P000001
Wednesday, January 23, 2002 12:00 AM
brother of victim re Interim Final Rule and related regulations
Dear Kenneth Feinberg,
My sister, , died on that awful day in September.
She was an employee of , a broker with offices on the
floor of WTC Tower I ( ).
I am writing to express my profound distress at the apparent perverse
outcome which arises from application of the Interim Final Rule and related
regulations in the case of a victim who has died intestate (without a
will), such as my sister.
Specifically, to the extent any award is considered to be comprised of
"pain and suffering monies" (apart from monies defined as compensation for
lost wages) in the case of my sister it appears that ALL of those monies
will be going to only one person (husband of 2 years) in a rather arbitrary
fashion due to the fact that she had not left a will, though her close
family actually consisted of 5 persons total, i.e. her newly wed husband as
well as parents and my brother and I.
Expressed simply: it is certainly not the case that ONLY her husband of 2
years has experienced "pain and suffering" of a magnitude meriting
compensation, yet as my sister had not the opportunity to specify who else
might merit such care he alone will be the one to receive it, as if the
others did not exist.
It is a cruel phenomenon of the law and what is proposed that in the
absence of my sister having left a will (she had not foreseen the need for
one as she as yet had little) the REALITY of her life will be ignored, with
her dear ones apart from her husband being ignored entirely, as if the
anguish and sorrow we feel does not exist.
It is logical that compensation for lost wages should go entirely to her
spouse and life partner, but to award monies for pain and suffering per a
disavowal of who ACTUALLY constituted her close family simply due to lack
of a will is for us further sadness upon tragedy.
Sincerely,
Individual Comment
Montréal, QC
CANADA