dojW000560.xml

dojW000560.xml

born-digital

email

yes

no

2001-11-26

Monday, November 26, 2001 8:40 AM

Notice of Rulemaking



As an advisor to one of the families victimized by the events of September
11, I write to provide you with comments on three points that are (I
believe) fundamental to the efficacy of the victim compensation program you
are creating:



1. Collateral Proceeds: You must take care not to exclude too many
collateral sources of recovery from mediation awards by the fund or else you
will end up dissuading many victims from participating in the fund. In this
regard, it makes sense to exclude collateral sources of recovery provided by
the government from any mediation awards, but it makes no sense to exclude
collateral sources from private third-parties. Life insurance proceeds are
perhaps the best example of collateral source recoveries that fall into this
latter category.



2. Pain and Suffering:. The mediation process must be designed to ensure a
fair recovery for the "pain and suffering" of victim families. The biggest
fear I have heard discussed to date about the mediation program centers
around this point. There is a perception that professional mediators will
tend to be more grudging than jurors in their evaluation of the financial
awards necessary to redress such suffering. That perception needs to be
eliminated to encourage maximum victim participation in this program.



3. Economists:. While I think that the general approach of not requiring
testimony by economists is a sound one, you must also protect the ability of
particular victims to present such evidence from economists if they desire
to do so. Obviously, not all victims' cases will fit nicely within the
parameters of generalized economic assumptions and guidelines. Those that do
not should be able to amplify their presentations with their own economic
evidence.



Thank you for your consideration of these points.




Individual Comment

Washington, DC

2001-11-26