N001466
Wednesday, January 09, 2002 12:24 PM
Comments
Dear Victim Compensation Fund:
I am family friend of , one of the thousands that worked in
the World Trade Center and was killed in the tragedy on September 11,
2001. I am greatly concerned with the Interim Final Rules you have set
for the Victim Compensation Fund at this time. I certainly understand
the federal governments interest in protecting the airlines and the airline
industry as a whole and thereby setting up this Victim Compensation Fund
as an alternative to filing suit in this matter. However, the guidelines
as they are presently configured do not, in my opinion, represent the
concept of fairness, much less justice in the death of or any of
the other thousands who died.
First, review must be on a case by case basis working within some framework
that you have set. In the case of , this was a young man,
age 32, with a wife and 14 month old daughter. He had worked for for four years and in that time had shot up the ladder.
His salary increased dramatically over those four years to a base salary
of $105,000.00 (before bonus and benefits factored in) in 2001. However,
average pre-tax earnings for the three year period 1998-2000 were
far less (as much as $25,000.00 less) than his 2001 total would have been.
One can only assume based upon his last four years that was headed
for much bigger salaries in the future. Your method of basing the economic
loss calculation on the period between 1998-2000 does Jason and other
young risers like him a disservice and will result in a significantly
lesser award from this Fund.
Next, your non-economic loss numbers are simply too low. This is supposed
to be an alternative to bringing suit and was intended to reflect what
one might expect to recieve from a jury award. These numbers do not reflect
that reality and these families, instead of feeling that the federal government
has stepped in to ease their pain and made things easier in this time
of tragedy, feel insulted by this non-economic loss calculation table.
Third, reduction of any award by a "consumption factor" is a terrible
idea. The point here is that these victims will not get to personally
consume any of the income they would have realized throughout their life
and therefore those benefits should accrue to the families.
Finally, reduction of the award by "collateral source income" is also
a terrible idea. The federal government has decided to bear the responsibility
in this matter for the airlines in order to protect the economy. No
defendant gets to set the parameters of a potential jury award and therefore
the federal government should not now be doing so.
The fund should pay these families economic losses on a case by case basis
to reflect the reality of their situation. In case, it should
be based upon his expected 2001 pre-tax earnings (including benefits
and bonus) with an inflation and wage increase factor calculated in. Non-econom
ic loss should be based upon a number that more accurately reflects a
jury award aiming toward just compensation. This personal tragedy was
played out in front of the nation and world and the families will never
be able to escape the images that haunt them. The event will continue
to be on television and a part of our national history for ever. Your
non-economic award simply is not right. Finally, there should be no
reductions in the award for "consumption" or for "collateral source income."
Again, I belive that this should more accurately reflect a jury award,
not a government program.
I thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Individual Comment
Springfield, NJ