dojW000368.xml

dojW000368.xml

born-digital

email

yes

no

2001-11-16

Friday, November 16, 2001 10:26 PM
Please Help!!


>

>

>

> Submitted to:

>

> Kenneth L. Zwik, Director

> Office of Management Programs

> U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division

> Email: victimcom.comments@usdoj.gov

>

> Submitted by:

>

>

>

> November 16, 2001

>

> Dear Mr. Zwik:

>

> As a relative of one of the victims of the September 11th terrorist

> attacks, I trust that the regulations for the Victims Compensation Fund

> ("the Fund") can be fashioned in such a manner to bring equity and closure

> this most awful chapter in American history. Towards that end, the Fund

> must be structured to encourage victims' families to surrender their rights

> to sue because they believe they will be treated fairly and promptly. To

> send such a compelling message I respectfully submit that the regulations

> must contain following elements:

>

> 1. Do not reduce the award from any collateral source funds collected,

> including insurance, pension benefits, death benefits, and governmental

> payments (which we understand are being considered as offsets). Such

> offsets should be disallowed for, among other reasons, the same reason the

> IRS exempts life insurance proceeds from taxation (i.e., to encourage

> citizens to plan for their heirs). Such offsets would penalize those

> victims who sacrificed and saved for their families' futures and unjustly

> transfer these assets, thereby representing a lifetime of work, to

> insurance companies and other corporate entities that may share the blame

> for the consequences that resulted from the tragic events of 9/11. In

> a nutshell, these assets have nothing to do with the damages that flowed

> from 9/11, and therefore there should be no offset to damages based on the

> net worth of the victims' families. It would also result in awarding more

> in damages to those who did not sacrifice and save for their families'

> futures, which would be an inequitable result.

>

> 2. Provide the victims' families with the right to appeal the award, as

> doing so would undoubtedly increase participation in the Fund.

>

> 3. Should the Department of Justice decline to offer victims' families

> the right to appeal, then at a minimum they should have input regarding the

> selection of the mediator who would decide the award. The government

> should provide a list of potential mediators with their background (e.g.,

> educational, work experience, prior award history, etc.), which would allow

> victims' families to make an informed choice.

>

> 4. There should be set parameters for calculating damages (i.e.,

> mathematical formula factoring lost future earnings, pension benefits,

> number of children, and other pecuniary benefits that would have been

> earned taking into consideration life expectancy tables), that would

> provide a floor for calculating damages and provide assurance to victims'

> families as to what they could expect to receive, at a minimum, if they

> elected to opt into the Fund. I believe this has been referred to in the

> press as the development of a "grid." In short, the victims' families

> should be able to calculate, with some certainty, the minimum amount of

> money they could expect to be awarded prior to participating in the

> hearing. That should serve as a powerful inducement to opt into the Fund.

>

> 5. Determine pain and suffering at the hearing.

>

> 6. If the mediator deviates for the guidelines the victims' families

> should be able to appeal the decision.

>

> 7. The regulations should include a scheme that would afford the victims'

> families one that is similar to the one they would enjoy in a wrongful

> death case. The amount awarded as damages should include all funeral,

> burial, and estate administration expenses incurred. Importantly, the

> amount should compensate the victims' family for contributions they would

> have received between the time of his death and the end of this life

> expectancy, such as future lost wages. His gross earnings, including all

> fringe benefits between the date of his death and his life expectancy, must

> be factored in. Additionally, all monies the victim would have spent for

> or given to his family for such items as shelter, food, clothing, medical

> car, education, entertainment, gifts and recreation, taking into account

> his salary and age, must also be considered. The amount awarded should

> also consider the comfort and friendship that he would have given to his

> family had he lived and such other elements as work around the home and

> provision of society and comfort.

>

> 8. Since the amount awarded would be intended to restore the victim's

> family's loss, it should not be considered as "income." Therefore, it

> should not be taxable by the federal or state taxing authorities.

>

>

> In closing, I understand that the DOJ is suggesting that the victims'

> families surrender their right to sue without advising them what they

> can anticipate by way of award and without the ability to appeal such

> award. This is, to be kind, unacceptable. The above suggestions would

> encourage attorneys and families alike to opt into the Fund, thereby

> forgoing their right to sue. This would bring closure to an American

> Tragedy and reassure victims' families that our government has their

> best interests at heart. We only want to place them in the financial

> position they would have been in had their loved ones not been taken

> away in the worst terrorist attacks in American history?which may have

> been avoided. But that is another story. Thank you.

>

> Respectfully,

>

> Individual Comment

>

> Bellmore, NY

>

>

2001-11-16