A005538
Uniformed Firefighters Association
of Greater New York
Local 94 I.A.F.F. AFL-CIO
New York, N.Y.
December 12, 2001
Mr. Kenneth L. Zwick
Director
Office of Management Programs
Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Main Building-Room 3140
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Re: September 11th Victim Compensation Fund
Dear Director Zwick:
I am the President of the Uniformed Firefighter's Association,
the union representing more than 9,000 New York City firefighters.
As I am sure your are aware, the terrorist attack on the World Trade
Center of September 11, 2001 resulted in the death of 343 New York
City firefighters and fire officers. Scores of additional firefighters and fire officers were injured.
Moreover, thousands of
firefighters have worked tirelessly in the rescue/recovery effort,
and have been exposed to substantial amounts of toxic materials,
including asbestos, the full affects of which are not currently
known.
Accordingly, I am writing to express my thoughts on the
above-noted Legislation and the regulations to be promulgated
pursuant to the statute.
The statute defines a claimant as an individual who was
"present" at the World Trade Center, Pentagon or the Pennsylvania
crash site, "at the time, or in the immediate aftermath" of the
terrorist crashes of September 11, 2001.
It is obvious that any individual, be it a firefighter or
civilian, who suffered physical harm in close proximity to the World
Trade Center Towers should be included within that definition. For
example, an individual struck by debris who was several blocks away
from the Trade Center site should be able to file a claim.
It is equally important to have a broad definition of the phrase
"immediate aftermath." As I write this letter, hundreds of
firefighters are still working daily at the site to recover the
remains of their fallen brothers. They are accompanied by numerous
police officer, construction workers and other brave rescue
personnel. We do not know what deleterious affect the exposure to
smoke and toxins emanating from the site will have upon these rescue
personnel in the near or long-term future. To the extent that they
develop diseases or illnesses, they are very much "victims" f the
terrorists attacks. I submit, therefore, that they should be
included as potential claimants under the statute.
Moreover, I note that the statute was recently amended to cap
the liability of New York City for all claims arising out of the
crashes of September 11, 2001 at $350,000,000.00. That language
would seem to protect the City from any claim by a rescue worker that
he was not given appropriate protective equipment during the rescue
effort. If the City is to receive the benefit of this liability cap
to be used against rescue workers, I submit that it is only logical
and fair that rescue workers be included within the ambit of the
Victims Compensation Fund.
I am also concerned with the two-year limitation period running
from the promulgation of regulations. If rescue workers are included
in the ambit of protection, it is very possible that they will not
know the extent of these damages for many years. The statute should
provide some remedy beyond the two-year limitation period for people
in that situation. For example, the two-year limitation period
should not commence until a claimant knew, or should have known, of
his injury.
I also note the statute provides no rights of appeal once the
Special Master renders a decision. I respectfully suggest that there
should be some provision in the law or regulations giving claimants
the right to contest a proposed award before a final decision is
made. Such a provision would allow the Special Master the leeway to
correct possible mistakes or misunderstandings regarding evidence and
provide a claimant with a method to point out such mistakes before a
final resolution is achieved.
I also submit that charitable gifts to the families of those
killed in the attacks should not serve as a "collateral source" to
reduce the damage award made to a claimant. It is beyond dispute
that when people made charitable contributions for the victims and
their families, they never intended those contributions to serve to
reduce the commitment of the government under the Victim Compensation
Fund. The gifts were not intended as government subsidies, but
rather to benefit those who suffered such horrendous losses.
Finally, serious consideration should be given to the manner in
which the collateral source reductions are made. For example, in
many cases people who are killed are survived by a spouse and
children. If a spouse receives significant collateral source
payments, such as pensions and government awards, those payments
should not reduce a child's claim for loss of parental care and
guidance or for the grief the child has suffered. In other words,
the collateral source reductions should be directed to specific
claims, rather than being an "across the board" reduction of any
award.
I hope the above comments are of some assistance to you in the
formulating of appropriate regulations.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
Comment by:
UNIFORMED FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION
New York, NY