Daunting task: Addressing safety and health claims by 9/11 workers
February 8, 2010 by Fred HosierPosted in: Illnesses, In this week's e-newsletter, Injuries, Latest News & Views, Lawsuits, Worker health
PDF Imagine a workplace safety and health lawsuit involving more than 9,000 plaintiffs, 90 government agencies and private companies, tons of pages of court documents, and several hundred lawyers. It’s the 9/11 Ground Zero case.
The mammoth size of this case is the bad news.
The good news: A detailed settlement plan (about 70 pages) has been drafted, according to The New York Times.
Lawyers for both sides are engaged in intensive talks aimed at settling some or all the cases.
The first 12 cases are scheduled for trial on May 16 in Manhattan.
Firefighters, police officers, construction workers and other emergency responders claim New York City, its contractors and other government agencies offered inadequate safety procedures and supervision to shield them from exposure to contaminants while working at the 16-acre site where the World Trade Center towers once stood.
The lead lawyer for the defendants contends no link can be proven between the workers’ illnesses and exposure at Ground Zero.
All involved are selecting a small group of sample cases to bring to trial, hoping that the verdicts will guide settlement of the remaining lawsuits.
The number of people involved isn’t the only complicating factor in this case. The collapse of the two towers created a toxic soup the likes of which have never been encountered.
A professor who specializes in mass torts told The Times that there’s not a lot of experience with this kind of risk.
SafetyNewsAlert.com delivers the latest Safety news once a week to the inboxes of over 270,000 Safety professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to SafetyNewsAlert!
Tags: 9/11, Ground Zero, safety and health lawsuit
Loading ...
February 8th, 2010 at 9:17 am
You mean those firefighters, policeman, and emergency responders may have been exposed to unhealthy contaminants and life-threatening situations while doing their jobs?!! I can’t believe it!!
February 9th, 2010 at 11:11 am
I feel terrible for those that suffered on 9/11 and for the days and years that have followed. The rescue workers fought bravely to save a few, when so many lives were lost. The decisions and actions that the rescue workers chose to do reflected bravery and unfortunately very poor judgement. In hindsight, it appeared that the rescue workers were making decisions based on emotions rather than training (this applies to the commanders as well as the rescue workers). The potential dangers were evident… Smoke, dust, debris filled the air in addition to the rubble. Proper PPE??? There wasn’t nor could there be sufficient quantities available to handle the intense and immediate demand… Resuce workers were told to go home… How could they go home when their friends and work family members were buried beneath the rubble? They had to press on, because not fighting for their friends and family members was not an option. That day will live with them forever in both good and very bad ways…. Is a lawsuit the answer… I don’t think so, but I understand that they are now fighting for their lives and the acknowledgement that there are some long lasting ramifications of the day. God Bless them and their families.
February 10th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
In a crisis such as 9-11 these folk are heroes and as such should be taken care of. Having been in hospital fires where the judgment of getting PPE vrs saving patients lives, saving lives became the priority. The PPE was not enough and much of it was in areas that were cut off by the fire. So we all (Not one of us heroes) decided that the evacuation was the most important thing. In one fire flames were coming from the A/C vents in the ceiling on multiple floors as the heat and fire came up so fast it destroyed the dampers. Plus the building even though renovated and up to all safety standards was 90 years old so I am sure the smoke from the fire had a lot of toxicity to it.
Many times in a crisis decisions have to be made, that when looking back are perhaps questionable. In a situation, where lives are in the balance and seconds can make a difference between life and death I would hope (after the fact) the rescuer would be taken care of. Unless someone is in the actual situation where these decisions have to be made it is hard to understand. I have to preach safety at work but I have had to ignore what I knew could hurt me and what I preach in order to help someone else.
In a fire in a building it is standard that once you leave the building you cannot reenter it unless you are a fire fighter. We, the staff in the hospitals (yes it was more than one hospital), all decided that when we got some patients to a safe area that we would go back in to attempt to rescue more instead of leaving. If that had not been done a fire that only damaged to a structure may have caused severe injuries or worse.
We all knew the fire fighters are trained for this but we were familiar with the building and as staff provided a level of assurance and comfort to the patients. Also the fire fighters were very involved in containing the fire but we knew where the patients were. Also we all had an intimate knowledge of the Physical Plant so we all used what we had learned in our Emergency Preparedness Drills. I cannot fault the responders in the 9-11 crisis as I believe that they wanted to save lives and help folk that they were (in all likelihood) the only hope those folk in the World Trade Center had.
It is very easy to criticize and critique when a CRISIS is on paper or has past but to be in it is a whole other mind set. Responders to emergencies need to be supported and cared for as they are helping in situations where snap decisions have to be made.
February 17th, 2010 at 11:58 am
As one person asked..”is a law suit the answer” well the government could have set up a fund to administer payouts without the law suit, but the Govt choose to act like they didnt know there was a brewing issue. The EPA in fact issued statements that there were no toxic problems with the dust cloud. I was working for an environmental clean up company at the time 30s mile north and we immediately packed all our trucks with PPE and drove down there and sold it to the City. Im sure many companies did the same.
such programs exist to administer payouts without having to sue the Govt. One such program pays for workers of the early atomic energy govt programs. It is run through the Dept of justice and DOL. no lawsuit is required. A call to a toll free number files a claim and it is sorted out. Thing is it is not really advertised so victums probably dont know about it but the Govt could have followed that program as a model for the 9/11 health problems.
We all knew when the EPA issued the “its not toxic” anouncement that that was wrong. We all knew it couldnt be possible to pulverize 2 towers built in the 70s and have nothing toxic in the dust. But its not just the workers on the pile that were exposed. what about the people runing on the street that were overtaken by the cloud? the people with apartments in the area that had their windows open? The Govt knew or sould have known there would be a large affected group of people that were exposed and so the Govt could have goten out in front of it with health servalence programs and made it so no law suit was required. They all deserve to be compensated for their health issues.