dojW000352.xml

dojW000352.xml

born-digital

email

yes

no

2001-11-14

Wednesday, November 14, 2001 10:29 PM
Comments on 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund

Before I get into specific comments, I do not think the federal government should be doing this at all! I would really like to see what the Supreme Court Justices think of this! But it looks like it is going to happen. So ...

DEATHS
Boy - what a can of worms you are opening up! After a first-reading of this material and based on my recent experience as a personal representative (my spouse died - also in an unexpected situation involving search-and-rescue/recovery operations) in which there was no will, an ex-wife (and so potentially a probate effecting divorce settlement), minor children from a previous marriage, multiple states involved, not to mention parents-and-siblings-of-the-deceased who just could NOT accept the fact that they are not 'legal heirs' in probate matters, AND ON AND ON AND ON! You have a chicken-and-egg question here - you cannot determine needs until the estate is settled and the estate cannot be settled without taking potential compensation into account! What about claims by creditors of the deceased? What if the will explicitly excludes the spouse/children and leaves the estate to someone else? Divorce settlements, child support agreements/orders, prenuptial agreements, same-sex partners, divorces filed but not yet settled, short-duration vs. long-duration marriages, same-sex partners - all of these are problems are to be expected and better be taken in to account ahead of time. If you go the 'personal representative' route, then it is the desires of the deceased as reflected in a will that will count. If no will, then intestate laws. But either way, the compensation is tied to the estate of the deceased. If you want to sever any tie to the estate, then you also have to sever the tie to 'legal heir'. In which case you will start getting claims from 'significant others'.

My recommendation: In the case of death, I would limit the compensation to payment of any benefit from a life insurance policy held by the deceased (independent or thru employer) but which was not payable due to the circumstances of the death ('act of war' or something). The beneficiary on the life insurance policy would be the recipient. All taxes/etc. issues would apply just as if the benefit came directly from the insurance policy issuer. No waivers required, no probate complications, case closed. If the deceased DID NOT have any life insurance, I would limit the compensation to whatever is provided for enlisted personnel killed (like the guys in the helicopter that went down). The military policy probably already has all the definitions/specifics needed in this situation. Under this 'plan', if the deceased had life insurance and it was paid, no further compensation would be made under any circumstances!

PHYSICALLY INJURED
I would limit 'qualification' to those who have verifiable proof that they were injured enough to have required medical treatment within the first 24 hours after having left or been freed from the site in question (they might have been trapped for more than the first 24 hours!). The source of their injuries would most likely be stated on the record of the medical treatment ('was at WTC site') or, if not, would have to be verified by other means (the physician, etc.) - this would satisfy the 'present at' issue. If the injury was not enough to even require treatment, no compensation is justifiable - thus settling the "physical harm" question. The 24-hour limit settles the "immediate aftermath" question. People who were officially on site after the first 24-hour period all have injury coverage/compensation accounted for by other means. Anyone else claiming an injury AFTER the first 24-hours was well aware of what they were getting into and probably were not authorized to be there anyway! The amount of compensation would be equal to the cost of all medical expenses directly attributable to their 9/11 injury which their insurance (if any) did not cover - whether due to deductible, co-pay, not-covered, etc. It should be like 'secondary insurance' - just pick up the rest of the medical bill, but nothing else.

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION FOR INSURANCE PITFALLS!
I would also provide compensation for any home owners, auto, personal property insurance that was carried but for which payment was not received due to the circumstances ('act of war'). I see this clause all over, and I'll bet some people get hit with it. Since I think it is pretty well accepted that this circumstance is considered as-close-to-an-act-of-war-as-anything, the compensation fund should cover this exclusion - according to the policy held (amount, replacement cost, etc.).

That is it. Nothing else. They should not get anything else FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT concerning lost jobs, trouble meeting bills, future earnings, mental conditions, special unemployment benefits, special health insurance benefits, college funds, lump sums, special income/estate tax treatment, etc. All of their other needs are going to be more-than-met by the private sector. 'BLEEDING HEART' IS NOT THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!

Individual Comment

2001-11-14