ILNews

Victim funds create legal, public policy issues

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Editor's note: This story has been corrected.

Within weeks of the Indiana State Fair stage collapse last year that killed seven and injured dozens, a process developed that the state and victims’ attorneys credit with aiding victims as quickly as possible and in almost all cases avoiding litigation.

But such programs also operate in ways that raise legal and public policy questions, said Kenneth Feinberg, the foremost authority on victim compensation funds.
 

feinberg-15col.jpg Kenneth Feinberg, left, meets with the media Sept. 11, 2012, before he and Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller, right, spoke at I.U. Robert H. McKinney School of Law on victim compensation. (IL Photo/ Dave Stafford)

Feinberg spoke at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law on Sept. 11. He reflected on the benefits and challenges that arose from handling the compensation fund for victims of the terrorist attacks in 2001 and from advising Indiana officials as they began the task of delivering aid for those killed or injured by the stage collapse.

“We avoided any discussion of the moral worth of human beings,” Feinberg said of the initial phase of State Fair victims’ compensation. That’s contrary to tort law, in which such things as future earnings would result in different judgments for different claimants, he said, based on such factors as loss of potential earnings.

“You can’t come up with a compensation program that promotes divisiveness among the very people you’re trying to help,” he said.

Along with Feinberg, Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller and other lawyers involved in the compensation of victims of the stage collapse spoke at the law school. Feinberg shared his experience with the 9/11 and State Fair funds and in administering compensation for victims of the BP Gulf oil spill and the Virginia Tech campus shootings, among others.

Zoeller described officials “staring into the abyss” in the wake of the State Fair tragedy, with little experience to navigate disaster compensation. He praised Feinberg for volunteering to help guide the process when contacted.

“Ken said, ‘I wouldn’t wish this on anyone, what you’re going through,’” Zoeller recalled.

Feinberg said special funds should be considered only in the rare events in which there is a groundswell of public support to get aid to victims of tragedies or calamities.

In such cases, Feinberg said, funds are created on a consensus that, “We ought to be thinking outside of the box when it comes to victims’ compensation. … It is rare, indeed, when you think outside of the box.”

Feinberg raised questions about the advisability of such funds and said they lead to public policy questions about equitable justice. “Bad things happen to good people every day, and you don’t have access to an accelerated legal system,” he said.

“Be very careful about replicating these funds. Be careful about setting up programs where you’re going to require people to waive their right to sue. There are all sorts of challenges to the legitimacy of these programs,” he explained.

Feinberg assisted Zoeller and other officials in devising a plan to distribute funds up to the state’s tort claim cap of $5 million. The plan laid out specific and equal compensation for classes of victims. According to the AG’s office, the estates of those who died received at least $300,000. A victim who suffered paralysis received at least $500,000, and other injured victims would have up to 65 percent of their medical bills compensated. The initial fund was distributed to 62 claimants last December.

“We would probably still have the money locked up today if (litigation) was the process,” said Tony Patterson, partner with Parr Richey Obremskey Frandsen & Patterson LLP in Lebanon, who represented victims of the stage collapse. Patterson joined Feinberg and Zoeller in a panel discussion at I.U. McKinney School of Law that retraced the early steps of compensating victims.

Panelist Paul Mullin, a partner with Lewis & Wilkins LLP, said plaintiff attorneys had mixed reactions to initial overtures from the AG’s office to approach the $5 million tort cap in a conciliatory, settlement fashion. Mullin represented the state as a special deputy attorney general for purposes of settling the tort claims in 2011 and arbitrating the supplemental fund claims.

Responses ranged from, “‘This is genius’ to ‘this is the worst idea I ever heard,’” he recalled. But when Feinberg came aboard, so did nearly everyone else.

“It’s a very therapeutic process” for victims, Patterson said. “It’s much better to have a process that involves settlement.”

But there soon also was a reckoning that the $5 million cap on state liability would be insufficient to address the mounting claims. Mullin said that months after the collapse, it was clear that victims’ medical bills to date had surpassed $4.5 million, and that didn’t account for those who would need long-term care. “It’s safe to say that number has doubled or quadrupled or somewhere in between,” he said.

The Legislature passed an additional one-time appropriation of $6 million for victims. That raised the compensation to a total of $700,000 for estates of individuals who died and paid 100 percent of medical bills not covered by insurance for non-paralyzed victims.

An arbitration panel calculates payments for victims who were permanently injured and paralyzed and decides other claims, according to Zoeller’s office.

The AG’s office said 57 of 62 claimants have agreed to the settlement terms for the $6 million pool, and the state hopes to pay those claims by November, ahead of the January deadline imposed by the Legislature. The remaining five claimants still may sue the state, and any of the 62 claimants may sue private parties after two major defendants withdrew their multimillion-dollar settlement offer in August.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT