W000368
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
>
>