic and alleged chronic sinus and respiratory injuries as a result of his exposure to air pollution and burn pits. Throughout the course of his medical treatment, physicians concluded that the environmental conditions in Kabul aggravated his alleged injuries, prompting a recommendation to leave Afghanistan. Upon Claimant’s return to the U.S., he obtained post-incident employment with significantly lower wages.

Employer’s primary argument was that Claimant’s ongoing loss of earning capacity was not caused by his injury. Instead, Employer argued that the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 effectively eliminated contractor jobs in Afghanistan for everyone, thus characterizing Claimant’s wage loss as a non-compensable economic consequence resulting from the end of the war rather than a disability-related loss.

In the course of this claim, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rejected Employer’s argument, and this was subsequently affirmed by the BRB. The ALJ focused on Claimant’s actual post-injury earning capacity rather than speculation about whether jobs in Kabul, Afghanistan, would have continued to exist. In reviewing the evidence, the ALJ noted that Claimant’s medical conditions worsened while employed in Kabul, but his symptoms improved when he returned to the U.S. subsequent to his physicians’ recommendations. The recommendation to leave Afghanistan were suggested by Claimant’s physicians prior to the U.S. withdrawal, and Claimant’s post-incident domestic employment resulted in wages significantly less than that earned overseas. The BRB affirmed the ALJ’s determination that Claimant’s injury directly contributed to Claimant’s inability to return to overseas work, thus awarding him temporary partial disability benefits.

The significance of this decision hinges upon a recurring issue in post-Afghanistan DBA litigation. The question posed is whether the disappearance of overseas contractor employment automatically terminates a claimant’s disability-based wage-loss claim. The BRB’s affirmation of the ALJ’s decision reinforces several tropes of DBA litigation.

First, disability under the DBA and Longshore Act is measured by loss of wage-earning capacity, not simply by whether a specific overseas job continues to exist. The BRB also focused on the timing of Claimant’s claim. Claimant established that his injury independently prevented him from returning to work in Kabul, regardless of the subsequent U.S. withdrawal from the region. The ALJ further relied on Claimant’s actual post-incident earnings in the U.S. rather than speculation about future overseas employment.

Ultimately, the ALJ, as affirmed by the BRB, concluded that the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan did not automatically sever the causal connection between Claimant’s injury and loss of earning capacity because his injury already impaired his ability to continue contracting overseas. This decision is distinct from those involving injured claimants whose employment was terminated as a direct result of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The outcome of Woolum is significant for DBA claims involving the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq, the subsequent closure of overseas military contractor operations, resulting loss of hazard-pay positions, and the overall economic changes caused by geopolitical events. Claimants will likely rely on the Woolum decision to argue that their injury-related disabilities and inabilities to continue working overseas remain compensable despite the disappearance of war-zone labor markets. However, Employers must focus on the language of a claimant’s medicals records and the overall timing of disability and U.S. withdrawal. Employers must highlight that a particular claimant’s loss of earning capacity was the result of economic fluctuations and not a compensable injury.