W000463
Wednesday, November 21, 2001 12:41 PM
Sept 11 Legislation
Submitted to:
Kenneth L. Zwik U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division
Senator Hillery R. Clinton
Senator Charles Schumer
Submitted by:
Brooklyn NY
November 21, 2001
As a friend of a victum 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 election
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. Thank you.
Individual Comment