# Swinney v. Islamic Republic of Iran

> District Court, District of Columbia · May 30, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11062349

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, District of Columbia
- **Decided:** May 30, 2025
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Judge Ana C. Reyes
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11062349

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JAMES SWINNEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 1:20-cv-2316 (ACR)

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Between 2003 and 2015, the Islamic Republic of Iran sponsored numerous terrorist

attacks targeting American servicemembers in the Republic of Iraq. Four hundred twelve

victims of these attacks and their family members (Plaintiffs) have sued Iran and its

instrumentalities (Defendants) under the state-sponsored terrorism exception to the Foreign

Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. § 1605A, seeking compensatory and punitive

damages.

Defendants defaulted. The Court then held a two-day evidentiary hearing to determine

whether to enter default judgment. Plaintiffs’ evidence focused on the claims of seven

“Bellwether Plaintiffs,” each of whom was either injured in a terrorist attack or is the family

member of a terrorist attack victim. After the hearing, the Court GRANTED the Bellwether

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment, Dkt. 40, and announced that an opinion would follow.

Dkt. Notice (Nov. 4, 2024). This is that Opinion.

*****

1
The Court heard testimony in this case from and about seven extraordinary soldiers. One

cannot overstate the impact of that testimony. Years later, the pride of service and the pain of

devastating injuries remains raw. Testifying in open court is never easy. It is many times more

difficult when testifying about one’s most painful and emotional experiences. Yet each

Bellwether Plaintiff did just that. The Court thanks those who testified for giving such heart-

rendering and poignant voice to the sacrifice our servicemembers and their family members

make every day. Our democracy cannot function without that sacrifice. Thank you.

I. PROCEDUERAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1605A, seeking to hold Iran and its

instrumentalities civilly liable for the injuries and deaths of 412 American servicemembers.

A. Case Management Plan and Evidentiary Hearing

Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint on August 21, 2020, Dkt. 1, and an Amended

Complaint on April 22, 2021, Dkt. 8. Of the six named entity Defendants, Plaintiffs properly

effected service on three: the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps,

and the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security, in accordance with Section 1608(a)(4) of

the FSIA.1 Dkt. 27. Defendants did not respond or make an appearance within 60 days as

required by Section 1608(d) of the FSIA.2 At Plaintiffs’ request, the Clerk of the Court entered

default on July 21, 2023. Dkt. 29.

1
Plaintiffs failed to serve Defendants Bank Markazi Jomhouri Islami Iran, Bank Melli Iran, and
National Iranian Oil Company. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the claims against those
Defendants without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). All references to “Defendants” in this
Opinion therefore refer to the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps,
and the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security only.
2
Because Defendants failed to appear, they did not invoke the statute of limitations under the
FSIA’s terrorism exception. See 28 U.S.C. § 1605(b). That defense is therefore waived, and the
Court may not raise it sua sponte. See Maalouf v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 923 F.3d 1095, 1115
(D.C. Cir. 2019).
2
Later, the Court adopted Plaintiffs’ proposed multiphase case management plan. Dkt. 30;

Min. Ord. (Sept. 21, 2023). To wit, Plaintiffs would present evidence related to seven

representative attacks, with one Bellwether Plaintiff designated for each attack. Dkt. 43, see

infra Part III.C. The Court would then issue findings of fact and conclusions of law as to

liability and damages for those seven Bellwether Plaintiffs. The Court appointed a Special

Master both to provide a recommendation on damages for the Bellwether Plaintiffs and to make

formal liability and damages determinations for the remaining Plaintiffs. See Dkt. 58.

The Court held a two-day evidentiary hearing on July 23 and 25, 2024, during which

Plaintiffs presented evidence establishing Iran’s liability for each of the seven Bellwether

attacks. Dkts. 50, 52 (Hearing Transcripts). Plaintiffs called seven fact witnesses—the

Bellwether Plaintiffs themselves—who testified to the horrific nature of the attacks and their

enduring effects. Plaintiffs also called two expert witnesses, Michael Pregent and Dr. Andrew

Del Gaudio, who testified about Iran’s role in the region and material support to each Bellwether

attack. Following the evidentiary hearing, the Court admitted 37 exhibits, including reports from

each of the expert witnesses, military service records, and sealed medical records. Dkt. 51.

B. Expert Qualifications

The Court has qualified Michael Pregent as an expert “in the field of military

intelligence, terrorism[,] and counterinsurgency.” Tr. (July 23, 2024) at 75. Mr. Pregent is a

Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute and a senior Middle East Analyst and a Visiting Fellow at

the Institute for National Strategic Studies at National Defense University. Dkt. 46-1 at 2. He is

a former intelligence officer with over 30 years’ experience in security, terrorism,

counterinsurgency, and policy issues in the Middle East, North Africa, and Southwest Asia. Id.

In 2018, Mr. Pregent testified before the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs on

3
“Countering Iranian Proxies in Iraq.” Id. (cleaned up). His methodology entailed reviewing

witness statements, contemporaneous and subsequent news articles, press briefings, intelligence,

and Significant Activity Reports concerning each attack. Id. at 9. In assessing each attack, Mr.

Pregent “mapped the location and date of the attack and, using all available information,

considered all other attacks similar in time, locations, and [tactics, techniques, and procedures

(TTPs)].” Id.

The Court has qualified Dr. Andrew Del Gaudio as an expert in “ground combat

asymmetrical warfare and battle [TTPs] . . . to include IED and tactical sniper fire.” Id. at 165.

Dr. Del Gaudio is a military historian with a master’s degree in operational studies from the

School of Advanced War Fighting and Operational Studies at Marine Corps University and a

Ph.D. in history from the University of Liverpool. Id. at 143; see also Dkt. 46-3 at 28. He is a

retired Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel with a 26-year career as an enlisted Marine and Infantry

Officer. Dkt. 46-3 at 28. Dr. Del Gaudio has deployed to Haiti, Iraq, and Afghanistan for six

operational combat tours and to most countries in Europe, South America, Africa, Asia, and the

Middle East for training and diplomatic tours. Tr. (July 23, 2024) at 145. Dr. Del Gaudio’s

methodology entailed reviewing the general causation opinions filed, including the reports of Mr.

Pregent and Shean Phelps, and the facts surrounding each attack. Dkt. 46-3 at 1–2.

4
III. FINDINGS OF FACT3

Plaintiffs claim that Iran, a designated state sponsor of terrorism since 1984,4 took

advantage of the United States’ involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq to further its own anti-

American agenda and expand its regional influence. See Dkt. 40 at 5–8. Specifically, they

contend that Iran sought to drive out U.S. forces and gain de facto control of the Iraqi

government by providing Iraqi terrorist groups who attacked American soldiers with funding,

weapons, training, and safe haven. Tr. (July 23, 2024) at 12–13.

Based on the record of testimonial and documentary evidence presented by Plaintiffs, the

Court makes the following findings of fact.

A. Iran’s Proxy Forces

In 1979, Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah,5 established the Islamic Revolutionary

Guard Corps (IRGC), a body designed to implement his “vision for an Islamic theocratic

government in Iran.” Lee v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 518 F. Supp. 3d 475, 482 (D.D.C. 2021).

The IRGC “is tasked with preserving the Islamic Republic of Iran and at the same time is Iran’s

main link to its terrorist proxies.” Dkt. 46-1 at 10.

Over time, Iran expanded its regional influence by cultivating combat forces composed of

religious extremists, ultimately creating “a fully functional militia backed by the Islamic

3
In making its findings of fact, the Court primarily relies on the expert declarations submitted in
this case. But the Court also takes judicial notice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b),
of similar factual findings by other courts in this District concerning Iran’s material support for
terrorist attacks in Iraq. See, e.g., Karcher v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 396 F. Supp. 3d 12, 23–
25 (D.D.C. 2019); Fritz v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 320 F. Supp. 3d 48, 59–64 (D.D.C. 2018);
Lee v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 518 F. Supp. 3d 475, 482–84 (D.D.C. 2021); Frost v. Islamic
Republic of Iran, 383 F. Supp. 3d 33, 38–42 (D.D.C. 2019).
4
49 Fed. Reg. 2836 (Jan. 23, 1984).
5
The Ayatollah is the highest-ranking cleric in Iranian Shia Islam, conferred based on religious
scholarship, community standing, and spiritual authority. CIA, The Politics of Ayatollah
Ruhollah Khomeini 3–4 (1978). At the time, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini held the position. Id.
5
Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force” (Qods Force). Lee, 518 F. Supp. 3d at 482 (cleaned

up). The Qods Force—a subdivision of the IRGC—trains and equips terrorist organizations

operating outside Iran, including insurgent groups in Iraq. See Dkt. 46-1 at 11. Reporting

directly to the Supreme Leader, the Qods Force executes Iran’s extraterritorial agenda and

promotes Iranian policy in Iraq. Id. at 10 n.16.

The IRGC has a significant proxy relationship with Hezbollah, a Lebanese terrorist

group. See id. at 13. As relevant here, Hezbollah carried out numerous terrorist attacks to oust

U.S. forces from Iraq at Iran’s behest. See id. at 14. Indeed, Iran has trained and financed

Hezbollah from its inception in the early 1980s. See id. at 13. Though based in Lebanon,

Hezbollah sees itself as an extension of the Iranian revolution and has sworn an oath of loyalty to

Iran’s Supreme Leader. Id. at 13–14. In return, Hezbollah has received “critical assistance”

from Iran and the IRGC. Lee, 518 F. Supp. 3d at 482; see also Dkt. 46-1 at 13. This support has

been substantial: Iran provides Hezbollah with “as much as $700 million [to] $1 billion per year”

in cash, training, intelligence, and weapons. Fritz v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 320 F. Supp. 3d

48, 60 (D.D.C. 2018).

In the early 1990s, Hezbollah began sharing its expertise with other terrorist

organizations. In 1991, senior Al Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri secretly traveled to Iran “to

ask for help in [Al Qaida’s] campaign to overthrow the government of Egypt.” Dkt. 46-1 at 21

(cleaned up). While there, al-Zawahiri met with Imad Mughniyah, Hezbollah’s terrorist

operations chief. Id. Mughniyah, acting as Iran’s agent, had long operated out of Iran while

orchestrating high-profile attacks around the world. Id. During their meetings, Mughniyah

“convinced [Al Qaida] of the power of suicide bombing.” Id. This marked a turning point: Al

6
Qaida, which had previously rejected suicide as religiously impermissible, came to embrace it as

a legitimate tactic of jihad. Id.; see also Tr. (July 23, 2024) at 20–141.

The collaboration deepened in 1993, when Osama bin Laden and other senior Al Qaida

operatives met with Mughniyah and Iranian officials “to work on details of a terrorism alliance.”

Dkt. 46-1 at 21. After the meeting, bin Laden “sent more terrorist operatives to Hezbollah

training camps operated by Mughniyah and the IRGC in Lebanon and Iran.” Id. At these camps,

Hezbollah instructors trained Al Qaida operatives and other jihadist fighters in intelligence

gathering, operational security, and the construction of explosive devices. See id. These

programs continued throughout the 1990s, with Mughniyah coordinating closely with Iranian

officials and the IRGC-QF. Id. The instruction focused on building stronger IEDs and shape

charges. Id. at 22. Notably, Iran’s Supreme Leader was aware of and approved this Iran-

Hezbollah terrorist training program. Id.

Beyond Lebanon, the Qods Force expanded its reach by training, equipping, and

financing Shia6 militias across Iraq and the broader Middle East—both directly and through

Hezbollah. Frost v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 383 F. Supp. 3d 33, 39 (D.D.C. 2019); see

generally Dkt. 46-1 at 14–34. According to the U.S. Treasury, the Qods Force has supported

various militant groups, including the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iraqi Shia militias. Fritz,

320 F. Supp. 3d at 59; see also Dkt. 46-1 at 11, 25. By acting through these proxies, Iran

furthered its regional objectives while seeking deniability. Fritz, 320 F. Supp. 3d at 59.

Reflecting this conduct, the U.S. State Department designated Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism

6
Shias and Sunnis are the two main branches of Islam, with Sunnis comprising the majority of
Muslims worldwide. The Sunni-Shia Divide, Council on Foreign Rels., (Apr. 27, 2023),
https://www.cfr.org/article/sunni-shia-divide. This sectarian divide has fueled numerous
conflicts across the Middle East. Id.
7
in October 1997, and the U.S. Treasury labeled the IRGC’s Qods Force as a supporter of

terrorism. Id.

B. Iran’s Influence in Iraq

In March 2003, a coalition led by the United States invaded Iraq as part of Operation

Iraqi Freedom. Dkt. 46-3 at 6. The stated goal was to remove Saddan Hussein from power so as

to dismantle Iraq’s efforts to build weapons. See id. at 5–6. The invasion led to unintended, and

costly, consequences.

Some background is necessary to understand them. At the time, Iraq’s population was

majority Shia Muslim, but the Sunni minority controlled the government.7 Iran’s Shia-led

government often acted as an “agitator” by supporting Shia militia movements to attack the

Sunni-dominated government in Iraq.8 Operation Iraqi Freedom provided Iran with an opening it

had long sought. See id. at 4, 8. During the invasion, with Hussein distracted, Iran supplied Iraqi

factions with weapons, funding, and training. See id. at 7–8. And then, because the United

States successfully deposed Hussein, Iran could accomplish its goal: shaping a Shia-dominated

government in Baghdad. See id.

There is, tragically for the Plaintiffs, more. Iran also sought “to push the United States

out of the Gulf region,” including its military presence in Iraq. Fritz, 320 F. Supp. 3d at 61.

Iranian leadership believed that humiliating the United States and forcing a withdrawal from Iraq

would deter future American interventions in the Gulf. Id. Unable to confront the U.S. militarily

in a direct conflict, Iran pursued a “strategy of erosion” over long periods of time, empowering

7
Id.
8
Id.
8
insurgent groups to carry out bombings, assassinations, and kidnappings on U.S. troops. Dkt.

46-3 at 4, 8.

1. Aiding Sunni and Shia Militant Groups

Iran’s proxy campaign in Iraq was multi-pronged. In March 2003, the Qods Force

released detained Sunni jihadists—including fighters aligned with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi—

effectively “unleashing them against the [United States].”9 Dkt. 46-1 at 22. Following their

release, the Qods Force “provided al-Zarqawi and his fighters funds and weapons and facilitated

al-Zarqawi’s entry into the bordering Iraqi Kurdistan and onto Baghdad to attack U.S. forces.”

Id. at 23. Al-Zarqawi emerged as Al Qaida’s “man on the ground,” recruiting both former

regime loyalists and foreign jihadists entering Iraq through Syria. See id.

At the same time, Iran cultivated several Shia proxy groups with a presence in Iraq. It

backed the Office of the Martyr Sadr, the political apparatus of the radical militia leader,

Muqtada al-Sadr. See Dkt. 46-1 at 17, 27. In 2003, al-Sadr formed Jaysh al-Mahdi (JAM), a

“virulently anti-American” militia. Id. at 17 (cleaned up). Iran supplied JAM with “financial

support and weapons,” while the Qods Force and Hezbollah trained JAM members for combat.

Id. Later in 2006, al-Sadr splintered JAM into semi-autonomous factions to address its varied

objectives, forming “Special Groups” specifically tasked with targeting U.S. and coalition forces.

Id. at 26. These Special Groups became some of the most capable and “ideologically

9
Following the U.S. military invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, Iran captured Sunni jihadist
groups—including Al Qaida—who had fled Afghanistan, viewing them as a threat to Shia rule in
Iran. Karim Sadjadpour, The Sinister Genius of Qassem Soleimani, Wall St. J. (Jan. 10, 2020),
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-sinister-genius-of-qassem-soleimani-11578681560. After
Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Iranian government sought to disrupt the U.S. offensive by any
means necessary, including permitting Sunni militant groups to operate in Iraq. Id.

9
committed” Shia militant groups, receiving advanced training and weaponry from the Qods

Force and Hezbollah. Id. at 26–27.

In mid-2006, seeking greater operational control, Iran recruited Qais Khazali to lead a

new Special Group: Asayb al-Haq (AAH). See Dkt. 46-1 at 14–15. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali

Khamenei, personally “met with [Khazali in Iran] and recruited him to lead [AAH],” instructing

that it “operate without the knowledge or authorization of [Muqtada al-Sadr].” Id. AAH thus

operated as an Iranian proxy in Iraq, carrying out the IRGC’s agenda and advancing its interests.

See id. at 14–16.

The Qods Force supplied JAM and AAH “with Iranian-produced advanced rockets,

sniper rifles, automatic weapons, [and] mortars,” all of which “have killed thousands of

[c]oalition and Iraqi [f]orces.” Fritz, 320 F. Supp. 3d at 63. Among the most lethal tools

supplied were explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) specially designed as armor-piercing

weapons to be used against coalition forces. Id.; see also Dkt. 46-1 at 16. Iran smuggled these

weapons into Iraq through “ratlines,” primarily for AAH’s use. Fritz, 320 F. Supp. 3d at 63. On

the Iraqi side, Khazali smuggled arms and artillery from Iran into Iraq. Id. (cleaned up).

Khazali’s brother, Laith, “was instrumental in acquiring surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), RPGs,

bazookas, and Stella missiles for [S]pecial [G]roups.” Id. (cleaned up).

2. Hezbollah’s Assistance and Aid

Hezbollah also played a central role in Iran’s campaign. In mid-2005, senior Hezbollah

commander Ali Musa Daqduq traveled to Iraq to assist the Qods Force in training and organizing

Special Groups. Dkt. 46-1 at 16. Daqduq “made trips in and out of Iraq and reported on the

training and arming of AAH operatives in mortars and rockets . . . and kidnapping operations.”

Id.

10
Hezbollah’s assistance ensured that Iran’s proxies were trained to a high level of

sophistication. Dkt. 46-1 at 27. Its training programs covered both basic and advanced

paramilitary skills and weapons courses, including instruction on mortars, IEDs, firearms, tactics,

logistics and support, and information operations. Id. at 28. Hezbollah even provided “train-the-

trainer” programs, enabling proxy groups to prepare new fighters, thus expanding Iran’s reach

and the lethality of its proxies. Id. By 2007, these Special Groups accounted for nearly half of

all attacks on Coalition Forces, with Iran “providing between $750,000 and $3 million worth of

equipment and funding to Special Groups every month.” Id. at 28–29.

3. Aiding Kata’ib Hezbollah

In 2007, Iran helped “form[], man[], equip[], train[], and fund” another powerful militia

in Iraq: Kata’ib Hezbollah (KH). Id. at 17–18. Unlike Hezbollah, which originated in Lebanon,

KH originated and operated in Iraq. Id. at 13. KH quickly emerged as one of the most

dangerous and sophisticated militant groups operating in Iraq, orchestrating numerous attacks on

U.S. forces. Id. at 18. The U.S. State Department designated KH as a foreign terrorist

organization in June 2009. Id. at 19.

Iran’s support included moving KH operatives into Iran for training and smuggling

weapons across the border into Iraq. See Lee, 518 F. Supp. 3d at 483. A key element of this

campaign was Iran’s development and deployment of EFP attacks: “one of Iran’s primary forms

of material support to the Special Groups was financing, manufacturing, and deploying EFPs.”

Id.; see also Dkt. 46-1 at 18. These weapons, “professionally manufactured and specifically

designed to target U.S. and Coalition Forces’ armor,” were funneled to Special Groups in Iraq to

target armored patrols and supply convoys. Dkt. 46-1 at 15 n.30.

11
4. American Intelligence

American intelligence identified Iran’s handiwork and influence on Iraqi militant groups.

In 2007, the U.S. Treasury determined that the Qods Force “provides lethal support in the form

of weapons, training, funding, and guidance to select groups of Iraqi [Shia] militants who target

and kill Coalition and Iraqi forces and innocent Iraqi civilians.” Karcher v. Islamic Republic of

Iran, 396 F. Supp. 3d 12, 24 (D.D.C. 2019); Dkt. 46-1 at 10. In 2011, the U.S. State Department

concluded that Iran bore responsibility for the increase in lethal attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and

had equipped militants with the capacity to assemble explosives specifically designed to defeat

armored vehicles. Karcher, 396 F. Supp. 3d at 24.

C. Iran Materially Supported Each Bellwether Attack

1. Bellwether Plaintiff 1: The Family of Lance Corporal Jonathan Spears

Lance Corporal Jonathan Spears, a U.S. citizen, served in the U.S. Marine Corps. Dkt.

53 at 11. Raised in Molino, Florida, his father, Timothy Spears, described him as a

“rambunctious little boy” who grew up to be the kind of person who “would give you the shirt

off his back.” Tr. (July 23, 2024) at 194, 201. Mr. Spears recalled, with understandable pride,

that when his son worked at a Subway store, he would make sandwiches for the homeless people

nearby and pay for them himself. Id. at 201. “That was just the kind of kid he was. I mean,

nobody told him to do it, he just thought it was the right thing to do.” Id. Lance Corporal Spears

loved playing football, eventually earning a scholarship to play at the University of Buffalo. Id.

at 194–95.

Deeply affected by the events of September 11th, Lance Corporal Spears set his sights on

joining the Marine Corps. Id. at 195. On his first visit to the recruiting office, the staff sergeant

told him that at his football playing weight of 300 pounds, he was too heavy for the Marine

12
Corps. Id. Undeterred, Lance Corporal Spears spent the next year doing “nothing but eat[ing]

yogurt three times a day” and running “five miles every day” until he met the Marine Corps’

weight requirement. Id. at 196. He checked back in with the same staff sergeant, went to Parris

Island, and graduated—becoming a rifleman in the infantry. Id. Throughout his service in the

Marine Corps, Lance Corporal Spears deployed to Iraq twice, with his second deployment being

to Ramadi in September 2005. Id. at 196–97. On October 23, 2005, while he patrolled on a

rooftop in Ramadi, a sniper round to the head killed him instantly. Dkt. 53 at 11.

Lance Corporal Spears’ passing had devastating consequences for his survivors. His

mother Marie relapsed on an addiction to narcotics that she had successfully beaten after back

surgery. Tr. (July 23, 2024) at 199. In July 2008, notwithstanding her family’s repeated

attempts to get her the medical help she needed, Marie tragically took her own life at her son’s

grave site. Id. And his sisters have suffered depression, panic attacks, and anxiety. Id. at 200.

Mr. Spears, who has raised his two daughters alone since Marie’s passing, acknowledged that he

too struggles with depression over his son’s death, even twenty year later. Id. at 201.

Plaintiffs’ experts, Mr. Pregent and Dr. Del Gaudio, each testified about Iran’s role in the

Ramadi region at the time of the October 23, 2005 Bellwether attack on Lance Corporal Spears.

See id. at 100–107; 169–179. Mr. Pregent attributed the attack to Al Qaida, which, he explained,

received “lethal aid and support from Iran,” as well as “extra manning capability” from a

“foreign fighter facilitation network” also backed by Iran. Id. at 103–04. He identified the

sniper who killed Lance Corporal Spears as a foreign fighter brought to Iraq by this Iran-

supported network and opined that Iran’s material support and resources were a substantial factor

enabling the attack. Id. at 104, 106–07. Dr. Del Gaudio added to Mr. Pregent’s opinions,

13
emphasizing that the attack could not have occurred without the “highly trained sniper and high

caliber weapons” of the kind that foreign fighters would have brought in. Id. at 169–70.

2. Bellwether Plaintiff 2: The Family of Sergeant Daniel Varnado

Sergeant Daniel Varnado, a U.S. citizen, served in the U.S. Army National Guard. Dkt.

53 at 12. An avid baseball player, Sergeant Varnado pitched for two years at his community

college before signing with the University of West Alabama to continue his baseball career. Tr.

(July 25, 2024) at 59. He and his wife, Sharon Shavers, named their son Kannon—with a “K,”

like a strikeout on a scorecard—a tribute to Sergeant Varnado’s love of the game. Id. at 58. Ms.

Shavers, with obvious pride, testified that she sees much of Sergeant Varnado in their son

Kannon: “they’re funny,” she said, “and they both have very great team leadership skills.” Id. at

68. She expressed delight in these similarities, saying she’s proud to see those qualities live on

in their son. Id.

In 2000, Sergeant Varnado enlisted in the Mississippi National Guard to serve his country

and earn money for college. Id. at 60. Before a deployment to Iraq in 2005, he and his wife

postponed a planned move to Alabama, deciding to wait until he returned. Id. at 59, 62. In

February 2005, Sergeant Varnado deployed to Iraq, where he served as a gunner. Id. On May

23, 2005, during a mounted patrol in Haswa, Iraq, his vehicle ran over an IED, killing him and

three others. Dkt. 53 at 12.

Ms. Shavers testified to the profound impact of her husband’s passing on her and their

son, Kannon, who was just 20 months old at the time. Tr. (July 25, 2024) at 64. On the day he

died, Ms. Shavers had planned to speak with her husband during her lunch break, but the

conversation never happened. Id. at 62. That evening, she was at home watching TV with a

friend when she “heard a knock on the door,” and what followed felt, in her words, “like scenes

14
out of a movie.” Id. at 62–63. Although she “didn’t think the worst thing” at first, she was told

that Sergeant Varnado was “not here anymore.” Id. at 63.

Ms. Shavers described the period after Sergeant Varnado’s death as “just survival mode

for a long time.” Id. at 67. Less than two months after his death, Hurricane Katrina hit the area,

compounding her hardship. Id. at 64–65. Displaced from her home, Ms. Shavers was forced to

rely on friends for shelter and struggled to access necessities like groceries and diapers. Id. at

64–65. The strain forced Ms. Shavers to become, in her words, an “expert compartmentalizer,”

preventing her from fully processing her husband’s death. Id. at 65. Years of operating in

“survival mode” have led to lasting memory issues, and Ms. Shavers has sought psychiatric

treatment to help her retain and process the events surrounding Sergeant Varnado’s passing. Id.

at 67. Participating in this lawsuit, she testified, helped her realize that her husband and his

fellow soldiers “aren’t forgotten.” Id. at 70–71.

Mr. Pregent and Dr. Del Gaudio each testified about Iran’s role in the May 23, 2005

Bellwether attack in Haswa that killed Sergeant Varnado. See Tr. (July 23, 2024) at 108–114;

179–181. Mr. Pregent described the attack as an “improvised explosive device ambush”

executed after Al Qaida “had established an intelligence picture of what U.S. patrols were

doing,” including their “patterns of travel.” Id. at 110–11. Al Qaida, he explained, “knew what

time to put the IED in place.” Id. He attributed the attack to Al Qaida in Iraq, emphasizing that

the group’s operational capability was bolstered by Iran’s “material support and resources”—

support that included the procurement of the IED itself. Id. at 111–14. Dr. Del Gaudio

corroborated this assessment, opining that “there was no way that this attack could have been

carried out without the ability of another echelon to teach them how to do that.” Id. at 181.

15
3. Bellwether Plaintiff 3: SPC Lance A. Gieselmann

SPC Lance A. Gieselmann, a U.S. citizen, served in the U.S. Army. Dkt. 53 at 13. A

native of Chester, Illinois, he was the captain of his high school football team. Tr. (July 25,

2024) at 74. He later married his wife, Ashley, and together they have seven children. Id. at 75.

Inspired by his uncle’s service and a deep desire to serve his country, SPC Gieselmann

joined the Army in May 1999. Id. In the spring of 2003, SPC Gieselmann deployed to Iraq,

where he served as an armored crewman on a tank. Id. at 76. On October 28, 2003, he and two

other men—Sergeant Mike Barrera and Specialist Isaac Campboy—guarded a water-pumping

station in Balad, Iraq. Id. at 77. After spending the day repairing a tank, they borrowed another

to retrieve a needed tool. Id. at 78–79. As they returned, their borrowed tank ran over an IED.

Id. at 82. The explosion killed Specialist Campboy and Sergeant Barrera. Id. at 85, 91. It very

nearly killed SPC Gieselmann. Id.

SPC Gieselmann testified to his extensive injuries, the immediate aftermath of the attack,

and the lasting effects it has had on him and his family. His heart stopped four times en route

from Iraq to Germany, and doctors did not expect him to survive. Id. at 95. Doctors in Germany

put him in a medically induced coma for three and a half weeks. Id. at 62. They amputated his

left leg above the knee, rebuilt his L1 vertebra because it was “pulverized,” and removed

shrapnel that had entered his left thigh and his chest. Id. at 93–95. SPC Gieselman remained in

the hospital for over a year. Id. at 92. He received a Purple Heart for his service. Id.

More than two decades later, SPC Gieselmann remains “in pain every day.” Id. at 96.

He has trouble breathing out of his nose and uses a wheelchair after his leg weakness made

prosthetic use nearly impossible. Id. at 96–97. His abdominal scars cause painful muscle

cramps whenever he moves a certain way, and because doctors had to reconstruct his face, he

16
can no longer smile. Id. at 96. He cannot work because after a short time, “the pain kicks in and

[he has] to sit down or lay down.” Id. at 97. SPC Gieselmann described the emotional toll on

his family, particularly his eldest child, who remembered him before the attack and hesitated to

sit with him because he was “so banged up.” Id. at 96–97.

SPC Gieselmann struggles with survivor’s guilt. He often asks why he survived while

his friends and fellow servicemembers did not. Id. at 98. He remains in contact with his fellow

servicemembers’ families and remembers the men with deep affection. Id. at 97. He described

Specialist Campboy as an “extremely hard worker” and someone who, “if you needed help, he

was the first one to jump in to help without question.” Id. at 99. He recalled Sergeant Barrera as

a karaoke lover and a close friend with whom he loved playing football. Id. at 99–101. Despite

everything he has endured, SPC Gieselmann remains proud of his service—and rightfully so. Id.

at 98.

Mr. Pregent and Dr. Del Gaudio each testified about Iran’s role in the October 28, 2003

Bellwether attack in Balad that injured SPC Gieselmann and killed Specialist Campboy and

Sergeant Barrera. See Tr. (July 23, 2024) at 117–121; 181–84. Citing the size and sophistication

of the IED—which required being “[dug] into the ground” and “[put] in place at night”—Mr.

Pregent attributed the attack to Al Qaida in Iraq. Id. at 118–20. He characterized it as a

“signature” Al Qaida operation, carried out in an area where the group was “trying to establish

primacy.” Id. at 118–19. Mr. Pregent testified that Iran played a critical enabling role by

providing weapons components and explosive expertise—support that made the attack “more

lethal.” Id. at 120–21. Dr. Del Gaudio corroborated this assessment, emphasizing the IED’s

advanced design and describing the “violent concussive nature of that explosion” as

“tremendous.” Id. at 182.

17
4. Bellwether Plaintiff 4: Sergeant Richard S. Ford

Sergeant Richard S. Ford, a U.S. citizen, served in the U.S. Army National Guard. Dkt.

53 at 14. Drawn by the “meaning and purpose” military service offered, he joined the Army

National Guard in 1986. Tr. (July 25, 2024) at 107, 124. Sergeant Ford loved “everything”

about his role and remained in it for 26 years. Id. at 125.

In August 2004, he was called to active duty and deployed to Iraq in December. Id. at

108. On February 3, 2005, Sergeant Ford, Sergeant First Class John Cooley, Specialist Jack

Walker, and Doc Smith conducted a counter-mortar patrol through Dogwood, Iraq, in a Hummer

accompanied by two tanks. Id. at 109, 111–114, 129. During the patrol, Sergeant Ford’s team

triggered an IED. Id. The explosion killed Sergeant First Class Cooley, who had been “a really

good friend” of Sergeant Ford’s since elementary school and hoped to become a nurse after his

deployment. Id. at 114, 129. The explosion seriously injured Sergeant Ford. Id. at 111–13. He

received a Purple Heart for his service. Id. at 117.

Sergeant Ford testified to his injuries and the impact they have had on his life and career.

He has undergone a left knee replacement, suffers damage to his right knee, and experiences

worsening presynaptic Parkinsonian syndrome. Id. at 118. He also endures migraine headaches

caused by traumatic brain injury and memory loss. Id. Emotionally, Sergeant Ford struggles

with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), sleeping no more than four hours a night since the

attack. Id. at 120. He testified that the PTSD severely strained his relationship with his wife

until he began treatment. Id. at 121. After the explosion, he said he “didn’t know who [he] was”

anymore and described the attack as having “ruined [his] life.” Id. at 120–22. He remained in

Iraq after the attack, explaining, “I couldn’t leave my guys.” Id. at 126. He then served six more

years in the Army National Guard and continues to “live and breathe” his oath to his day. Id. at

18
127. Despite the trauma, Sergeant Ford shared that each day, he tries to “put one foot in front of

the other and try to help as many people” as he can. Id. at 120, 122. He expressed pride—as he

should—in helping “get the word out” by participating in this lawsuit. Id. at 128.

Mr. Pregent and Dr. Del Gaudio each testified about Iran’s role in the February 3, 2005

Bellwether attack in Dogwood that killed Sergeant First Class Cooley and injured Sergeant Ford.

Tr. (July 23, 2024) at 125–128; 187–188. Mr. Pregent testified that the attack occurred in an Al

Qaida stronghold—the most dangerous province in Iraq—fueled by a steady “foreign fighter

flow” and concealed “weapons caches.” Id. at 125–26. He explained that this province was an

“area where Iran wanted Al Qaida to have a permissive environment” to facilitate attacks against

U.S. forces. Id. at 127. He further identified the IED’s construction as the work of explosive

experts linked to an Iran-backed “foreign fighter network.” Id. In his view, Iran’s material

support was a substantial factor in enabling the attack. Id. Dr. Del Gaudio agreed, testifying that

the IED attack required “a heightened level of skill, [and] training” that, in his assessment, could

ultimately be traced to Iranian involvement. Id. at 188.

5. Bellwether Plaintiff 5: Private Timothy J. Pope Jr.

Private Timothy J. Pope, Jr., a U.S. citizen, served in the U.S. Army. Dkt. 53 at 14. A

native of Norfolk, Virginia, he enlisted in January 2004 and served as an Abrams tank crewman.

Tr. (July 25, 2024) at 131, 133. Private Pope deployed to Iraq in February 2005. Id. at 134.

Just weeks later, on February 24, 2005, an IED detonated directly beneath Private Pope’s

seat while he drove the lead tank in a route clearance operation through Samarra, Iraq. Id. at

134, 136, 138. During the blast, he saw a “huge cloud of white smoke” and found himself amid

“a lot of commotion, a lot of yelling.” Id. at 138. The tank, he recalled, “was continuously

rolling,” and “everything inside imploded on me.” Id. at 141. As fellow soldiers pulled Private

19
Pope out of the hull of the tank and into the turret, he “kept screaming . . . at my legs.” Id. at

138. Private Pope sustained serious injuries and received a Purple Heart and a Combat Action

Badge for his service. See id. at 144–50, 152.

Private Pope testified to the physical and emotional toll the attack has taken on his life.

His injuries include trauma to his head, abdomen, left forearm, hip, pelvis, and both legs—

requiring multiple surgeries. Id. at 145–51. He battled severe infections during recovery and,

after a period of prescribed use, developed an addiction to opioids and narcotics. Id. at 151. He

has since joined Narcotics Anonymous and testified that he is “100 percent” clean today. Id.

The emotional consequences were equally devastating. Private Pope had planned to

serve in the Army for “at least a minimum of 20 years,” and envisioned that career as a stable

future for his newborn son. Id. at 154. Instead, after his discharge, he began working as a

chef—where he began drinking more “and not coming home when I was supposed to after my

shift.” Id. at 153–54. His marriage to his wife, TJ, ended, and he became estranged from his

parents and siblings for nine years. Id. at 154, 156–57. Today, Private Pope reports that his

relationships with TJ and his parents are “great,” and he finds meaning in rebuilding his life—

especially in the joy of working on his home. Id. at 154–56.

Mr. Pregent and Dr. Del Gaudio each testified about Iran’s role in the February 24, 2005

Bellwether attack in Samarra that injured Private Pope. See Tr. (July 23, 2024) at 128–131; 188–

91. Mr. Pregent explained that the attack occurred in a region where Al Qaida had “established

primacy,” bolstered by an influx of foreign fighters. Id. at 128. He described the attack as a

“complex” operation, in which Al Qaida relied on detailed intelligence on U.S. patrol patterns to

maximize casualties. Id. at 129. The IED strike that wounded Private Pope, he noted, was part

of the same coordinated action that killed another soldier, Staff Sergeant Gresham, just 44

20
minutes later. Id. Mr. Pregent testified that Iran provided the explosive experts and training that

enabled Al Qaida to carry out these attacks—making them more lethal. Id. at 130–31. He

opined that Iran’s material support was a substantial factor in the attack. Id. Dr. Del Gaudio

concurred, describing the attack as part of “an emergent TTP” in a “very well-developed

engagement area,” enabled by Iranian involvement. Id. at 189.

6. Bellwether Plaintiff 6: Specialist Michael Scott Anderson

Specialist Michael Scott Anderson, a U.S. citizen, served in the U.S. Army. Dkt. 53 at

15. He enlisted in May 2006 and served in field artillery, providing support to units out on

missions. Tr. (July 25, 2024) at 164.

In November 2007, Specialist Anderson deployed to the Diyala Province in Iraq. Id. at

165. On December 20, while providing artillery support to the 2nd Infantry Division during a

supply run, the unit stopped to meet with a local sheik. Id. at 166. Specialist Anderson and his

battery stood guard during the meeting. Id. at 167. As he approached his truck to ask if anyone

wanted something from a nearby market, a suicide bomber nearby detonated his vest. Id.; Dkt.

53 at 15. The explosion seriously injured Specialist Anderson and killed First Lieutenant Jeremy

Ray. Dkt. 53 at 15. Specialist Anderson received a Purple Heart and a Combat Action Badge

for his service. Tr. (July 25, 2024) at 173.

Specialist Anderson testified to his injuries and their lasting effects on his life. He

suffered shrapnel wounds to his lower extremities, third-degree burns, a concussion, and PTSD.

Dkt. 53 at 15. After the attack, Specialist Anderson was airlifted to Germany, then transferred to

the United States to recover. Tr. (July 25, 2024) at 172. Though he had the option to remain

home, he chose to return to Iraq to support his “buddies [who] were still over there.” Id. at 173.

Upon his return, a drill sergeant approached him, nearly in tears, and “gave me a hug and gave

21
me a kiss on the cheek.” Id. at 178-79. Specialist Anderson described it as “a boost of morale

from the guys seeing me.” Id. at 179. He returned home in 2009 but testified that he “felt lost”

in the aftermath. Id. at 174. Physically, his mobility remains limited. Id. at 177. Emotionally,

he continues to grapple with the impact of his injuries on his family relationships. Id. He

currently works as a stay-at-home father. Id.

Mr. Pregent and Dr. Del Gaudio each testified about Iran’s role in the December 20, 2007

Bellwether attack in the Diyala Province that injured Specialist Anderson and killed First

Lieutenant Ray. See Tr. (July 23, 2024) at 131–34; 191–92. Mr. Pregent explained that the

suicide vest used in the attack was a known Al Qaida tactic, requiring specialized expertise to

smuggle and conceal beneath civilian clothing. Id. at 132. He noted that such capabilities likely

came through the “foreign fighter facilitation network,” a system supported by Iran to bring

experts into Iraq. Id. While Mr. Pregent did not attribute the explosives themselves directly to

Iran, he testified that Iran would have been aware of any weapons expert entering Iraq and that

Iran’s material support made the attack more lethal. Id. at 134–35, 141. Dr. Del Gaudio agreed,

stating that the attack “required a tremendous level of [] radicalization” and could not have

occurred without Iran’s facilitation. Id. at 191–92.

7. Bellwether Plaintiff 7: Lance Corporal Kevin J. Rumley

Lance Corporal Kevin J. Rumley, a U.S. citizen, served in the U.S. Marine Corps. Dkt.

53 at 16. A native of Fairfax, Virginia, he enlisted after high school, inspired by the service of

his father, a fellow Marine, and his grandparents. Tr. (July 25, 2024) at 187. After losing his

mother at age 16, Lance Corporal Rumley viewed the Marines as a way to “save [his] life.” Id.

at 187–88. He joined in August 2003 as a rifleman and deployed to Husaybah, Iraq, later that

year. Id. at 188–89.

22
On April 8, 2004, during a routine foot patrol through the Al Qa’im District, an IED

detonated in front of Lance Corporal Rumley’s unit. Id. at 189–90. As the patrol split into two

teams, with Lance Corporal Rumley covering the rear, a second IED—hidden in a wall and

triggered by cell phone—exploded. Id. at 190, 193. The blast killed his first friend in the

Marines, Lance Corporal Christopher Wasser, whom Lance Corporal Rumley remembered as

“very kind” and an “amazing Marine.” Id. at 195. The explosion seriously injured Lance

Corporal Rumley. See Dkt. 53 at 16. He received a Purple Heart award and a Combat Action

Ribbon for his service. Tr. (July 25, 2024) at 196.

Lance Corporal Rumley testified to the profound physical consequences of the attack. He

suffered a traumatic brain injury; a broken right femur; third-degree burns; nerve damage in his

lower body; and shrapnel wounds to his face, arms, legs, and hands. Dkt. 53 at 16. He also lost

partial vision in his left eye. Id. Lance Corporal Rumley was evacuated to Germany and then to

Walter Reed, where he underwent 32 surgeries over 18 months. Tr. (July 25, 2024) at 195.

The emotional toll was equally profound. When he left the hospital in 2005, Lance

Corporal Rumley felt “no sense of purpose” without the Marine Corps. Id. at 200. He struggled

physically—unable to skateboard or run, activities he once loved—and spiraled into addiction

and homelessness. Id. at 200–01. He became dependent on heroin and alcohol and testified that

he “wanted to die,” describing his path as a “short pathway to death.” Id. at 201. Lance

Corporal Rumley described being unprepared “for the psychological effects of being blown up,

of losing friends, of being torn from that tribe.” Id. He shared that, even today, “every

relationship [he has] has been formed and shaped by” the attack. Id. at 206.

After several arrests and involuntary commitments, and with the help of medical

professionals and his older brother, Lance Corporal Rumley began to recover. Id. at 201–02. He

23
has now been clean for 13 years and dedicates his life to helping fellow veterans through a

veterans’ treatment court. Id. at 202–04. He describes service to others as “one of the bedrocks

of recovery.” Id. at 203.

Mr. Pregent and Dr. Del Gaudio each testified about Iran’s role in the April 8, 2004

Bellwether attack in the Al Qa’im District that injured Lance Corporal Rumley and killed Lance

Corporal Wasser. Tr. (July 23, 2024) at 121–125; 184–86. Mr. Pregent explained that the

“complex attack” occurred near the Iraq-Syria border—a key transit point for Al Qaida to receive

explosive and tactical expertise from Syria. See id. at 121–22, 124. He noted that the use of

back-to-back IEDs demonstrated a high level of weapons proficiency and an “intelligence

picture” that allowed attackers to “map out the route the U.S. forces were taking.” Id. at 123.

Mr. Pregent opined that Iran’s material support made the attack more lethal and was a substantial

factor in its execution. Id. at 124. Dr. Del Gaudio concurred, asserting that “this [was]

absolutely a complex attack.” Id. at 185.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The FSIA specifies that “[n]o judgment by default shall be entered by a court of the

United States . . . against a foreign state . . . unless the claimant establishes his claim or right to

relief by evidence satisfactory to the court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e). This standard “leaves it to the

court to determine precisely how much and what kinds of evidence the plaintiff must provide.”

Han Kim v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 774 F.3d 1044, 1047 (D.C. Cir. 2014).

That said, courts are not free to take an “anything goes” approach. The FSIA gives courts “a

duty to scrutinize the plaintiff’s allegations, and . . . not unquestioningly accept a complaint’s

unsupported allegations as true.” Reed v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 845 F. Supp. 2d 204, 211

(D.D.C. 2012).

24
“[T]he FSIA leaves it to the court to determine precisely how much and what kinds of

evidence the plaintiff must provide, and [u]ncontroverted factual allegations that are supported

by admissible evidence are taken as true.” Karcher, 396 F. Supp. 3d at 21 (cleaned up). In cases

involving terrorism, courts should liberally construe the Federal Rules of Evidence to ensure that

state sponsors of terrorism cannot “effectively immunize themselves by killing their victims,

intimidating witnesses, and refusing to appear in court.” Han Kim, 774 F.3d at 1048. “[I]ndeed,

the quantum and quality of evidence that might satisfy a court can be less than that normally

required.” Owens v. Republic of Sudan, 864 F.3d 751, 785 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (cleaned up).

IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The FSIA is “the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in [U.S.]

courts.” Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428, 434 (1989). The

Act provides that foreign states ordinarily enjoy sovereign immunity from suits in U.S. courts,

see 28 U.S.C. § 1604, but also establishes several exceptions to that rule, see, e.g., id. §§ 1605–

1605B. The sole relevant exception here is the “state-sponsored terrorism exception,” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1605A, which “creates subject matter jurisdiction and a private cause of action for certain

claims against state sponsors of terrorism.” K.E.F.V. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 135 F.4th 988,

991 (D.C. Cir. 2025) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a), (c)). Covered claims include “personal

injury or death” arising from acts of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage

taking, and the provision of material support. 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c).

Under the FSIA, a federal district court may exercise personal and subject-matter

jurisdiction over a foreign state where specific statutory conditions are met. See Owens v.

Republic of Sudan, 826 F. Supp. 2d 128, 148 (D.D.C. 2011). Personal jurisdiction exists if the

plaintiff serves the defendant in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1608. See 28 U.S.C. § 1330(b).

25
Subject-matter jurisdiction exists when the defendant’s conduct falls within one of the FSIA’s

exceptions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1330(a), 1604.

Both jurisdictional requirements are satisfied here. As discussed above, see supra Part

I.A, Plaintiffs properly served Defendants. And as explained below, their conduct falls within

the FSIA’s state-sponsored terrorism exception. Because the Court has subject-matter

jurisdiction, and because the Bellwether Plaintiffs’ claims fall squarely within that provision, the

Court concludes that the Bellwether Plaintiffs have established a right to relief under the federal

cause of action set forth in Section 1605A. See, e.g., Est. of Doe v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 808

F. Supp. 2d 1, 19 (D.D.C. 2011) (“[L]iability under section 1605A(c) will exist whenever the

jurisdictional requirements of section 1605A are met.”) (cleaned up).

A. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction: “State Sponsor of Terrorism” Exception

Plaintiffs have met the requirements for subject-matter jurisdiction. Pertinent here is 28

U.S.C. § 1605A, known as the FSIA’s “terrorism exception.” See Fraenkel v. Islamic Republic

of Iran, 892 F.3d 348, 352 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Under this exception, jurisdiction exists where (a)

the foreign state lacks immunity and (b) this Court meets the statutory requirements to hear their

claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a)(1), (2). Plaintiffs have demonstrated both elements.

1. Iran Lacks Immunity

Section 1605A of the FSIA removes sovereign immunity where five conditions are met:

(1) the plaintiff seeks money damages; (2) the defendant is a foreign state; (3) the claim arises

from personal injury or death; (4) the injury was caused by the defendant; and (5) the cause was

“an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or the provision of

material support or resources for such an act.” Id. § 1605A(a)(1); see also Abedini v. Gov’t of

Islamic Republic of Iran, 422 F. Supp. 3d 118, 128 (D.D.C. 2019).

26
Plaintiffs have established each of these five requirements. They (1) seek monetary

damages, Dkt. 1 at 464–66, (2) from a foreign state, the Islamic Republic of Iran, id. at 34, (3)

for injuries and deaths that occurred during the Bellwether attacks, Dkt. 53. at 11–17; see also

Tr. (July 23, 2024) at 105, 114, 120, 126, 129, 130, 133.

The remaining two elements—causation and qualifying conduct—warrant further

discussion.

a. Causation

The FSIA requires a showing of proximate cause. Kilburn v. Socialist People’s Libyan

Arab Jamahiriya, 376 F.3d 1123, 1128 (D.C. Cir. 2004). To establish proximate cause, Plaintiffs

must show that Iran’s actions were a “substantial factor” in the sequence of events leading to

their injuries, and that the injuries were “reasonably foreseeable or anticipated as a natural

consequence” of Iran’s actions. Frost, 383 F. Supp. 3d at 48 (cleaned up).

Plaintiffs have made the necessary showing that Iran’s material support caused the harms

they suffered. As discussed above, see supra Part III.C, Mr. Pregent and Dr. Del Gaudio

testified that each attack was carried out by terrorist operatives who received weapons, training,

and logistical support through Iranian-backed networks. Tr. (July 23, 2024) at 103–41; 165–92.

That material support enabled the attacks and was a substantial factor in bringing them about. Id.

at 140–41; 192. The injuries that flowed were not merely foreseeable—they were a direct and

intended consequence of Iran’s support for anti-Iraq and anti-U.S. insurgents. Id. at 141; 192.

b. Extrajudicial Killing

The FSIA adopts the definition of “extrajudicial killing” from the Torture Victim

Protection Act of 1991 (TVPA). 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(h)(7). Under the TVPA, an “extrajudicial

killing” is a “deliberated killing not authorized by a previous judgment pronounced by a

27
regularly constituted court.” Pub. L. No. 102-256, § 3(a), 106 Stat. 73. A “deliberated” killing

“is simply one undertaken with careful consideration, not on a sudden impulse.” Owens v.

Republic of Sudan, 174 F. Supp. 3d 242, 263 (D.D.C. 2016) (cleaned up).

Each Bellwether attack qualifies. Mr. Pregent and Dr. Del Gaudio testified that each

operation was carefully orchestrated by terrorist actors using intelligence, tactics, and lethal tools

made possible by Iranian support. Tr. (July 23, 2024) at 103–41; 165–92. None of the killings

were carried out under legal authority; all were the work of “terrorist groups in Iraq that were

materially supported by Iran.” Id. at 8.

This element is satisfied with respect to the Bellwether Plaintiffs who survived the

attacks but lost fellow servicemembers. Courts in this Circuit have made clear that the FSIA’s

terrorism exception encompasses attempted extrajudicial killings when the attack results in

death. See, e.g., Cohen v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 238 F. Supp. 3d 71, 81 (D.D.C. 2017).

Accordingly, Bellwether Plaintiffs Gieselmann, Ford, Pope, Anderson, and Rumley—each of

whom survived an attack that killed a fellow servicemember—meet this requirement as well.

See Dkt. 51 at 15–19.

In sum, the Bellwether Plaintiffs have established that their claims satisfy all five

elements required under the FSIA’s terrorism exception. The Court therefore concludes that Iran

is not entitled to sovereign immunity.

2. The Court May Hear Plaintiffs’ Claims

Under Section 1605A(a)(2) of the FSIA, Plaintiffs must meet three more criteria to

establish jurisdiction. First, the foreign state involved must have been designated a state sponsor

of terrorism at the time the alleged acts occurred and remained so when the claim is filed. 28

U.S.C. § 1605A(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). Second, the claimant or victim must have been a national of the

28
United States or a member of the armed forces at the time of the acts. Id. § 1605A(a)(2)(A)(ii).

Third, in cases involving acts in the foreign state against which the claim has been brought, the

claimant must give “the foreign state a reasonable opportunity to arbitrate the claim in

accordance with the accepted international rules of arbitration.” Id. § 1605A(a)(2)(A)(iii).

Plaintiffs have successfully met all three criteria. First, Iran has been designated as a

state sponsor of terrorism by the U.S. State Department since 1984—a designation that was in

effect at the time of the attacks. 49 Fed. Reg. 2836 (Jan. 23, 1984). Second, all Bellwether

Plaintiffs were U.S. nationals at the time of the attacks. Tr. (July 23, 2024) at 193; Tr. (July 25,

2024) at 57, 74, 106, 131, 163, 187. Third, because the attacks took place in Iraq, not Iran,

Plaintiffs were not required to offer Iran an opportunity to arbitrate the claim.

In meeting these three criteria, the Bellwether Plaintiffs have established that Iran lacks

immunity under the FSIA and that the Court meets the statutory requirements to hear their claim.

They have thus established that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. See 28

U.S.C. § 1605A(a)(1), (2).

B. Federal Cause of Action

Because the Bellwether Plaintiffs have established subject-matter jurisdiction, “little else

is required to show” that they are entitled to relief under Section 1605A. Schwartz v. Islamic

Republic of Iran, No. CV 18-1349, 2020 WL 7042842, at *14 (D.D.C. Nov. 30, 2020) (cleaned

up). Section 1605A of the FSIA provides that state sponsors of terrorism are liable “for personal

injury or death caused by acts described in subsection (a)(1) of that foreign state, or of an

official, employee, or agent of that foreign state, for which the courts of the United States may

maintain jurisdiction under this section for money damages.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c). “In other

words, this section creates a cause of action for the same conduct that gives rise to jurisdiction

29
under the terrorism exception.” Foley v. Syrian Arab Republic, 249 F. Supp. 3d 186, 205

(D.D.C. 2017). The statute authorizes suits for money damages by three categories of plaintiffs:

(1) U.S. nationals; (2) members of the U.S. armed forces; and (3) employees of the U.S.

government—or the legal representative of any such individuals. See 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c).

Given the overlap between the jurisdictional requirements and the elements of a cause of

action under the terrorism exception, and because each Bellwether Plaintiff satisfies at least one

of the statutory categories of eligible plaintiffs, their entitlement to relief is well established. The

findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above demonstrate Iran’s liability and confirm

that the Bellwether Plaintiffs meet the substantive requirements of the statute.

V. DAMAGES

On May 30, 2025, the Special Master provided her recommendation on damages for the

Bellwether Plaintiffs. The Court has reviewed it and, finding it sound in all respects, adopts it in

full as part of this Opinion. See Attachment 1. Each Bellwether Plaintiff is entitled to the

damages outlined in the accompanying Order, Dkt. 59.

VI. CONCLUSION

The Bellwether Plaintiffs served their country with unwavering courage and exceptional

distinction. Their sacrifice demands more than acknowledgment—it calls for our enduring

gratitude and deepest respect. For, as Elmer Davis observed, “[t]his nation will remain the land

of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.” This Memorandum Opinion is a small

step toward honoring that truth.

Date: May 30, 2025 ANA C. REYES
United States District Judge

30
ATTACHMENT 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JAMES SWINNEY, et al., )
)
)
Plaintiffs, )
) No. 1:20-cv-2316 (ACR)
v. )
)
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
SPECIAL MASTER REGARDING COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
FOR THE SWINNEY BELLWETHER PLAINTIFFS

This case involves numerous terrorist attacks against United States servicemembers and

civilians serving in Iraq from 2003 to 2011. The Plaintiffs are the Direct Victims of these attacks

and their family members. The Defendant is the Islamic Republic of Iran (“Iran”). Plaintiffs allege

that Iran caused their injuries by providing material support to terrorist organizations operating in

Iraq, including al-Qaeda in Iraq. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages under the state

sponsor of terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. §

1605A. Iran has not answered or otherwise appeared in this action. The Clerk of the Court entered

default against Iran.

The Court held a bellwether hearing to evaluate liability and damages under the FSIA. The

Court appointed the undersigned to analyze and recommend damages for the non-bellwether

Plaintiffs and also requested a review of the compensatory damages claims of the bellwether

Plaintiffs. Dkt. 58. This Report addresses only the compensatory damages claims of the bellwether

plaintiffs.

1
BRIEF BACKGROUND

Section 1605A(c) of the FSIA creates a private right of action for money damages for

United States nationals, members of the U.S. armed forces, and United States government

employees or contractors (acting within the scope of their employment) who are injured or killed

by terrorist acts carried out by officials, employees, or agents of a foreign state that is designated

as a state sponsor of terrorism. See 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c). Family members of those injured or

killed in such terrorist acts may also seek money damages for their own injuries. Qualified

plaintiffs may seek compensatory damages including economic damages, solatium damages, and

pain and suffering damages.1

The determination of the appropriate amount of compensatory damages depends on the

specific facts and circumstances of each claim and the evidence submitted in support of the claim.

The administrative plan outlined in the Court’s order of appointment specifies the

applicable evidentiary standards:

As to the admissibility of evidence, the Special Master shall be guided by the
Federal Rules of Evidence, but it shall not be necessary for documents to be
qualified as genuine pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 901. Authentication shall
be made by any counsel’s representation as an officer of the Court that a proffered
document is an accurate copy of what counsel proffers it to be. Moreover, the
Special Master shall be guided by the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit in Owens v. Republic of Sudan, 864 F.3d 751 (D.C. Cir. 2017)
with respect to the entry of evidence in terrorism cases under the FSIA when
defendants fail to appear and thereby default.

Id. at II.

Testimony may be received by sworn declarations. All of Plaintiffs’ evidence shall be preserved
by Plaintiffs’ counsel, who shall retain it for use by the Court. The Special Master shall be guided
in reviewing and evaluating claims by Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) opinions,
including, but not limited to: Stethem v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 201 F.Supp.2d 78 (D.D.C.
2002); Salazar v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 370 F. Supp.2d 105 (D.D.C. 2005); Estate of Heiser
v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 466 F. Supp. 2d 229, 269, 318 (D.D.C. 2006); Valore v. Islamic
Republic of Iran, 700 F. Supp. 2d 52, 85 (D.D.C. 2010); Fritz, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran,

1
See 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c).
2
324 F. Supp. 3d 54 (D.D.C. 2018); Schooley et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 2019 WL 2717888
(D.D.C. 2019); Allan v. Islamic Republic of Iran 2019 WL 2185037 (D.D.C. 2019); Frost et al.
v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 419 F. Supp. 3d 112 (D.D.C. 2020), W.A. et al. v. Islamic Republic
of Iran, 2020 WL 7869218 (D.D.C. 2020); W.A. et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 2020 WL
7869211 (D.D.C. 2020); Fritz v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 466 F.Supp.3d 13 (D.D.C. 2020);
Selig v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 2021 WL 5446870 (D.D.C. 2021); and their progeny.

Id.

The first portion of this Report and Recommendation sets forth factual findings for each of

the Swinney Bellwether Plaintiffs. The second portion of the Report and Recommendation outlines

the applicable case law. The third portion of this Report and Recommendation sets forth my

recommendations for compensatory damages for each of the Swinney Bellwether Plaintiffs.

FACTUAL FINDINGS

The Swinney Bellwether Plaintiffs are the Estates of Direct Victims, Direct Victims who

were injured, and family members of the Direct Victims. The Direct Victims are: Estate of Cpl.

Jonathan Ross Spears; Estate of Sgt. Daniel Varnado; SPC Lance A. Gieselmann; LCpl. Kevin J.

Rumley; SSG Richard S. Ford; SPC Timothy J. Pope Jr.; SPC Michael S. Anderson. The family

member plaintiffs are: Timothy Spears, Jessica Wollen, Jennifer Glodfelter, Sharon Shavers,

Kannon Varnado.

The Direct Victims and the Estates of Direct Victims seek economic loss damages and the

injurid Direct Victims seek economic loss damages and pain and suffering damages. Each of the

family member plaintiffs seeks an award of solatium damages. All of t h e Plaintiffs have submitted

documentation establishing that they are United States Nationals within the meaning of Section

1605A.

The first section of this Report sets forth factual findings pertinent to the determination of

compensatory damages. The second section outlines relevant case law. The third section sets forth

recommendations for compensatory awards.

3
FACTUAL FINDINGS

The claims of the Direct Victims who were injured are supported by their testimony at the

“Bellwether Hearing” on default and by a report prepared by Dr. Shean Eric Phelps, MD, MPH |

LTC, U.S. Army (RETIRED). Dr. Phelps did not personally examine the individual plaintiffs but

reviewed and evaluated the medical records for each of the plaintiffs. Dr. Phelps is a medical doctor

who received his degree from the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, F. Edward

Hebert School of Medicine, Bethesda MD. Dr. Phelps served in the Army for 30 years and was

deployed overseas. He has specialized knowledge of the use of IEDs and traumatic injuries

sustained in combat. He has served as an expert in at least one FSIA case. The Court qualified Dr.

Phelps as an expert in combat injuries, polytrauma, blast injuries, and IED related injuries.

Bellwether Hearing Transcript, July 25, 2024, at 14. Dr. Phelps testified about the extensive types

and severity of injuries caused by Improvised Explosive Devices – devices that caused injuries to

some of the Direct Victim plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs have also submitted reports prepared by John Cary – addressing the vocational and

life care impact of the physical injuries sustained by the Direct Victims and the psychological

injuries sustained by family members of Direct Victims who were killed. These reports were

submitted as exhibits at the Bellwether Hearing. To address certain components of economic loss,

the Plaintiffs have also submitted reports prepared by Richard Hoffman. The credentials and scope

of these reports are addressed below in the relevant sections.

Following are factual findings with respect to each of the bellwether plaintiffs.

DIRECT VICTIMS

A. CPL. JONATHAN ROSS SPEARS

Corporal Jonathan Ross Spears was killed on October 23, 2005, in Ramadi, Iraq, when a

4
sniper shot him while he was securing a rooftop. Spears was posthumously promoted to Corporal

and awarded the Purple Heart Medal. He served as a Rifleman and Acting Squad Leader with

Company I, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment.

Corporal Spears was 21 years old at the time of his death and the evidence in the record

indicates that he was killed instantly.

B. SERGEANT DANIEL RYAN VARNADO

Sergeant Daniel Ryan Varnado was killed in action on May 23, 2005, in Haswa, Iraq, when

his military vehicle was struck by an improvised explosive device (IED) provided by Iran or its

agents. At the time of his death, SGT Varnado was 23 years old and had served for a total of 41

months. He was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star and Purple Heart Medals, among other

military honors.

SGT Varnado was a member of the United States Army Mississippi National Guard,

serving as an Infantryman in C Company, 1st Battalion, 155th Infantry Regiment. He enlisted on

November 16, 2000, and was deployed to Hasawa, Iraq, on July 30, 2004. The attack that claimed

his life also resulted in the immediate death of three other soldiers. On the day of his death, he was

posthumously promoted from Specialist to Sergeant, recognizing his bravery and dedication.

The evidence in the record shows that Sergeant Varnado was killed instantly.

C. SPECIALIST LANCE ASHLEY GIESELMANN

Specialist Lance A. Gieselmann suffered catastrophic injuries from an IED attack on

October 28, 2003, while serving as a tank crewmember in Iraq. His service in the United States

Army spanned from May 20, 1999, to May 19, 2004. Specialist Gieselmann testified that he was

in the turret of the tank at the time of the attack and woke up 50 yards away. Bellwether Hearing

Transcript at 85. Specialist Gieselmann testified about the IED attack:
5
My foot was up by my head. My face had been blown apart. My legs were paralyzed. I
cracked my -- I remember my CVC helmet was cracked in half. My chest hurt from a piece
of shrapnel that went through my body armor.

Bellwether Hearing Transcript at 82:13-16
While he was lying on the ground helpless, he saw a truck pull up and thought he would be shot.

He remained still, hoping that it would appear that he was dead. Bellwether Hearing Tr. at 84.

Specialist Gieselmann spent a year in the hospital for treatment for his extensive injuries. Id.

at 92. He underwent multiple surgeries, including a revised left transfemoral amputation and spinal

fusion, received extensive rehabilitation at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the Spinal Cord

Injury Center in Memphis. He testified that he received skin grafts and has limited motor function

in his right leg. Id. at 94. He cannot smile because his face was reconstructed. Id. at 96. He has

pain and cramping from his scars. Id. His leg is weak and he does not have bladder or bowel

control. Id. at 96.

The attack resulted in severe polytraumatic injuries, including a traumatic brain injury, spinal

cord injury, left leg amputation above the knee, L1 Burst Fracture (requiring posterior fusion and

surgical stabilization), incomplete T12 spinal cord injury with residual bowel and bladder

dysfunction, facial lacerations, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Report of Shean Phelps, MD,

MPH, Bellwether Hearing Exhibit P0329.2

He experiences chronic issues such as phantom limb pain, lower back and hip pain, and

nerve damage. Psychological challenges include PTSD, memory problems, and cognitive deficits,

with symptoms of survivor’s guilt and hyper-vigilance.

Gieselmann’s prognosis remains guarded. Dr. Phelps provided his prognosis:

Mr. Gieselmann 's prognosis remains complex. His physical health issues, particularly
chronic phantom limb, and back pain (including chronic muscular spasm), along with the
attendant balance problems expected in an above the knee (ATK) amputee, require ongoing,
life-long physical therapy with a high potential for necessary follow-on surgical

2
Specialist Gieselmann submitted a declaration confirming that he has read the report of Dr. Phelps and that it accurately
reflects his injuries and condition. Dkt. 57-1.
6
interventions. Residual bowel, bladder and erectile dysfunction necessitates his attending
regular follow-ups with a host of medical specialists to include, but not limited to neurology,
gastroenterology, and urology.

Gieselmann 's mental health prognosis is equally challenging. He requires continuous
support from mental health professionals, including therapy and medication management, to
address his PTSD and depressive episodes. Regular mental health check-ins and adjustments
in his treatment plan are essential to manage his ongoing suicidal ideation and severe
depressive symptoms.”

Id. at 5.

His wife, Ashlee Carole Gieselmann, is his full-time caregiver, providing over 40 hours of

care per week. The family faces financial difficulties due to unpaid medical bills and his inability

to work. Home modifications are necessary to address accessibility issues and improve safety.

D. STAFF SERGEATN RICHARD S. FORD

Staff Sergeant Ford served from 1982 to 2020, with multiple activations and deployments,

including a deployment to Iraq in 2005. On February 3, 2005, while deployed in Iraq, Ford was in

a Humvee that was struck by an improvised explosive device (IED). The explosion resulted in the

death of the driver and left Ford with multiple injuries, including traumatic brain injury (TBI),

PTSD, traumatic arthritis, hearing loss, and other conditions.

The expert report prepared by Dr. Shean Phelps describes Sergeant Ford’s injuries:

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder with Residuals of Traumatic Brain Injury; Traumatic

Arthritis of the Left Knee with Decreased Range of Motion Status, requiring Total Knee

Replacement; Tinnitus; Left Upper Extremity Essential Tremors, Parkinsonism; Right Upper

Extremity Essential Tremors, Parkinsonism; Residuals, Traumatic Brain Injury (To Include

Memory Loss). Report of Dr. Shean Phelps, Bellwether Hearing Exh. P0328.3

3
Sergeant Ford submitted a declaration confirming that he has read the report of Dr. Phelps and that it accurately states his
injuries and medical condition. Dkt. 57-3.
7
Dr. Phelps provides the following description of Sergeant Ford’s injuries, treatment, and

prognosis:

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and TBI have led to persistent headaches, anxiety,
irritability, memory issues, and tremors. His conditions significantly impact his daily life,
limiting physical activity and social interactions. He requires ongoing medical and
psychiatric care to manage chronic pain, PTSD, and other health issues, with no significant
improvement in his overall condition anticipated. His prognosis indicates the need for
lifelong support and adaptive strategies to maintain quality of life. Mr. Ford's mental health
has been severely affected, leading to a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
with residuals of traumatic brain injury. He endorses symptoms consistent with major
depressive disorder or other underlying mood disorders, likely attributable in part to his TBI
and PTSD. He frequently experiences episodes of irritability and insomnia, coupled with
increased anxiety, hypervigilance, and avoidance of crowded areas. His VA rating stands at
100% for multiple service related injuries, reflecting the severity of his conditions.

Despite receiving extensive medical treatments, including behavioral and physical therapy,
joint arthroplasty (left knee replacement), and assessments for TBI and PTSD, Mr. Ford's
prognosis remains complex. His physical health issues, particularly the chronic knee pain
and balance problems secondary to early onset traumatic arthritis and the long-term
aftereffects of TBI, will likely require ongoing physical and occupational therapy, and
potentially additional surgical interventions (i.e., further joint replacement surgery). His
documented hearing loss and tinnitus necessitate regular follow-ups with audiology and
otorhinolaryngology.

Mr. Ford's mental health prognosis is equally challenging. He requires continuous support
from mental health professionals, including therapy and medication management, to address
his PTSD and depressive episodes. Regular mental health check-ins and adjustments in his
treatment plan are essential to manage his ongoing suicidal ideation and severe depressive
symptoms.

Overall, the combination of physical pain and mental health challenges significantly impact
his daily functioning and quality of life.

Id.

Ford’s family relationships have been strained due to his extensive care requirements and

emotional damage. He lives with his daughter and grandchildren, who assist with household tasks,

but his conditions limit his ability to engage in family activities.

E. MICHAEL ANDERSON

Specialist Michael Scott Anderson sustained severe injuries from a suicide bomber attack

8
on December 20, 2007, in Kan’an, Iraq. Specialist Anderson testified at the bellwether hearing that

he was on a supply run and hearing back and the next thing he knew, he was waking up on the

ground. Bellwether Hearing Tr. at 167. They had been attacked by a suicide bomber. Id. at 169.

He was dazed but he could see bones sticking out of his leg. Id. at 170. He was evacuated to

Germany and then to the United States for treatment. Tr. 171. He has been disability rated for

TBI, PTSD, shrapnel, perforated ear, and eye damage. Id. at 176. He had long term mobility

issues. Id. at 177. He is not working.

The Report of Dr. Phelps describes Michael Anderson’s injuries and prognosis:

Anderson suffered burns and shrapnel wounds to both legs, a perforated tympanic
membrane in the right ear, and a concussion with symptoms of traumatic brain injury (TBI).
These injuries have led to chronic dizziness and balance difficulties, persistent pain, and
reduced mobility in his left knee. He also experiences hearing loss and tinnitus in his right
ear.

Anderson's mental health has been severely affected, leading to a diagnosis of Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) with major depressive disorder. He frequently
experiences episodes of irritability, insomnia, and suicidal ideation, coupled with increased
anxiety, hypervigilance, and avoidance of crowded areas. His VA rating stands at 100% for
multiple service-related injuries, reflecting the severity of his conditions.

Despite receiving extensive medical treatments, including wound care, physical therapy, and
assessments for TBI and PTSD, Anderson's prognosis remains complex. His physical health
issues, particularly the chronic knee pain and balance problems, require ongoing physical
therapy and potentially surgical interventions. The hearing loss and tinnitus necessitate
regular follow-ups with audiology and otorhinolaryngology specialists.

Report of Dr. Phelps, Bellwhether Hearing Exh. P0327 at 8, 9.

Anderson completed his active service on September 6, 2011, with an honorable discharge.

F. KEVIN JAMES RUMLEY

Lance Corporal Kevin J. Rumley, a United States Marine, sustained catastrophic injuries

from an improvised explosive device (IED) on April 8, 2004, during a patrol in the Iraqi Al Anbar

province along the Syria-Iraq border. Kevin Rumley served from August 2003 to November 2005

9
as an 0311 Marine Rifleman. Rumley was deployed to Iraq from February 16, 2004, to April 12,

2004. Testimony of Kevin Rumley, Bellwether Hearing at 188, 189.

He testified that he was on patrol and on his way back when the bomb detonated. Id. at

190. When he came to, he could see that his thigh and knee were ‘blown up’, and he had shrapnel

in his eye, biceps, and hands. Id. at 191. He was sent to Germany and then Walter Reed. He had

32 surgeries, and spent a year and a half in Walter Reed. Tr. at 195. He struggled when he was

released. He had been living with opioid pain killer and when he got out of the hospital, he became

addicted to opioids and eventually to heroin.

Plaintiff submitted the Report of Dr. Phelps – which described Kevin Rumley’s injuries and

prognosis:

He had sustained a traumatic brain injury (TBI), a broken right femur, multiple
fragmentation wounds to both legs, his right arm, left shoulder, face, and right hand along
with extensive 3rd degree burns and nerve damage to both lower extremities.

Such “disassociation” immediately following exposure to a blast event is extremely typical
and signifies a significant neurological disturbance secondary to either the primary or
secondary blast wave, or both.

Following initial life-saving treatment and surgery, he was aeromedically evacuated
(AIREVAC) by United States Air Force assets to the National Navy Medical Center 5 days
post injury. He spent several weeks hospitalized where he underwent open reduction and
internal fixation of his right femur, with repair to the left supracondylar and medial aspect
of his left femoral condyle, and to his right 5th phalanx fracture. A subsequent secondary
MRSA wound infection of the surgical site to his right hand required transfer to Walter Reed
Army Medical Center for a subsequent fixation plate removal and extended duration IV
antibiotics followed by aggressive physical rehabilitation.

Once at Walter Reed, he underwent surgical intervention for the MRSA infection and
received a left sciatic and right femoral catheter to control residual pain. He continued to
undergo additional surgeries including full and split thickness skin grafts to the wounds at
his left medial thigh, a compartment fasciotomy of his left leg (to reduce pressure on the
underlying muscles and nerves), and eventually a left saphenous vein graft to increase
circulation to his left lower extremity. LCPL Rumley continued to experience severe
neuropathic pain and weakness in his lower extremities. He attended regular inpatient
physical therapy to help increase mobility, reduce pain, and build strength to walk again.
Unfortunately, his limb pain persisted, and he eventually underwent total right knee
arthroplasty in October 2004. The entirety of his inpatient hospitalization accounted for 1½
10
years and a total of 32 surgeries. Once released from Walter Reed, Rumley kept attending
physical therapy yet continued to suffer from chronic debilitating pain and had to rely on the
use of a wheelchair for mobility to take the weight off his injured lower extremities.

Since Rumley’s injury he has lost most of his vision in his left eye due to retained
fragmentation from the IED blast. He has continual pain in both lower extremities and
suffers from chronic headaches that seem to occur concurrently with a pronounced decline
in his short-term memory. He has tried numerous avenues to help alleviate the pain but has
found no significant relief. He was prescribed opiates while at Walter Reed and later became
addicted. His IED induced polytrauma is exacerbated by the persistent symptoms of PTSD
for which he has (unsuccessfully) tried to attenuate through self-medication with
nonprescription and prescription opiates and alcohol.

Report of Dr. Phelps, Bellwhether Hearing Exh. P0332.

Kevin Rumley overcame his addiction problem and went back to school. He graduated

with a PhD in Social Work in May 2024 and is currently employed.

Vocational Assessment and Life Care Plan, Dr. John Cary, Bellwether Hearing Exh. P0039 -

00035.

G. TIMOTHY DWIGHT POPE, JR.

Timothy Dwight Pope, Jr. was injured in Iraq on February 24, 2005. Testimony of Timothy Pope,

Bellwether Hearing Tr. at 134. He was in the lead tank in a route clearance mission. Id. at 137. He

was eventually transferred to Walter Reed for treatment. He testified that he had an open wound,

required extensive treatment with antibiotics, surgery to repair damage to his hip and pelvis. Id. at

145, 146. He was prescribed opioids for pain and ended up with an addiction. Id. at 151. He

testified that he is now off of opioids (since 2018). Id. He was discharged in 2007 and secured some

employment in the civilian sector. He was abusing alcohol during that time and his marriage fell

apart. Id. at 153, 154. He testified that he had planned to make the military his career. Id. at 154.

Plaintiff submitted the Report of Dr. Phelps. Bellwether Hearing Exh. P0330. Dr. Phelps

described the injuries suffered by Timothy Pope and provided his own evaluation and prognosis.
11
United States Army Corporal Timothy Pope Jr. suffered devastating blast-induced injuries
after his M1 Abrams main battle tank ran over two anti-tank mines during route clearance
operations near the city of Tikrit, Republic of Iraq, resulting in life-threatening
polytraumatic injuries.

On February 24, 2005, CPL Pope was driving a M1A1 Abrams main battle tank when an
IED exploded beneath his seat. He was less than 10 feet from the blast. It required 30
minutes for rescuers to extract him from the destroyed tank. He sustained head trauma,
left forearm, right foot and tibia, spleen and liver trauma, scrotal hematoma, left hip and
pelvic fracture, and left femur fracture. He was not unconscious during the rescue but does
not remember anything else during that day.

After the initial treatment for his numerous injuries, CPL Pope underwent emergency
surgery and stabilization. His initial surgeries including exploratory laparotomy at the
Combat Support Hospital located at Joint Air Base-Balad, Iraq on February 25.
Preliminary medical and surgical procedures included precautionary intubation and deep
sedation in face of the need for extended surgical intervention and stabilization for
transport to higher levels of medical care. His initial surgeries included abdominal
laparotomy/exploration (ExLap), repair of a traumatic hernia, cauterization of a
superficial splenic laceration (likely a rupture of the spleen due to the primary blast
overpressure event or secondary blast effects), closure of abdominal fascia, a right knee
arthrotomy, irrigation and debridement of a lacerated right knee, a four compartment
fasciotomy (excision of the overlying skin down to the subcutaneous fascial layer to
relieve pressure and alleviate potential damage and necrosis of underlying muscle tissue)
of right leg, left leg wound incision and drainage, wound extension to a fracture site within
his left femur, and a surgical external fixation of the left femur. He required multiple blood
transfusions and extensive fluid resuscitation during his initial weeks of care and
hospitalization.

Report of Dr. Phelps, at 0003.

Dr. Phelps further states:

Since the IED attack, he has suffered from persistent headaches with photophobia
(sensitivity to light) and hyperacusis (extreme sensitivity to noise), tinnitus, gait and balance
problems, memory issues, and major depressive symptoms. He was diagnosed with PTSD
in 2007 and on June 24, 2012, he was admitted to a psychiatric ward for PTSD with major
depressive features. He stated at the time that he was having a “psychotic breakdown” and
reported that he was not sleeping or eating, and that the lithium he was given was “not
working.”

Id. at 0004.

Dr. Phelps reports that Timothy Pope has been diagnosed with: Spleen and liver trauma; Left hip

and pelvic fracture; Left femur fracture; Left forearm trauma; Right foot and tibia trauma;

Scrotal hematoma; Major depression with post-traumatic stress disorder; Severe secondary-related
12
mental health conditions ; Removal of his bottom row of teeth; Head trauma. Id.

INDIRECT VICTIMS: FAMILY MEMBERS

A. FAMILY OF CORPORAL SPEARS

1. TIMOTHY LAWRENCE SPEARS (FATHER OF CPL. JONATHAN ROSS SPEARS)

Timothy Spears provided testimony at the Bellwether Hearing. He remembered Jonathan

as a rambunctious child. He recounted the process Jonathan went through to join the Marines.

And he testified about the moment he learned of Jonathan’s death. Bellwether Hearing Transcript

1, at 194-197. He described the overwhelming grief and emotional turmoil. His wife, Jonathan’s

mother, was grief stricken and spiraled downward until she took her own life at Jonathan’s grave

site. Id. at 199. Jonathan’s sisters both had difficulties after Jonathan’s death including anxiety,

panic attacks, and depression. Id. at 200. Timothy no longer has much desire to go out. Id. at

201. He testified about the experiences of his two daughters and his efforts to make sure his son is

remembered.

Following Jonathan’s death, Timothy was unable to work for two months. Id. at 200.

According to the interview notes in the report of John Cary, Timothy Spears continued to work at

his long time job until 2015 and then moved to another job until 2018 when he was diagnosed with

polymyositis. Cary Report, Bellwether Hearing Exh. P 30240.

2. JESSICA WOOLEN (SISTER OF CPL. JONATHAN ROSS SPEARS)

Jessica Woolen, formerly Jessica Spears, submitted a declaration in support of her claim.

Decl. of Jessica Woolen.4 Jessica was just eleven years old when she learned of her brother

Jonathan’s death. She was the one who answered the door when the Marines came to inform the

4
The Declaration of Jessica Woolen is maintained by the undersigned and can be provided to the Court promptly.
13
family, an experience that has left lasting psychological effects. The loss of her brother led to

severe mental health issues. She was eventually diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder and

Generalized Anxiety Disorder, which continue to affect her. She has spent over a decade with

mental health professionals and has been treated with 7 antidepressant medications. She attempted

suicide at age 17.

Jessica’s mental health challenges have affected her education and career. She has had to

withdraw from courses due to depression and anxiety. She has faced significant financial losses

due to unreimbursed tuition. She has been enrolled for nearly 8 years attempting to get her Bachelor

degree. Despite these challenges, Jessica is close to completing an accounting degree from the

University of West Florida.

The emotional toll of losing Jonathan was compounded by the suicide of their mother three

years later. She states that her brother’s death and its effects have affected her health: she had

two miscarriages potentially linked to her mental health conditions. She rarely leaves the house, is

socially isolated and carries the grief of her loss with her at all times.

3. JENNIFER GLODFELTER (SISTER OF CPL. JONATHAN ROSS SPEARS)

Jennifer Glodfelter, formerly Jennifer Spears, is the sister of Jonathan Spears. She provided

declaration testimony in support of her claim. Decl. of Jennifer Spears.5 She was only nine years

old when her brother was killed. Id.

In her declaration, Jennifer states that her ‘world changed instantly’ when she learned of

her brother’s death. She not only lost her brother, but she lost her mother as well. Her mother

struggled with grief and three years later took her own life at Jonathan’s gravesite. She missed out

on a real childhood and functioned without the emotional support children take for granted. She

5
The Declaration of Jennifer Spears is maintained by the undersigned and can be provided to the Court promptly.
14
continues to feel the emotional consequences and carries the grief. The loss continues to influence

her views on family, safety, and love, leaving her with enduring emotional pain.

B. FAMILY OF SERGEANT DANIEL RYAN VARNADO

Daniel Varnado is survived by his wife, Sharon Michelle Shavers-Varnado, and his son,

Kannon Joshua Varnado.

1. SHARON SHAVERS-VARNADO (WIDOW OF DANIEL VARNADO)

Sharon Shavers-Varnado testified at the Bellwether hearing on July 25, 2024. Bellwether

Hearing Transcript, July 23, 2024, at 57-67. Sharon Shavers described her romance with and

marriage to Sergeant Daniel Varnado. When Daniel was deployed, Sharon took a course in

cosmetology. The plan was that she would be able to work to support the family when Daniel came

back and started school. She describes being in a daze when she learned of Daniel’s death. She

was only 20 years old when her husband was killed. Shortly after Daniel was killed, Sharon was

caught in Hurricane Katrina and did not have a stable place to live for some time. She described

having memory issues because she was in ‘survival’ mode for so long. She has worked with

psychiatrists to address these issues. Sharon remarried in 2006 – and her husband was also in the

military and suffers from PTSD.

2. KANNON JOSHUA VARNADO (SON OF DANIEL VARNADO)

Kannon Varnado, the son of Sergeant Daniel Varnado and Sharon Shavers, was a toddler

when his father was killed in action. Kannon Varnado provided deposition testimony in support

of his claim. Deposition of Kannon Varnado.6 Kannon never knew his father – but he testified

that he heard many stories about his dad growing up. He felt the loss of his father and it hit him

particularly hard when he entered middle school. It was ‘tough’. He recalls having a dream about

6
The transcript of the deposition of Kannon Varnado is maintained by the undersigned and can be provided to the Court
promptly.
15
his father and crying when he woke up. He felt empty and lonely growing up. He had a connection

to his father through baseball. Daniel was a baseball player and Kannon has followed in his

footsteps. He met many people who knew his father – and at times it felt like he had to live up to

his father’s memory. He has had a difficult relationship with his father’s side of the family. He

felt all the emotions of the loss of his father when he got older and realized what had happened.

He often thinks about what life would be like with his father.

As he matured, he was introduced to Danny’s military life, which provided a broader

understanding of his father’s legacy. His life has been heavily influenced by his father’s legacy,

with constant reminders through community connections and expectations in sports.

Sharon Shavers believes that Kannon missed out on having Danny as a life coach and best

friend, emphasizing that the absence of a father is an irreplaceable void in Kannon’s life, which

continues to affect him deeply.

ANALYSIS OF COMPENSATORY DAMAGES

I. ECONOMIC LOSS ANALYSIS

“Section 1605A of the FSIA explicitly provides that foreign state-sponsors of terrorism are liable

to victims for economic losses stemming from injuries or death sustained as a result of the foreign state’s

conduct.” Thuneibat v. Syrian Arab Republic, 167 F. Supp. 3d 22, 48 (D.D.C. 2016) (Syrian Arab

Republic was liable to citizens’ estates and families, under FSIA, for economic losses) (citing 28 U.S.C.

§ 1605A(c)). See also Roth, 78 F. Supp. 3d at 402; Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 700 F. Supp. 2d

52, 83 (D.D.C. 2010).

Economic loss damages must be supported by credible evidence and may be proven by the

submission of a forensic economist’s expert report that is based on reasonable data and assumptions.

Winternitz v. Syrian Arab Republic, No. CV 17-2104 (TJK), 2022 WL 971328, at *10 (D.D.C. Mar. 31,

2022) (“The report of a forensic economist may provide a reasonable basis for determining the amount
16
of economic damages in an FSIA case”) (citing Reed v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 845 F. Supp. 2d 204,

214 (D.D.C. 2012)); Roth, 78 F. Supp. 3d at 402 (citing Belkin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 667 F. Supp.

2d 8, 24 (D.D.C. 2009)). “In considering an award for lost future earnings, the Court shall take account

of the reasonableness and foundation of the assumptions relied upon by the expert.” Roth, 78 F. Supp.

3d at 402 (citing Reed, supra, 845 F. Supp. 2d 204, 214); see also Thuneibat, 167 F. Supp. 3d at 48-49.

The “estate of a plaintiff who would have had standing to sue ‘is expressly covered by, and entitled to

bring claims under, Section 1605A(c).’” W.A. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 427 F. Supp. 3d 117, 138 (D.D.C.

2019) (“W.A. I”) (quoting Braun v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 228 F. Supp. 3d 64, 78-79 (D.D.C. 2017)). In order

for an estate-plaintiff to bring an action under the FSIA, “the plaintiff must first establish the estate’s standing,

or ‘[its] power . . . to bring and maintain legal claims.’” Barry v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 437 F. Supp. 3d 15,

36 (D.D.C. 2020) (“Barry II”) (quoting Cohen v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 238 F. Supp. 3d 71, 85 (D.D.C. 2017)

(“Cohen I”)). The “threshold question regarding the ‘power of the estate to bring and maintain legal claims’” is

governed by the “law of the state which also governs the creation of the estate.” Worley v. Islamic Republic of

Iran, 75 F. Supp. 3d 311, 333 (D.D.C. 2014) (quoting Taylor v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 811 F. Supp. 2d 1, 12-

13 (D.D.C. 2011)).

Plaintiffs have submitted reports of John Cary, who is an expert in vocational assessment and

development of life care plans and Richard Hoffman – who is a CPA and certified valuation analyst in

support of each claim for economic loss damages. The Plaintiffs seek economic loss for all of the

bellwether plaintiffs, including family members of Direct Victims.

The economic loss submissions include an evaluation of earning capacity before the attack

(which is presented as an overall earning capacity for the duration of work life) prepared by John Cary

and a separate computation of economic loss adopting the underlying compensation data from John

Cary as the initial step in the calculation process. The damages submissions include a detailed analysis

of future medical and care needs for each of the injured Direct Victims and for family members. The

calculations of ‘past economic loss’ are presented in a format somewhat different than the typical
17
submission in FSIA cases. Generally, courts have accepted loss analyses that start with a determination

of the plaintiff’s earning capacity based on history, education, and occupational goals that is then used

to compute lost wages annual through the relevant period. Typically the computations show the annual

growth in wages based on factors such as inflation, standard growth rate observed for the particular

occupation over a relevant period of time (reported in standard data sources), and programs for

promotion for the average worker in the particular occupation. In this case, the military pay scales

published by the Department of Defense provide reasonable and ascertainable data to the extent that the

loss assumes that the victim would have continued in the military. The computation might also include

a factor for lost benefits. The analysis of lost wages include a deduction for costs – such as taxes and

in some cases personal consumption. For future projected loss, the methodology is the same but the

growth factor might be a blended rate derived from multiple past years and the resulting amount of

compensation projected for each year is discounted to present value. The calculations presented here

are different in certain respects, which are explained in the discussion regarding each specific victim

below.

A. Economic Loss Damages: Estate of Jonathan Ross Spears (Direct Victim)

Plaintiffs have submitted two expert reports that address the computation of economic loss for

the Estate of Jonathan Spears. Mr. Cary7 evaluated the Corporal Spears’ capacity for earnings both in

the military and in a civilian career. He determined that the two were generally equivalent. Mr. Cary

determined (using a calculation function on a Department of Defense website) that the effective

annual value of the compensation that Corporal Spears would have received had he lived to complete

7
John Cary has a master’s degree from Western Washington University’s Woodring College of Education Rehabilitation
Counseling, Class of 2014. He is a Certified Rehabilitation Counselor and Certified Disability Management Specialist.
He has clinical experience in the medical, psychiatric, and psychosocial aspects of disability from working with and
assessing individuals with a wide variety of injuries and disabilities in a clinical setting since 2005. Cary Report, Spears
Family, Bellwether Hearing Exh. P0340 at 00005.
P0340.00005
18
40 years of service in the military is $211,115. This amount includes basic pay plus BAH and BAS

(which are allowances provided to the military for housing and other costs of living.) He multiplies

that annual compensation amount by the number of years of expected work life - i.e. 40 years. This

computation totals $8,444,592. He then determines the value of the lost pension at $10,802,660.

In a communication with counsel, I requested further information and suggested that this type

of computation would not meet the requirements that courts have articulated in FSIA cases. Counsel

then submitted additional economic loss calculations prepared by Richard Hoffman.8

Richard Hoffman provided a chart that adjusts the computations provided by Mr. Cary. The

chart computes ‘past loss’ only through mid-2024 – (18.72 years of loss – as opposed to 40 years).

The calculation applies the same annual compensation amount of $211,115 as the starting point. Mr.

Hoffman then applies a consumption factor deduction – which is appropriate and standard when

computing loss in the context of a wrongful death action.9 The consumption factor and the shorter

time period result in a past loss amount of $2,844,874. Mr. Hoffman then computes future lost

earnings. He begins with the compensation amount of $211,115 and applies a growth rate of 2.65%

for each year. The growth rate was calculated based on an analysis of the growth rate of military pay

over a 20 year period. He then applies the consumption rate deduction to the annual amount

computed for each year after adding in the growth rate. He does not include any deduction for taxes.

Finally, he adjusts the resulting annual loss amounts to reduce them to present value. He uses a

discount rate of 4.5% (which is based on the rate for a 20 year US Treasury Bond in 2024.)

8
Mr. Hoffman is a Managing Director of Lone Peak Valuation Group. Prior to Lone Peak, he was a Managing Director in
the international professional services firm of LECG. He has over thirty years of experience in public accounting and is a
Certified Public Accountant. He is also accredited in business valuations through the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants. He has taught the proper methodology of calculating damages on behalf of the National Association of
Certified Valuation Analysts. He is the author of multiple articles. Mr. Hoffman, in my view, has the appropriate
qualifications to provide an expert analysis of past and future lost income.
9
Mr. Hoffman applies date from the Personal Consumption by Family Type and Household Income, K. Krueger, based on
the Consumer Expenditure Survey.
19
In another communication with counsel, I suggested that the amount provided for lost pension

was stated incorrectly because it was the full value of a pension that would be paid over decades. The

experts agreed and provided an adjusted pension amount which applied an appropriate present value

discount. The experts also provided a factor that could be used to adjust the numbers to account for

taxes. The total loss using these numbers and methodology and applying the tax adjustment10 is:

$8,427,858 for past loss including the present value of the lost pension and $2,039,333 for future loss

(in present value terms). The methodology applied for the future loss and for the pension are

reasonable and sound. The only issue with the future loss computation is the starting point: the

compensation amount of $211,115 is an amount that overstates the compensation level by

approximately 3.6%.

I prepared a separate computation of the aggregate loss through the date of Mr. Cary’s report

using the same calculator from the DOD website by computing the loss for each year after Corporal

Spears’ death until mid 2024. The aggregate amount of loss before accounting for consumption and

taxes is $3,302,705.68. The maximum annual compensation amount as of 2024 is $203,510. After

applying a deduction for taxes and consumption, the past economic loss is: $2,074.760. The present

value of the lost pension is: $5,945,705. The total past loss is the sum of these two numbers:

$8,020,465.

My recommendation, after testing these calculations, is to adjust the past loss number per the

calculation above for a total past loss of $8,020,465 and to accept the future loss number of

$2,039,333. Although the starting point for the future loss calculation is slightly overstated, the

computations do not incorporate any factor for promotions during work life and do not include

10
The tax adjustment is applied only to the portion of the compensation that is actual pay and not to the benefits portion.
20
additional forms of pay – such as combat pay. Accordingly, the compensation value is conservative –

making it a reasonable basis from which to compute future loss.

B. Economic Loss Damages: Estate of Daniel Varnado (Direct Victim)

Plaintiffs submitted two reports addressing the economic loss computation for Sergeant

Varnado. Mr. Cary provided a report analyzing Daniel Varnado’s pre death earning capacity under

two different scenarios: the first scenario assumes Daniel Varnado would have entered the work force

as a civilian after completion of his tour of duty. The second scenario assumes Daniel Varnado would

have embarked on a military career. In each case, Mr. Cary computes a compensation level from

which he then computes total lost earnings and pension. For the civilian career, Mr. Cary applied data

regarding salaries for state and local government employees from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I

have reviewed the source cited but cannot identify the source of the actual numbers applied in Mr.

Cary’s report. For the military career scenario, Mr. Cary has adopted a compensation level that

would be achieved after 40 years of service and applies that to the past loss period (which is

approximately 20 years of service.) As noted in the discussion above, I prepared a computation using

year by year compensation from the DOD website. That computation yields an aggregate amount of

lost compensation of $1,995,028 (compared to $2,916,946 computed by Mr. Cary and applied by Mr.

Hoffman.) Based on the year by year analysis, I recommend using the aggregate amount of

$1,995,028 as the starting point for past loss and deducting the amount for taxes and consumption

based on the data provided by Mr. Hoffman.11 After applying those deductions, the past loss is

$1,253,277. The lost pension was computed by Mr. Cary and Mr. Hoffman on a present value basis

at $1,912,045. The total past loss using these calculations would be $3,165,322.

11
Mr. Hoffman proposes a consumption deduction of 28% and advised that a reasonable tax rate would be 15%. Taxes
are only assessed on the salary portion of the total compensation and not on the benefits portion.
21
The future loss in the military scenario relies on the salary level computed by Mr. Cary of

$152,442 as the starting point – but the year by year analysis shows that the salary level (including the

designated benefits) in 2024 was $134,500. Mr. Hoffman computed future lost earnings in the

military scenario as $1,555,848. This amount was computed using a higher starting compensation

amount (as noted above) and does not account for taxes. If adjusted for taxes using the factor

indicated by Mr. Hoffman, the total amount is $1,357,478. Although the starting compensation value

for the future loss computation is higher than the number derived in the year by year analysis, again,

the computation does not take into account likely promotions and other forms of pay relevant to those

in the military. Accordingly, given the inherent uncertainties in any future loss calculation, Mr.

Hoffman’s calculation provides a reasonable basis for the determination of future loss. Under the

military scenario, applying the noted adjustments, the total loss would be $4,522,800.

C. Economic Loss Damages: Lance Ashley Gieselmann (Direct Victim)

Lance Gieselmann has sustained extraordinary injuries as a result of the terrorist act and has

severe ongoing medical, psychological, and financial challenges. He requires ongoing medication,

experiences constant complications from his injuries and the treatment for those injuries including

persistent infections. He is unable to perform simple tasks in a reasonable time frame due to his

physical limitations. He suffers from ongoing psychological injuries. Lance Geiselmann is not able

to sustain any reasonable employment and therefore is entitled to an economic loss award.

Mr. Cary prepared an analysis of Lance Gieselmann’s earning capacity in the military,

followed by a civilian career after retirement from the military. This ‘two part’ career path is common

among those in the uniformed services. Mr. Cary determined the lost wages during the planned

military service based on Department of Defense data (as described above). Mr. Cary determined a

likely compensation amount in a subsequent civilian career assuming that Mr. Cary would employ the
22
transferable skills obtained in the military in a civilian career and did not assume that Mr. Cary would

obtain a college degree that might result in higher wages. The compensation amount for the projected

civilian career (including a pension amount) is based on the assumption that Lance Gieselmann would

likely go into government service (as did many Gulf War veterans) and the salary level is based on the

General Schedule (the schedule setting government pay scales). In general, subject to the adjustment

for taxes and reducing the pension amount to present value, these assumptions are reasonable and

reliable. The past loss wages were computed by Mr. Cary based on an assumed salary including

certain benefits of $70,411 for a total past loss of $1,056,165. He computed a loss from a civilian

career of $310,083 for a total of $1,366,248. I have conducted the year by year loss analysis using the

same computation formula used by Mr. Cary and I compute a total loss of $1,430,288.30. This

amount should be adjusted for taxes which, using the rate provided by the experts, would reduce this

amount to $1,247,927. The present value of the lost pension – as computed by Mr. Cary and Mr.

Hoffman - is $1,030,393 - for a total past loss of $2,278,320.

Mr. Hoffman prepared a future economic loss computation that starts with the annual

compensation level for civilian work computed by Mr. Cary as of 2024. The computation then grows

the compensation amount each year applying a reasonable factor to determine an annual amount until

the end of work life. Mr. Hoffman then reduces the amount to present value for a total projected

future loss of $1,137,427. The data applied and the methodology are sound and supportable. The

computation does not take into account a deduction for taxes. Accordingly, based on the further input

from the expert, I have made a reduction to account for taxes. The total amount of future lost wages

applying the above factors and accounting for taxes is $966,813. Accordingly, I recommend a total

future loss for Mr. Gieselmann of $966,813. Mr. Cary also computed future medical expenses.

Although infrequent, courts have awarded past and future medical expenses as part of the

compensatory damages in FSIA cases. See e.g. Khosravi v. Government of the Islamic Republic of
23
Iran, Case no. 1:16cv 02066 (TSC) 2020 WL 492495 (D.D.C. August 21, 2020). Mr. Cary includes

in his report a detailed chart of past medical visits and an average cost for the types of treatment

received. In addition, the report includes the cost of equipment (wheelchairs and similar equipment)

and extensive home modifications, adaptive recreational equipment, therapy dog, care givers,

therapists, and future assistance with financial and similar matters due to cognitive impairment. The

list of care includes equine therapy, marriage counseling retreat, house cleaning, standard medications

like aspirin, hibiclens, bandaids, and similar typical supplies. The costs anticipate future surgeries,

tests, x rays, and scans – and ongoing medication. It includes a second residency, zero entry pool,

holiday travel and pay for caregivers, skilled nursing. The report notes that Mrs. Gieselmann

currently spends approximately 40 hours a week as a caregiver. The report does note that some care

and some costs might be covered by VA or other benefits to which Mr. Gieselmann is entitled but

does not quantify those benefits.

Mr. Hoffman prepared a chart computing the overall costs of the treatment and other items

identified in Mr. Cary’s report including an inflation factor for the increases in the cost of medical

care and a present value discount. The total discounted costs per Mr. Hoffman’s computation over

Mr. Gieselmann’s expected lifetime is $22,726,590. This is an extraordinary amount. In the case

cited above the future medical expenses totaled approximately $275,000. Although Mr. Gieselmann’s

situation is extremely sympathetic, it seems that many of these costs would be covered by his benefits

– and some are perhaps speculative – because they anticipate the need for various evaluations,

treatments, and tests in the future for potential effects of his injuries. Given these uncertainties and

the lack of data on the treatment and benefits that will be provided through the VA and other sources,

it is difficult to recommend an award for medical costs. I suggest that this issue could be the subject

of further investigation and if warranted a future additional award could be issued.

24
D. Economic Loss Damages: Richard S. Ford (Direct Victim)

Plaintiffs submitted the report of John Cary and the report of Richard Hoffman in support of

the economic loss claim of Richard Ford. The analyses have the same components as the reports

described above. In this case, however, Richard Ford did not leave the service after his injury.

Instead, Richard Ford remained in the service for 7 more years but did not move up in rank. Mr. Cary

concludes based on the medical evidence that Richard Ford had a diminished work capacity after the

injury and that he would have been promoted had he not been injured. Mr. Cary therefore computes

the amount of compensation lost due to the lack of promotion and discharge before the end of work

life. Mr. Cary’s calculations apply an annual compensation rate of $152,442 – which is the

compensation amount Richard Ford would have earned after 39 years of service at a rank of E-9. See

Report of John Cary, Bellwether Hearing Exh. P0335.00030. (Richard Ford was an E-6 when

discharged but Mr. Cary has determined that he more likely than not would have been promoted to E-

9 and would have completed his full military service at that level.) Mr. Cary calculates a past loss

based on this annual compensation number of $2,134,183. The year by year analysis (as described

above) yields a loss of $1,784,935 – adopting Mr. Cary’s conclusion that Richard Ford would have

achieved an E-9 level had he not been injured. After adjusting for taxes, the loss would be:

$1,557,356. After adding the present value of the pension ($1,442,360) the loss would be $2,999,716.

Mr. Cary deducted from his past loss calculation $92,400 – which are mitigating earnings – actual

earnings that Richard Ford received for post discharge work. After deducting that amount, the past

loss would be $2,907,316. Mr. Hoffman calculated the future lost earnings as $315,800. I

recommend a past loss award of $2,907,316 and a future loss award of $315,800.

Mr. Cary provided an extensive list of projected future medical treatments and costs that

would be incurred to provide various anticipated therapies and assistance – including various

equipment, care givers, supplies, anticipated potential evaluations. As discussed above, while it is
25
reasonable to anticipate some medical expenses, and while the list is detailed and cost data is derived

from actual costs, the total amount projected is very substantial ($10,518,068) and the analysis does

not address costs and treatments that are provided through existing sources. I suggest that this

element of damages requires additional proof and analysis – and I therefore recommend that it be

submitted in a subsequent proceeding with more extensive support.

E. Economic Loss Damages: Kevin J. Rumley (Direct Victim)

Plaintiffs submitted the report of John Cary and the report of Richard Hoffman in support of

the economic loss claim of Kevin Rumley. The analysis follows the same basic structure described

above. The past loss was calculated by Mr. Cary using a compensation level applicable to

approximately 2024 – and applied to the years from the date of injury to 2024. That calculation yields

a total amount for past earnings loss of $4,949,693. The year by year analysis applying the actual

compensation amounts for each year yields a total of $4,770,071. Mr. Cary deducts an amount for

residual earning capacity – of $1,198,766. After deducting this amount, the past lost would be

$3,750,927 using Mr. Cary’s numbers and $3,571,305 using the year by year calculation. Both

numbers should be adjusted to account for taxes. After that deduction, the total using Mr. Cary’s

numbers would be $3,272,684. The total using the alternative calculation would be $3,115,964. The

total lost pension amount, as provided by Mr. Cary and Mr. Hoffman on a present value basis is

$2,636,779. Using these computations, the total past loss would be $5,752,743 (using the alternative

calculation) and $5,909,463 using Mr. Cary’s past lost salary calculations.

The total present value of the future loss calculation by Mr. Hoffman is $4,744,290 – without

applying a deduction for taxes. After deducting a factor for taxes, the future loss is $4,139,393. I

recommend an award for past economic loss of $5,752,743 and future economic loss of $4,139,393.

Mr. Hoffman’s report includes an amount for future medical expenses based on Mr. Cary’s

projections. The total amount of projected medical expenses is $14,390,695 for various treatments,
26
medication, equipment, supplies, care givers, assistants, therapies, diagnostic procedures for a period

of 37 years. Similar to the discussion above, these are potential costs and given the amount of these

projected costs, it would be preferable to develop more evidence of their likelihood and need.

Accordingly, I recommend deferring any award for future medical costs pending development of a

more extensive record.

F. Economic Loss Damages: Timothy J. Pope Jr. (Direct Victim)

Plaintiffs submitted a report prepared by Mr. Cary and a report prepared by Mr. Hoffman to

support the claim for economic loss damages for Timothy Pope. According to Mr. Cary’s report,

Timothy Pope had not worked for 20 years after leaving the military but had recently started work as a

plumber. Mr. Cary reports that although Timothy Pope was discharged from the service at level E-4,

based on his qualifications, he would have progressed to level E-7 and pursued a full military career.

Thereafter, according to Mr. Cary, he more likely than not would have pursued a post military civilian

career. (As noted, this is a common progression among members of the military.) Mr. Cary thus

computes the loss earnings had the military career continued at the E-7 compensation level achieved

at 26 years of service and then computes a loss based on a projected civilian salary for an additional

23 years. The loss based on military service under these assumptions is projected to be $2,950,198.

This amount is computed using an annual salary of $113,469 – which as noted – is the compensation

amount attained after 26 years of service applied for a period of 26 years. I computed a year by year

loss using the compensation amounts for level E-7 as suggested by Mr. Cary. The total loss from end

of service through mid 2024 - a period of 17 years - is $1,640,397. Mr. Cary concludes that Mr. Pope

would have embarked on a civilian career at a starting salary of $117,000 based the salary for a GS 12

in North Carolina. Mr. Cary concludes that Timothy Pope would have continued in this position for

23 years.

27
Mr. Hoffman computed the future economic loss starting in mid 2024. He computes loss of

military wages for approximately 5.5 years and then computes loss in a civilian occupation for an

additional 15 years. To compute the losses, Mr. Hoffman relies on the annual compensation levels

projected by Mr. Cary and then applies growth rates and benefits consistent with the factors applied in

reports discussed earlier. This computation yields a total loss reduced to present value (using the

same discount rate) of $4,029,906 before accounting for taxes. After adjusting for taxes, the loss is

$3,425,421.

The past loss, using the year by year analysis after adjusting for taxes is $1,431,246. The present

value of the lost pension according to Mr. Cary and Mr. Hoffman is $1,524,352. The total past loss

using the year by year analysis is therefore $$2,955,598.

Mr. Hoffman includes an amount for future medical expenses for a period of 35 years totaling

$14,253,097. As stated with respect to similar medical expense amounts submitted for other

plaintiffs, it would be preferable to defer any award for such expenses pending further proof. Many of

the items listed are similar to those listed for other plaintiffs.

G. Economic Loss Damages: Michael S. Anderson (Direct Victim)

Plaintiffs submitted the report of John Cary and the report of Richard Hoffman in support of the

claim of economic loss damages for Michael Anderson. Mr. Cary determined that Michael Anderson

would have progressed to a level E-8 in the military had he no

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11062349. Public record. Not legal advice.