N002132
Sunday, January 20, 2002 4:31 PM
September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001, Interim Final
Rule
To: Attorney General Ashcroft
Kenneth R. Feinberg, Special Master
Kenneth L. Zwick, Director, Office of Management Progrom
RE: September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001, Interim Final Rule
Dear Sirs:
The primary stated objective of the Interim Final Ruling is ?to provide
fair, predictable, and consistent compensation to the victims of September
11 and their families throughout the life of the program?? The Interim
Final Ruling fails to meet the ?fair? and ?predictable? components of its
objective.
The determination of award levels is nowhere near fair. I have been unable
to find past examples in our American legal system where limitations on
federal compensation awards included life insurance and pensions. The
regulations set a ?presumed award for noneconomic losses sustained.? The
figure of this amount is set such that it is consistent with existing
federal programs for public officials and military who are killed in the
line of duty. It is my understanding that these federal programs are not
subject to collateral offsets. The Sept. 11 victims federal program is
subject to collateral offsets. Thus, the presumed award for noneconomic
loss is inconsistent with existing federal programs for public officials and
military. Furthermore, it is unacceptable that victims are offered no
recourse should the system, under Kenneth Feinberg, treat them unfairly.
Why must families make a leap of faith and place all of their trust in Mr.
Feinberg? This is a man who recently described himself to attendants at a
January 16 New Jersey meeting for family members of victims of September 11
as their ?only game in town? for compensation.
Not only is the award level determination unfair, it is also unpredictable.
Mr. Feinberg, at the previously mentioned January 16 meeting, assured Sept
11 widows that they will all receive some level of compensation. However,
due to collateral offsets, it is theoretically possible for many families to
get nothing. When pressed about this, Mr. Feinberg was evasive and refused
to elaborate on his assurances. Families cannot reasonably be expected to
forfeit their right to participate in litigation if they cannot first
determine the amounts set forth in the federal alternative. Moreover, if
the presumed award amount is minimal victims are given no alternative but to
pursue a course of litigation to be reasonably compensated for their loss.
Creating a situation where the victims must litigate is the antithesis of
the legislative intent.
Recommendations:
Families need to be told exactly what they will receive prior to
agreeing to accept the settlement.
If there is indeed a minimum settlement after offsets it must be
specified in writing.
Various scenarios should be developed, and put into writing, which
illustrate what participants can rely on should they accept the settlement.
As my family and I struggled with the loss of my uncle,
, we
found comfort in the appropriate and compassionate response of the White
House, Congress, and other elected officials in the days following the
September 11 attacks. The implementation of the Victims Compensation Fund
proposed in the Interim Final Rule is starkly at odds with the initial,
comforting reaction of our leaders. The deductions of many benefits (life
insurance, pensions,?etc) effectively penalizes many families who planned in
advance for the tragic loss of a loved one. The end result is families
receive compensation that is below their level of economic loss, while
airlines are sheltered from civil liability.
Respectfully submitted,
Individual Comment
New York, NY