dojW000735.xml

dojW000735.xml

born-digital

email

yes

no

2001-11-29

November 26th, 2001



Dear Mr. Zwick,



My husband died in the North Tower of the World Trade Center on September 11th, We
have 3 children under the age 6. Below please find my comments in response to the
Notice of Rulemaking. I have addressed the points in your Notice by TOPIC as you have
indicated in your outline, except where I address point (C) in your General Approach to
Regulations...



Although I greatly appreciate the attempts of the US government to minimize the anxiety
of the families of the victims of the September 11th tragedy by providing an alternative to
litigation. it appears that the government is doing more to create a bureaucratic and
administrative nightmare for the victims of September 11 with how this fund may be
implemented, according to your notice.



In response to item (1) in your General Approach to Regulations, that individuals need
information on how the compensation program works before they determine whether the
compensation program is a viable alternative to continuing litigation with the airlines, let
me tell you first, that your plan targets a group of people who have had the very worst
possible nightmare and their backs up against the wall in terms of how to put their lives
together. Your proposal to waive our rights to sue the Airlines. Government, Port
Authority, etc. when we file our claim further backs us into a corner with no where to go.
Asking us to waive our rights to sue prior to knowing exactly what special Master is
offering in dollar, does not afford us all of the information we need to make the best
possible decision for our families. I believe that all of the surviving families need to have.



1.) all of the facts, specifically dollar amount and form of payment to make a decision.

2.) a process by which to appeal your compensation "offer".



TOPIC 1 The forms to be used should be easy to fill out by all claimants.



TOPIC 2 The Information to Be Included On the Claims Form



Eligibilty Death certificate of victim or

Proof of physical harm



I do not believe a statement for the amount of compensation sought should be the
burden put on the victim's families. If I ask for 5 million and someone else asks
for 10 million, will they end up with more just because they shot a little higher?
If you are indeed fishing for indications as to what our expectations of the victim
compensation plan are, I believe you need a more forthright process prior to the
development of the form used to file a claim. In short, the form should not be
your fishing expedition regarding your liabilty to each victim's family.



As I stated above, I believe the government has to have some sort of
predetermined guideline formula for the victim compensation plan. Below please
find three components that are necessary to include on the compensation
guidelines. Based on the following components, it seems that a formula could be
designed to fairly compensate all of the survivors of the victims.



Economic Loss= Total income (salary and Bonus Where
applicable) (see w-2, maybe highest if last 5 years) times the
number of years to retirement age.

Non-Economic Loss-awarded to all survivors of victim
including, but not limited to, spouse, children, and parents. Non-
economic losses for children could be put in trust. This is probably
the only component of the compensation for which an oral hearing
maybe necessary because there are subjective needs in each of the
individuals cases.

Pain and suffering of the Victim=Consistent equal amount
awarded to all "personal representatives" of the victim.



TOPIC 3 Procedures for Hearing and the Presentation of evidence



A claimant should be permitted to re-file the claim if it is not properly filed for
lack of adequate supporting information. The Special Master may not have the
right to dismiss a claim for lack of adequate supporting information, at least in the
case where a death certificate is provided. The Special Master should inform the
claimant what additional information is required to file the claim if a claim form
is not sufficient.



Regarding an oral hearing, I believe that there are too many variables in having
hearing officers. There would be too many varibles in the hearing process from
the different "hearing officers" themselves to different "quality levels" of
representatives of the claimants. Hence, I do not believe that having oral hearings
would result in an equitable result for all of the survivors of this tragedy. The
only component that I believe is subjective in the plan is the non-economic
component. Non-economic losses could be quantified in a grid so that their
subjective nature would have some sort of guidelines. With predetermined
guidelines, the likelihood of survivors feeling that they were being treated fairly
would be increased. A fair plan will more likely encourage participants.



TOPIC 4 Procedures to assist and individual in filing and pursing claims under this
title.



Those claimants that need assistance in filing the claim should be able to have one
provided by the Special Master. Hopefully the Special Master will make the
forms required to file a claim easy to submit without much need for assistance.
Once agin, if the form were adquately designed and the regulations consistent,
with the variables being income, number of children, age, etc, there should be no
reason for one to need assistance in submitting a claim in the economic, and pain
and suffering component of the plan.


Lastly, I believe that the goal of the Special Master is to provide a suitable
alternative to litigation for the victims of the September 11 tragedy. If the Special
Master's goal is to provide the greatest benefit to the survivors of this tragedy.
Why would we want legal fees in the mix? With regard to legal fees, I believe if
the process were more standardized and simplified, at least for those who
sustained the loss of a loved one, (which should be where the majority of the fund
is directed), the government could provide the greatest benefit to the claimants,
while not reducing awards through the distribution of legal fees.



TOPIC 5 Claimant Eligibility



Claimants who are seeking compensation in the case of loosing a loved one
should be processed with proirity. Eligibility should be in the form of a death
certificate.



TOPIC 6 Nature and Amount of Compensation



The overall objective of everyone involved in this process should be making sure
that the surviving dependants of the victims are adequately provided for, as they
are our future. To be raised in the United States and know that their mother or
father was horrifically murdered by a terrorist act, which occurred while their
parent was at work, is obscene. These children have a burden that no other child
in our history has ever had to bear. No one should have to live below the standard
of living that they would have had. In addition, the victim compensation plan
should include as mentioned earlier in this document, pain and suffering of the
victim, and non-economic losses to the families.



Economic Loss:

With regard to our last statement in this paragraph. "The
Department invites comments on how to address the economic
losses of individuals whose lost future income streams would have
been highly contingent, variable or unpredictable." I pose the
question, whose furture income streams are not? The fact is, a
majority of the victims were young and not even at their peek
potential. I believe in the instances where children are involved,
the Special Master needs to determine a formula that factors in
probable future income increases.



Non-economic losses:

The non-economic component should be divided by the pain and
suffering of the victim and the non-economic losses of parents,
spouses, and children.



When considering non-economic losses, I would like to point out
the long-term effects of this kind of trauma. The stress our entire
family is under is unbearable. The physical and psychological
aspects are just beginning to surface. When I look at pictures of
our family together last Thanksgiving, we are different people. We
look totally different now. You can see it. How will our health be
affected by this stress? I believe non-economic losses should
consider this issue.



Collateral Sources

I strongly urge the government not to reduce the award by any
collateral sources of income. Doing so would provide a
disincentive for Americans to do what we do best: Use all of our
resources to provide and secure the best possible lifestyle possible
for our families and ourselves. Deducting collateral sources would
be a great injustice, because you are penalizing those who have
maximized their time and resources to achieve and secure the
American dream. Furthermore, by doing so, the non-economic
losses become greater. One's life insurance premium could have
prevented a victim from making another investments (not to
mention the "joy of life" activities which its sacrifice may have
prevented), which would not have been considered a deduction in
this case. Hence, deducting life insurance would be extremely
prejudicial and discriminatory. Having an insurance premium
produced financial sacrifices. Do not further penalize us because
we were fiscally responsible in our estate planning. Additionally
other investments should have no bearing on the award. All
"collateral sources of income" represent what our loved ones left
us. Please do not disregard the sacrifices our spouses and loved
ones made in providing for their families. The life insurance and
other collateral sources of income/investment represent the
sacrifices that were made by my husband for our family. Hasn't he
sacrificed enough already?



Thank you for the opportunity to submit my comments. This fund is a critical component
toward putting our lives back together. Please remember us as you embark on this
difficult task.



Sincerely,



September 11th Victim Spouse

2001-11-29