N002369
Tuesday, January 22, 2002 10:08 PM
Comments on the Interim Final Rule
Dear Mr. Feinberg and Mr. Zwick:
The purpose of this letter is to express my concern regarding a few aspects of the Interim Final Rule.First, I believe that the rules regarding eligibility for the fund are unfair and not in the spirit of the intended purpose of the creation of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund. To require that a victim must have been treated within 24 hours after sustaining the injury seems unfair and unrealistic given the chaos taking place within the 24 hours following the tragic events of September 11th. Injured victims could reasonably have had more pressing concerns within those first 24 hours than seeking treatment, including but not limited to notifying their loved ones of their situation, as well as ascertaining the condition of their loved ones (including family, co-workers, friends,...) Additionally, certain injured victims may have either not realized that they were injured during those first 24 hours; not realized the severity of their injuries; or believed that available medical resources would be better used for others, possibly more severely injured. The Interim Final Rule then goes on to add th
e additional requirement regarding in-patient hospitalization for at least 24 hours or temporary or permanent, partial or total
physical disability, incapacity or disfigurement. The extent of these requirements seems drastic, with the effect that many injured and seriously injured persons(who I believe were intended, by the spirit of the law which created the fund, to be eligible for the fund) will not be eligible for the fund.
Second, it does not seem to be clear in the case of the death of a victim who is or will be precluded from filing or maintaining a civil action for damages sustained as a result of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001. Is it the estate of the decedent? Is it the Personal Representative him or herself? Or, are both precluded?Finally, I would like to point out another ambiguity in the Interim Final Rule. I know of at least one instance (which may or may not be unique to this point) where it appears that the body of a deceased victim of the September 11th tragedy was misidentified (The spouse of one of the deceased victims was originally informed that the remains of a body which were found were those of her husband. After a funeral, with a burial, the spouse was informed that the remains were, in fact, the remains of a different victim!) The spouse of the victim intends to potentially be the Personal Representative of her deceased husband. She would have a potential personal cause of action against the relevant Medical Examiner's office in connection with said misidentification. Will her damages in connection with the body misidentification be covered under the fund? If not, and if she applies to the fund in connection with the death of her spouse, will she be permitted to file or maintain a separate action for her personal
damages in connection with the body misidentification?
Thank you for your consideration of the above issues.
Sincerely,
Individual Comment