N001573
Victims Compensation Fund
Re:
Dear Victims 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 the 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 government's 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 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 as 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. This 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 's 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-
economic 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 believe 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