N001498
Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:18 AM
interim final rules
Dear Mr Feinberg:
My name is and I am writing to you from
my lawyer's office in Cranford, New Jersey. I lost my
husband at the WTC on September 11. I have two
daughters who lost their father, the youngest was
celebrating her birthday that morning while the tower
collapsed on her father, stuck in an elevator while
attempting to evacuate the building. I know that each
familie's story is heartbreaking and just as sad but
for the rest of that girl's life her birthday will be
the anniversary of her father's murder. I realize
that it is impossible for you to address such a
situation but i think it puts a context on the
comments that follow.
My husband was in the category of wage earners that
falls well above the 98% assumption the interim final
rules apply. Coupled with the collateral source
deductions I would be left with a very minimal payment
should i choose to enter the Fund. I understand
legislation is pending that would eliminate the
collateral source deduction but time is running and
myself and others are incapable of making such a
weighty decision not knowing if the legilation will
pass.
I know you have a difficult job but i must tell you i
think your effort thus far misses the mark. I
appreciate the Congress dictated the collateral source
deduction, therefore my efforts are with my
congressional representatives to change that. You
followed the law as you must. But, you choose not to
follow the law when dealing with economic loss. I do
not think that is fair, nor warranted under the Act.
The airline bailout bill gave the airlines billions of
dollars and capped liability for the crashes. It, as
you and many legal experts have stated, forces or puts
enormous pressure, on me and others similarly situated
into the Fund. The Act read in plain language
requires you to calculate economic damages of economic
loss as "any pecuniary loss...to the extent recovery
for such loss is allowed under applicable State law."
Notwithstanding the fact that many items of damages
specifically referred to in the Act are ignored (just
as insurance proceeds as a collateral source is
specifically mentioned but not ignored in your interim
final rules) and the fact that your calculations
seriously underestimate actual provable loss, the 98th
percentile assumption is nowhere supported by the Act.
It appears to me you are including a hearing option
to mask this obvious deviation from the dictate of the
statute. You have announced it will take
extraordinary circumstances to deviate from the
presumed award schedule and have stated that this
program is an unprecedented outpouring of taxpayer
generousity. It is not. It is a program designed by
Congress to bail out industry and compensate victims
for foregoing traditional remedies, not available
because of the bailout. It was for Congress to
create, not for you to overrule by regulation. To
have to show extraordinary circumstances is illusory
given the compelling stories of personal grief and
loss which abound. I can surely show extraordinary
income loss because my husband made over three times
the amount of your assumed earning cap (call it
whatever you will, it is a cap, not authorized bt the
statute). It does not fulfill the intent of the Act.
I also agree with the many commentators who find the
noneconomic loss awards inadequate. But frankly, any
award in this regard would be inadequate and thus i
feel you should consider awarding more to those
survivors who cannot show an economic loss due to not
earning much money and change the rules to include
actual economic loss to all.
I have read many of the comments posted that describe
myself and others as greedy and looking for charity. I
do not expect that American people to understand the
program and why it exists but I am very deeply hurt by
the accusations and believe that your announcement of
an average award of $1.6 million dollars caused this.
I would get not much more than zero if your
calculations remain as they are announced yet if my
husband survived he would have earned more than $1.6
million dollars in two short years. Two years which
will include two birthdays on September 11 for my
daughter. Anniversaries which will be marked by all
Americans as a day that will live in infamy. It is
not charity Mr. Feinberg, it is the law. Please apply
it as written and do not force this grieving and
hurting class of people into court to challenge your
rules.
Individual Comment
Cranford, NJ