Skip to comments.Sept. 11 Death Toll Rises by One, to 2,752 (
Posted on 01/16/2009 5:59:52 PM PST by Justaham
Leon Bernard Heyward did not die until last October, at the age of 45. But his name was added Friday to the official list of people who died as a result of the attack on Sept. 11, 2001. That brings the death toll to 2,752. The accounting is kept by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, which said that Mr. Heyward was counted as a casualty due to exposure to World Trade Center dust following collapse of the World Trade Center. The issue of how to treat and compensate those who were exposed to the dust particularly rescue workers has proved to be one of the most vexing problems of the aftermath. A spokeswoman for the medical examiner said she had no information on what Mr. Heyward was doing at the towers that morning. The cause of his death was given as lymphoma, complicating sarcoidosis, a lung disease. The manner of death was listed as homicide.
(Excerpt) Read more at cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com ...
This seems so riculous. If I die someday, I am going to claim that I saw the whole disaster on TV and claim post-traumatic stress. I can now claim compensation that my stress was due to the 9-11 attack.
Aw, thanks. I can pay (in taxes) for YOU, too!
My family wants in on some of that action too. I was watching.
Hey, I was exposed to that dust too!
Since I am 55, I’m bound to die within the next 50 years or so.
There’s a lot of incentive for this. Congress passed a resolution awarding upwards of $1 million to the family of each victim.
Probably that dust had something to do with global warming also...
And, finally, did you know that John Kerry served in Viet Nam?
It's not that I have no compassion for legitimate injuries.
Notwithstanding the fact that injury and/or deaths occurred as the result of that terrorist attack, how do you correlate a taxpayer's obligation to provide compensation to the victims, for which the taxpayer had NO responsibility or involvement? Where do you draw the line on eligibility?
If someone was in New York City for a day or two, on September 12 or 13, 2001, and they die 10 years later of lung cancer, do they get $1 million due to dust exposure, too?
How about a homeless person in Harlem, who dies of emphysema or lung cancer....are their "heirs" due to be millionaires at the expense of taxpayers?
Do you also support Reparations for slavery, where the payment is extorted from those who in no way were responsible or even remotely connected through ancestry to anyone who was a slave-holder?
I see this lawsuit litigation lotto as a scheme to line lawyers' pockets, fleecing innocent taxpayers through government fiat, and redistributing wealth.
For heroic acts and rewards for them, I will pony up for that any day.
For compensation for something I never had responsiblity for, or had no control over (same as me paying a victim of a rape, mugging, robbery, assault, etc.), that is totally un-fair and without merit.
Well the Medical Examiner, NYPD Brass (they paid all benefits from 9-11) and gov’t(they too paid) decided that is what caused his death. And by the way, the $1 million, doesn’t bring back a dad!
Must have been one hell of an ME to make a determination that science still can’t definitively make.
9/11 Lifesaver RICK RESCORLA
you have just as much right to comment as anyone else.
welcome to free republic.
prayers for your friends family!
Welcome to the fray!
It’s tricky - there was a case (in NY State, IIRC) where a man was shot, the bullet lodged in his spine and paralysed him, and he died 10 years later as a result of complications from being paralysed. His death was ruled a homicide, because he clearly died as a result of being shot, although it wasn’t prosecuted because the man who had shot him was also dead at that point. So I guess there’s a precedent to make similar decisions. In cases like this where there’s nobody to prosecute and just high-stakes compensation to hand out, it gets a bit more sketchy-looking, but in a homicide case it’s not like the criminal should get off free just because his victim took longer than usual to die.
Although, I agree with you that in this case, the money given to the family should not have come from the government (unless it’s a life insurance policy for a government employee or some such thing) but from private donations or whatever.
You said — “This seems so riculous. If I die someday, I am going to claim that I saw the whole disaster on TV and claim post-traumatic stress. I can now claim compensation that my stress was due to the 9-11 attack.”
I don’t think it’s ridiculous, because those rescue workers have suffered as much as those people who got crushed or immediately killed or jumped out of those windows. The rescue workers harmed their health to an extent that they won’t have normal health for the rest of their lives, if they survive very long.
It’s very reasonable, considering what they did to try and save people while putting themselves in harm’s way...
My gripe has always been where a group of ambulance-chasers pursue claims that were the result of pure stupidity on the part of the claimant (spilling hot coffee you held between your legs while driving, comes to mind), or the "tobacco settlement", where billions went to lawyers so the willful users could be used by the lawyers to transfer wealth to their pockets. Irresponsible behaviour should NEVER be somehow funded by the taxpayers when an unfortunate result occurs, and should NEVER me mandated by the government to make people "feel good" about themselves and their recklessness (welfare, AIDS funding, etc.)
Bush salutes doctor who joined the Navy to honor son killed in Iraq
The Los Angeles Times | January 16, 2009 | Tony Perry
Posted on 01/16/2009 7:27:21 PM PST by skippermd
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.