N001043
Friday, December 28, 2001 1:23 AM
(no subject)
Dear Mr.Zwick,
I represent over 200 firefighters who have sustained a wide range of
physical injuries on September 11 and in the days and weeks immediately
following. It would appear that the definition of "physical harm"
promulgated in the regulations would not include many seriously injured
individuals who succumbed to pulmonary injuries as a result of working at the
World Trade Center. Moreover, the definition, taken together with the
phrases "immediate aftermath" and "present at the site" make it difficult if
not impossible to determine if a firefighter who was present on September 11
through September 20 would be included or excluded from coverage under the
Act if he or she failed to see a doctor within 24 hours of having
"sustained" the injury. In most, if not all, of the cases that I am involved
in, the pulmonary complications began with in 24 hours of the exposure.
However, the firefighters continued to work without proper protection because
of representations made by federal and local authorities that the air quality
was "safe".
I, along with many other trial attorneys, have undertaken to represent
these individuals pro bono with the hope that they would be able to make
claims under this Act rather than having to commence traditional tort
lawsuits. Additionally, since they may suffer from future injuries which
could be very severe,it is our belief that they fall within the intent of the
original statute. The regulations appear to construe the legislative intent
of this Act to be to the contrary.
I am certain that it was the intent of
both the House of Representatives and the Senate to adequately protect those
rescuers who succumbed and will succumb to injury as a result of this event.
I would hope that the final rule will redefine both "immediate aftermath" and
"physical harm" to include those who attempted to save lives.
Very truly yours,
Individual Comment
New York, New York