dojN002168.xml

dojN002168.xml

born-digital

email

yes

no

2002-01-21

Monday, January 21, 2002 12:57 PM
Victims Compensation Fund

I am the surviving spouse of a TWC victim, . She worked on the floor of WTC Tower 2 for the .

The victims compensation fund as proposed in the interim final regulations is an insult to her memory and an invitation for many surviving families to sue, rather than to accept the crumbs being offered.

The idea, seemingly created unilaterally by Mr. Feinberg, that each life is worth only $250,000 is absurd. Given the awards granted in litigation with respect to non-economic loss, quite often in the millions of dollars, it is an insult to us and the victims to offer such a pittance.

I appreciate the fact that Congress provided for collateral offsets, but they should apply, if at all, to economic losses, not grief, suffering, loss of companionship, etc. There are no monetary offsets to ease that pain.

The regulations indicate that the award would not be subject to income tax, but do not address estate tax issues. Is the award payable to the estate, and therefore subject to immediate estate taxes, or is it payable to the families ?

In calculating the collateral offset amounts, many of us have offsets that are not easy to quantify. I will receive 50 % of my wife's salary, indexed for inflation, until the earlier of my remarrying, or my death. How do I, or you, calculate the amount of the offset ? Without knowing how to make the calculation, how are we expected to make an informed decision ? Even if we assume that I will not remarry, do I include the payments for my full actuarial life expectancy, or only for the time period for which you gave credit for her anticipated earnings ?

Those families that will receive nothing, such as most uniformed service situations, and those where earnings were greater than $231,000 are virtually being invited to litigate rather than participate in the fund. It seems illogical that Congress intended that to be the result. There is no dollar cap in the Act itself, and accordingly there seems to be no basis in law for its arbitrary imposition. Allowing an appeal for unusual circumstances is not the same as removing this unilateral restriction.

I look forward to the promulgation of final rules and regulations that will address these and other issues, such as the use of inappropriate tables.

Individual Comment
New York, NY

2002-01-21