Lawyers for 9/11 responders back in NYC court to praise deal that could give sick $713 million

Legal deal for sick 9/11 workers back in NYC court

NEW YORK — Lawyers for thousands of 9/11 responders found support Wednesday for a deal that would end a seven-year legal battle over the toxic fallout produced by the collapse of the World Trade Center.

At what’s being called a “fairness hearing” in a lawsuit over exposure to toxic ash, retired New York Police Department Detective Joseph Greco told a judge the settlement would “put our minds at ease” over financial hardships caused by the illnesses.

“Our families have been through so much,” Greco, who suffers from chronic asthma, said in federal court in Manhattan. “This can’t go on anymore.”

While most speakers expressed support for the plan, some questioned a claims formula that favors plaintiffs with lung cancer and other respiratory diseases. Retired firefighter Kenneth Specht said colleagues who died from other cancers deserved more compensation.

“I’ve watched some good men die at an early age,” Specht said.

U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein responded that the deal was “far from perfect, but it’s the best we could do.”

Hellerstein gave his preliminary approval June 10 to a settlement that would resolve lawsuits filed by nearly 10,000 police officers, firefighters and construction workers suing the city over their exposure to toxic ash.

The settlement would pay $625 million to $712.5 million, depending on how many people take the deal.

Earlier Wednesday, the lawyers who reached the settlement after lengthy negotiations urged the plaintiffs to accept it.

“There is no question in my mind that this settlement is substantial, fairly administered and good for all plaintiffs,” attorney Paul Napoli said.

Kenneth Feinberg, who oversaw payouts to victims of the Sept. 11 attacks and was appointed to review appeals under the terms of the settlement, also urged the plaintiffs to approve the massive settlement.

“To me it is a simple choice,” said Feinberg, speaking on a closed-circuit feed from Washington. “You have waited long enough.”

Anyone who opts out in hopes that Congress will pass compensation legislation, he added, would be “making a mistake.”

About half the people covered by the settlement are suffering from minor health ailments, or aren’t ill at all but have joined the lawsuit because they worry about getting sick in the future. They would qualify for payments of $3,250 to $11,000.

The bulk of the award — an estimated 94 percent — would go to people with the most severe illnesses, including lung cancer and emphysema. About 25 percent of the total pot will go to cover legal fees.

The exact amount each person receives will be based on the severity of their illness, time spent at ground zero, age, prior health history and other factors, including the likelihood a person’s sickness could be linked to the dust.

A person with asthma, for example, could get anywhere from $12,000 to $781,000, depending on the circumstances.

Lawyers on both sides of the deal are now trying to build support among the plaintiffs. Under the settlement terms, 95 percent of all eligible plaintiffs must accept the money offer for it to take effect. That means that if as few as 600 people say no, the deal dies.

Wednesday’s hearing is a step commonly required in large class action lawsuits to ensure that a settlement doesn’t shortchange anyone or give great benefits to a few plaintiffs at the expense of others.

This particular fairness hearing is an unusual one, for two reasons. First, the litigation is not classified as a class action, meaning there is no legal necessity for the hearing to take place. In fact, lawyers for the city and its contractors filed an objection to the proceeding, saying Hellerstein was exceeding his authority by getting involved.

Second, Hellerstein has already indicated his enthusiastic support for the settlement, meaning Wednesday’s court session was more of a cheering session for the deal than an opportunity for critics to argue for it to be changed or thrown out.

In another unusual move, the judge this month appointed a legal ethics expert, Hofstra University law professor Roy Simon, to monitor communications between the 10,000 plaintiffs covered by the settlement and their lawyers.

The step was taken to ensure that lawyers participating in the case don’t bend any ethical rules as they try to sell the case to their clients. The monitoring would, ostensibly, reduce the possibility that some clients could be bullied or frightened into accepting the deal, or misled about how much money they might stand to receive.