dojN002165.xml
Title
dojN002165.xml
Source
born-digital
Media Type
email
Date Entered
2002-01-21
September 11 Email: Body
Monday, January 21, 2002 12:33 PM
Regulations re: September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Please accept this e-mail as my comments upon the interim regulations referenced above.
I write despite that fact that my mother-in-law may not receive any compensation at all from the Fund, due to the "collateral source" deduction mandated by Congress. We are still hopeful that Congress will correct this oversight be either eliminating the collateral source deduction requirement or by providing for a minimum recovery for all survivors of victims of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
I comment as follows:
1. Calculation of Economic Loss -
a) The Chart is a good idea. But the chart should be further broken down, so that claimants can determine if the want to argue that compensation should be based upon more than 3 years of prior compensation.
b) Claimants should be able to make a claim based upon year 2001 compensation. Many employers paid compensation and bonuses to survivors of victims for the remainder of 2001. The option should exist to include 2001 compensation in the calculation.
c) Claimants should have the option to argue that bonuses and/or wages would have increased at a greater amount based upon personal income and employer payment history.
d) A formula should be provided as an alternative option, so that claimants can determine whether to pursue "option B" for economic loss (eg. total claim amount if 8% increase in compensation were the past history).
e) You need to show people what the US Dept. of Labor "Worklife Estimates" are.
2. Presumed Economic Loss -
a) This is prohibited by the Act. You can provide this minimum award as an option to "Option A" - calculation of Non-Economic Loss. A presumed award is not fair, not equitable, and not legal.
b) The correct method for determining non-economic loss is to allow evidence of pain and suffering, mental anguish, etc. as expressly guaranteed in the Act. The evidence should be permitted to be presented by both fact witnesses and by experts. This should be not different than the process that is permitted every day in courts throughout the country in wrongful death actions.
c) Assuming arguendo that you will proceed with this unfair presumptive award, you should raise it significantly. I would be appropriate to study awards in the New York metropolitan area, to see what is the norm. I would suggest that it will likely be at least $500,000 for a tragedy of the magnitude of September 11th.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Individual Comment
Regulations re: September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Please accept this e-mail as my comments upon the interim regulations referenced above.
I write despite that fact that my mother-in-law may not receive any compensation at all from the Fund, due to the "collateral source" deduction mandated by Congress. We are still hopeful that Congress will correct this oversight be either eliminating the collateral source deduction requirement or by providing for a minimum recovery for all survivors of victims of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
I comment as follows:
1. Calculation of Economic Loss -
a) The Chart is a good idea. But the chart should be further broken down, so that claimants can determine if the want to argue that compensation should be based upon more than 3 years of prior compensation.
b) Claimants should be able to make a claim based upon year 2001 compensation. Many employers paid compensation and bonuses to survivors of victims for the remainder of 2001. The option should exist to include 2001 compensation in the calculation.
c) Claimants should have the option to argue that bonuses and/or wages would have increased at a greater amount based upon personal income and employer payment history.
d) A formula should be provided as an alternative option, so that claimants can determine whether to pursue "option B" for economic loss (eg. total claim amount if 8% increase in compensation were the past history).
e) You need to show people what the US Dept. of Labor "Worklife Estimates" are.
2. Presumed Economic Loss -
a) This is prohibited by the Act. You can provide this minimum award as an option to "Option A" - calculation of Non-Economic Loss. A presumed award is not fair, not equitable, and not legal.
b) The correct method for determining non-economic loss is to allow evidence of pain and suffering, mental anguish, etc. as expressly guaranteed in the Act. The evidence should be permitted to be presented by both fact witnesses and by experts. This should be not different than the process that is permitted every day in courts throughout the country in wrongful death actions.
c) Assuming arguendo that you will proceed with this unfair presumptive award, you should raise it significantly. I would be appropriate to study awards in the New York metropolitan area, to see what is the norm. I would suggest that it will likely be at least $500,000 for a tragedy of the magnitude of September 11th.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Individual Comment
September 11 Email: Date
2002-01-21
Collection
Citation
“dojN002165.xml,” September 11 Digital Archive, accessed July 1, 2024, https://911digitalarchive.org/items/show/33260.