dojW000554.xml

dojW000554.xml

born-digital

email

yes

no

2001-11-25

Sunday, November 25, 2001 11:28 PM

(no subject)



Enclosed please find a letter detailing some comments shared by many widows
and family members.




Attachment 1:




November 19, 2001




Dear Mr. Zwick,





With heavy hearts we write this letter to you representing not only ourselves, but also the hundreds of other families whose loved ones were either hurt or killed in the tragic events of September 11, 2001.



On September 11th our lives spiraled out of control. Writing this letter to you in response to your request for comments about the Victims Compensation Fund is one step towards us regaining control over our new lives, and learning to have hope for tomorrow.



The Victims Compensation Fund's intent is to attempt to make whole the material damages of the victims. While the fund is set up as a convenient, expedient process, we are concerned about its implementation. In the spirit of your request for comments, we hope to contribute towards the better understanding of the families' needs in order to achieve the intended goal of the Victims Compensation Fund within the parameters of the legislation.





ECONOMIC LOSSES as pertaining to Section 405(b)(1)(B)(i)




Of paramount importance to us, is the computation of economic losses. We are expecting total economic recovery. Simply put, no one should be penalized because his or her loved one worked long, hard hours and earned a commensurate income. Our loved ones were not simply handed these positions. They earned them. They studied and worked their entire lives to get where they were on September 11th. And, no one, regardless of his or her income level, should be penalized for that. No one, regardless of their job title or form of occupation, should have their rightful economic recovery discounted.



We would request an approach similar to that which is used in personal injury actions; however, we would fully expect that neither age, nor marital status, nor dependency status would be a discriminatory factor. The decedent's income should be averaged over the past 3 working years. Factors such as inflation, wage-increases, merit, likely bonuses and advancement, and any other benefits should be considered.



For many, the lost income streams may be contingent, variable, or unpredictable. We do not believe that our families should be penalized because of this. The hearing officers should be permitted to consider the testimony of experts concerning such things as the likelihood of advancement, the bonus scheme unique to each company and each department in each company, economic cycles, performance reviews, as well as, how the compensation of other co-workers progressed during the course of their working lives. In those cases where the compensation is extremely variable and dependant upon commissions, as a base, we believe that the hearing officer should consider the average of the best three out of five years of employment.





NON-ECONOMIC LOSSES as pertaining to Section 405(b)(1)(B)(i)




Also of the utmost importance to us, is the fair and equal recovery for non-economic losses. At a base level, no one person's life should be valued more than another. Each family should be entitled to the same base amount of recovery. However, the hearing officer should not be precluded from a higher non-economic loss determination depending upon the merits of each case.



Each case should take into account the age of the decedent, the marital status of the decedent, and the number and ages of the decedent's children. Moreover, the severity of pain and suffering (both mental and physical) of not only the decedent, but also the spouse and any children of the decedent should also be factored into any final recovery. Any cost of counseling for the decedent's spouse and children should be recovered. If a decedent was not married and had no children, then his/her parents should recover under the fund or any other persons who would have a rightful claim under prevailing laws, or as a consequence of the decedent's will.



Non-economic losses should be calculated similar to that in personal injury actions. But, again, neither age, nor marital status, nor dependency status should be a detriment. In addition, special consideration must be given to the fact that eyewitness testimony concerning the horrific pain and suffering endured by our loved ones may be impossible to elicit. Thus, the hearing officer should consider the reports and/or testimony of expert witnesses who may describe based upon their training and experiences what the decedent went through both mentally and physically prior to his or her own death. Hearsay testimony should be permitted.



Certainly, we would appreciate any non-economic recovery from the fund being generous in light of the terrible circumstances of September 11th.





STANDARD OF DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION as pertaining to Sections 405(b)(1)(B)(i) &(ii)




With the passage of the most recent legislation limiting certain entities' liability to their insurance coverage levels, we find ourselves left with very little in the way of options. In fact, for some of us only one viable means of recovery remains-that of the compensation fund.



Therefore, we are going to need to have a better sense of what kind of compensation we might expect as a floor, should we elect to enter the fund.



Please understand that we are forfeiting our right to bring a third-party lawsuit. In doing so, we are forfeiting our right to find actual fault against an entity (be it the federal government, the Port Authority, the airlines, etc.). Undoubtedly, such a finding of fault would provide an immense psychological benefit to some of us, since it would, at the very least provide us with some kind of answers as to why this horrible event was even able to occur.



In exchange for forfeiting these rights, we need to receive things in return. One of the things we would like to receive is some kind of degree of certainty as to what we would recover should we elect to enter the fund. We do not wish to enter this fund with blinders on.



Thus, while we do understand that every case is unique and deserves individual treatment, we would like to know beforehand exactly how economic damages would be calculated for loss of earnings. This would, at a bare minimum, provide us with a base from which we could begin to make a decision as to whether the fund will furnish us with adequate compensation to survive.





RIGHT TO APPEAL as pertaining to Section 405(b)(3)




Since the Law does not allow any appeal on the Special Master's decision, there should be an automatic review process of each case officer's decision, before the claim is presented to the Special Master for his final adjudication. This could be done by impaneling a three member Review Board and could be handled like a normal appeal or like a Review in Marshall Law cases. Potentially, the one particular hearing officer who happens to be assigned to our particular case has the power to affect the rest of our lives. He will dramatically shape our futures. Putting that kind of power in the hands of one individual and then giving him such sweeping authority (since none of his/her decisions are subject to appeal) is just unfair.





COLLATERAL SOURCES as pertaining to Section 405(b)(6)




With regard to collateral sources, we are very concerned about their use to offset any amount recovered from the fund. At a bare minimum, we would suggest that a certain amount of collateral monies be permitted and not deducted, since some of these monies are and will continue to be needed by the families for extraordinary expenses which they would not have incurred had the tragedy not happened. We would suggest that a certain amount of collateral contributions be exempted (perhaps a year's worth of living expenses), and we would further request that all collateral sources above that threshold amount then be deducted from any fund recovery.



We believe that life insurance should not be deducted from fund payments. Simply put, life insurance is not taxed by the IRS for one reason-it encourages people to plan for their heirs. The deduction of life insurance from fund payments is essentially penalizing those people who were merely responsible estate planners. The decedents sacrificed and saved hard-earned money to pay for such plans; they are already victims once, do not make them victim's twice.



Similarly, accidental insurance should not be deducted since it, too, is purchased by those who are merely planning responsibly for the unforeseen future. Accidental insurance protects people against the unforeseen and unexpected; accidental insurance is a good thing and people should not be dissuaded from entering into such policies.



Moreover, pension funds, IRAs, and 401k plans should not be deducted from the fund's recovery amount. These plans were responsibly sacrificed and saved for by our loved ones. Essentially, they are savings accounts, and they should not be deducted from the fund.



There should be no deductions from any fund recovery for any "in kind" contributions made to our families. In addition, all potential future collateral source payments should similarly be excluded from consideration as deductions from any compensation recovery.



With regard to charity, Americans across this country donated their hard-earned money as a symbol of their patriotism, and our brotherhood as a nation. To deduct this charity money from any final payment would be, in our opinion, wrong. Donations made to families like ours were generously and selflessly given to us as a form of healing for both donor and recipient. Every single dollar donated and received gives each one of us a hope for tomorrow and a belief in our country as a united whole. Please do not denigrate this beautiful symbol of our nation standing together as one.





ELIGIBILITY OF CLAIMANTS as pertaining to Section 405(c)(2)





Although the statute indicates that the purpose of the fund is to make the victim and his or her family whole and to provide compensation for replacement services, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium and non-economic damages of any kind or nature, we believe that the regulations should clearly state that the spouses and children of the decedents are to be compensated for their own independent losses of consortium, society, mental anguish, etc., in addition to the decedent's.





OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD as pertaining to Section 405(b)(4)(B)





We are concerned that we will not be given a complete and full opportunity to be heard, should we choose to do so. Each of us rightfully deserves the opportunity to be fairly heard before a hearing officer. We would like to have the occasion to present evidence through our own testimony and the testimony of expert witnesses. We would like for each of our cases to be considered on a case-by-case basis.



For many of us, being given the right to be heard could be a crucial and extremely valuable part of our healing process; we hope that you can understand this.





FORM OF PAYMENT as pertaining to Section 406(a)





We would also request for the payment to be made in one lump sum, and to be paid out to the beneficiary, consistent with what our personal investment advisors recommend for each of our individual family circumstances. For example, any payment made to minor children should be in trust. In addition, the parent of said minor children should determine the date of vesting. The trust should not automatically vest at the age of 18, unless the parent determines that it is in the children's own best interests to do so.




In closing, we would like to sincerely thank you for asking us for our comments. We are all struggling through extremely difficult times. Your guidelines how to implement HR 2926 and your decisions will have an enormous and tremendous bearing on the rest of our lives. If done with compassion and magnitude it will truly and honestly gives us a small bit of peace in our very frightened and very anxious minds. We can only ask you to please keep our children and ourselves in your hearts during the weeks ahead.




Sincerely,




On behalf of the September 11th Victim's Families



Individual Comment

Navesink, NJ

2001-11-25