W000113
Tuesday, November 06, 2001 2:49 PM
Re: Public comments on issues related to the Victims
compensation fund
Hello,
Thank you for inviting public comments on this issue. I have been extremely
disappointed in the way charitable organizations are giving in to their own
transparent greed by trying to devise ways to cheat the Sept 11 victims out
of the money collected on their behalf. I applaud our government for wanting
to rise above that level and strive for fairness.
I'll address the issues as outlined in the NY Times article today.
1. In order to define/verify eligibility for the fund, I believe producing
acceptable forms of documentation for the person lost such as the expedited
death certificates offered for the WTC victims families should be
sufficient.
To ensure that the right relative is applying for benefits of the fund,
generally accepted standards like those used by life insurance companies to
determine who gets the proceeds of any policy should be used. This would
prevent a non-immediate relative from intercepting benefits that should
rightfully go to someone more closely tied to the lost victim. Ie, an Uncle
could not apply to receive the fund proceeds if it were found that there was
a living wife, or child who would be deemed in first position to receive
benefits. In the event that no spouse (legal or common-law) were evident,
then children of the deceased should be next, followed by parents of the
deceased, siblings, etc.
Only one relative should be allowed to file on behalf of one victim. There
should not be several people filing to receive benefits on the same victim.
2. Calculating economic and noneconomic losses should be based on a
combination of what the lost victim was earning on an annualized basis and
calculating what percentage that amount was in relation to the families
overall income as a whole. If the person was only earning 25% of the total
family income, then the economic benefit should not be greater than that.
The non-economic benefits to all families should be one set dollar amount
which would be equally dispersed to all families.
3. Disputes amoung relatives could easily be resolved by referring back to
#1 above and using a standard life insurance companies rules for determining
eligibility. In the case of disputes over which relatives in a family are
entitled to benefits, the burden of proof should always rest on the relative
with the greatest relational distance from the victim himself. For example:
Between an ex-wife with children and an Uncle or Aunt, the burden of proof
of entitlement to benefits would rest on the Uncle or Aunt and not on the
ex-wife with children. In the case of homosexual couples or non-married
couples, I believe using the standard common-law marriage rules to determine
the validity of the relationship should apply.
I am pleased to see our government rise to the challenge of providing for
the victims of Sept 11. My support, and my prayers remain with all of you.
Individual Comment
Mount Pleasant, SC