NIOSH Releases First World Trade Center Scientific, Medical Review
LINK

This first periodic review provides a summary of the current scientific and medical findings in the peer-reviewed literature about exposures resulting from the Sept.11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York City and cancer studies.

Jul 28, 2011
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Tuesday issued the First Periodic Review of Scientific and Medical Evidence Related to Cancer for the World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program. This first periodic review provides a summary of the current scientific and medical findings in the peer-reviewed literature about exposures resulting from the Sept.11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York City and cancer studies.

"Although a determination cannot be made to propose a rule to add cancer, or a type of cancer, to the list of WTC-related health conditions at this time, it is important to point out that the current absence of published scientific and medical findings demonstrating a causal association between the exposures resulting from the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the occurrence of cancer in responders and survivors does not indicate evidence of the absence of a causal association," said WTC Administrator John Howard, M.D. "As new research and findings are released, we will continue to do periodic reviews of cancer for the World Trade Center Health Program."

Since research into cancer and WTC exposures is ongoing, it is expected that a second periodic review will be conducted in early to mid-2012.

The issuance of this periodic review fulfills the provision under the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 that the World Trade Center Program administrator conduct this first review of the scientific and medical evidence. This first review discusses criteria that have been used previously to assist in weighing the scientific evidence to determine if a causal association exists between exposure and cancer. The review also summarizes input from the public and provides updates from researchers about ongoing or planned cancer studies.

James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010

Payment Status 2011

Subject: The Zadroga Bill Excludes Cancer Claims
LINK

I am writing this email to respond to several clients who have raised questions regarding the recently-announced decision to exclude cancer claims from coverage under the new Zadroga VCF.

As many of you are already aware from media coverage, on July 26, 2011, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (“NIOSH”) published a “First Periodic Review of Scientific and Medical Evidence Related to Cancer for the World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program.” This report is the first peer-reviewed article on medical evidence relating to cancer and toxic smoke, particulate and dust exposures in and around the World Trade Center site. A copy of the report is annexed to this e-mail
for your information. Among other things, the Report states that there is presently insufficient evidence upon which to propose a rule that would add cancer to the list of WTC-related health injuries.

Based on that report, it was subsequently announced this week that claims of cancer alleged to arise from toxic exposures related to the World Trade Center disaster site will not be eligible for compensation under the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 (“Zadroga”) at this time. If you are a cancer victim who has settled your claim in the WTC Captive Settlement Process Agreement “SPA” this will
not affect your rights to compensation under the SPA and/or other settlement agreements with non-city settling defendants. You will still receive all your payments and awards from the settlement(s).
For those who have not settled under the SPA, this is particularly disturbing since the reopened VCF should have provided an easier way to obtain compensation for cancer not harder than the litigation. It is also troubling that one of the reasons why they are not providing coverage is because of the lack of exposure evidence. As we all remember there was a lack of exposure evidence because the Federal government (EPA, for example) and others lied about the quality of the air at Ground Zero. This fact alone needs to be taken into consideration as another reason to broaden the criteria upon which the Zadroga administrators will pay cancer victims. At this point and until there is a change in the Zadroga regulations to address cancer claims, the only way a cancer victim can receive compensation is through the SPA or litigation. Needless to say, we will do all in our power to continue to lobby for and work towards obtaining Zadroga coverage for cancer claims.

I trust that as scientific evidence catches up to the anecdotal evidence we have already seen in the population of men and women involved in the World Trade Center litigations, which clearly seems to indicate increased levels of many types of cancers as compared with the general population, Zadroga Special Master Birnbaum and the Zadroga program will act swiftly and appropriately to see that these deserving individuals are able to obtain the compensation they deserve. In light of the NIOSH report and Dr. Howard’s decision, our office is extremely gratified that so many of our clients and other plaintiffs in the Federal Court litigation had chosen to settle their law suits in a series of settlement agreements with various defendants that all provided coverage and compensation for cancers.

Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern LLP, Plaintiffs' Co-Liaison Counsel Welcomes Additional Opportunity for Plaintiffs to Review Options in Settlement
LINK

NEW YORK, Nov. 24, 2010 /PRNewswire/ -- Plaintiffs' counsel welcomed an order by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York appointing a Special Counsel for plaintiffs who did not opt-in to review their options once more as to the $625 million settlement between the City, its contractors and the plaintiffs, beyond the opt-in deadline, which expired at midnight on Tuesday, November 16.

Judge Hellerstein's order acknowledges that in mass tort litigations such as this, it is not unusual to have small numbers of plaintiffs who do not make their wishes known, cannot be reached, or decide to withdraw, for whatever reason and he explained that the appointment of this special counsel is just one way a court can determine how to proceed with those claimants.

"We are pleased, and indeed encouraged the Court to appoint an independent special counsel in order to assist us to ensure that our clients who have not yet opted in fully understand the settlement and their options regarding litigation, even after our repeated court-approved communications and our meetings with them," said Marc Jay Bern, a Senior Partner with the law firm Worby, Groner, Edelman & Napoli, Bern, LLP. "Litigation is emotional. We believe it is in our clients' best interests to go over the information once again with the Court-appointed outside counsel to make sure each one understands the benefits and risks of their individual decisions."

Specifically, the Judge's order stated, "The goal of (the court appointed counsel's) services is to assist such of the Eligible Plaintiffs as desire his services to come to one of four possible decisions, on the basis of full and fair disclosure of all the benefits and detriments of each choice, and to make proper declaration of such choice:
Opt into the SPA, executing all necessary documentation;
Declare a choice to continue with the lawsuit;
Choose not to participate further in the litigation, either by declaration or by declining to exercise any other choice, or declining to meet with Special Counsel, or
Instruct counsel to proceed with a dismissal-with-prejudice procedure.

Prior to the opt-in date, nearly 100 plaintiffs told their counsel they preferred to withdraw their lawsuits with prejudice, meaning they could not re-file their claims, even after Counsel made them fully aware of the risks of such a decision. The Court accepted those dismissals but is now giving plaintiffs the opportunity to change their minds or confirm that same decision to withdraw. Similarly, the order enables others who have made no choice known to their counsel to decide to opt-in or out. Whether to accept those who do decide to opt-in now, after the deadline has expired, will be up to the WTC Captive Insurance Company, which insures and defends the City and its contractors and negotiated the settlement with plaintiffs' counsel.

"We hope that those who never did make their decisions clear to us or who decided to withdraw will still be given the opportunity to opt-in, should they decide to do so now," Bern said.

Press Release Contact Information:
Marc Jay Bern
Senior Partner
Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern, LLP
516-361-4909
mjbern@napolibern.com

For 9/11 responders with cancer, it's insult on top of illness: A patient reacts to Zadroga decision
BY Richard Dambakly, NY Daily News, July 31, 2011
LINK

The horror of 9/11 taught us many things: It redefined what a hero was and it showed our nation's strength, even when faced with the worst nightmare imaginable.

Unfortunately, after last week's decision not to provide care or compensation to 9/11 responders like me who are fighting cancer, I also learned the harsh truth about politics.

Of everything I witnessed, the most vivid memory is of President George W. Bush standing in front of the still-smoldering pile of rubble, pledging to me and the countless other workers that our country would never forget our sacrifice. The implicit promise was that we would be taken care of.

Nearly 10 years later, I think back on that moment and know that I was lied to.

On Sept. 11, 2001, I was a telecommunications worker with Verizon, working on Little West 12th St. I watched in utter shock as the first plane hit the South Tower and, moments later, as the dark dense smoke came flooding from the scene, engulfing my truck and work site.

Rather than run, I stayed behind to secure my work site and fought my way through the smoke and crowds to lower Manhattan with a generator for the Fire Department. The firefighters needed it more than I did – it was the least I could do.
From that moment on, I was based at Ground Zero and remained at the site virtually around the clock. I worked 16 hours a day, every day.

I never asked about the consequences. I never asked about the smoke. I never asked for a day off. I did it because it needed to be done. We all did it because these people needed us, our city needed us and our country needed us.


As was the case with many others, three or four weeks of laboring within the toxic cloud began to take a toll on my lungs. I developed a chronic cough, mild at first but increasingly severe as time went on.

Initially we all kind of made a joke about it, but after four months I began coughing so violently that I was rushed to the emergency room.

After months of testing, I learned that I had developed a blood cancer called lymphoma. I went though serious bouts of chemotherapy and, eventually, the cancer went into remission. I think.

The cancer was scary, but I figured that as long as I had my doctors, I was in good hands. But the cost of my treatment soon proved insurmountable - I suddenly had piles of medical bills totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars. I quickly realized that I needed help.

I then discovered that I had missed the window to submit a claim under the original 9/11 settlement, which included help for cancer patients. No one had told me, but I was two weeks late.

What's worse, unlike many Police Department officers, firefighters and emergency responders, thousands of first responders not employed by the city like myself don't have a government pension or comprehensive health care benefits to fall back on. If the government won't help, we're all alone.

Working with Matthew McCauley, an attorney who has championed the rights of first responders, and John Feal of the Feal Good Foundation, we sought to undo this wrong.

Our only hope was the passage of the 2010 James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, which reopened the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund and gave us health care and compensation to help our families stay afloat.

After last week's decision by Dr. John Howard, administrator of the national World Trade Center Health Program, which claimed that the science is insufficient to establish a causal link between work at Ground Zero and the cancers many of us have since developed, I'm left with nothing. While we're lucky that my five children, who range in age from 3 to 14, can receive healthcare through Medicaid, my wife and I are left without options. I no longer have any health benefits at all.

After my cancer developed, I began working for myself as a martial arts instructor, which I had studied for many years. Of course, this job doesn't come with health care – and the cost of individual coverage for someone with a deadly cancer is astronomical. I simply cannot afford it.

As of my last CAT scan, I was cancer-free. But that was three years ago, the last time I had health coverage. I have no idea whether my illness will return – or if it already has.

I am simply dumbfounded as to why the government refuses to acknowledge a link between the air we breathed and the cancer we developed.

We have all been to too many funerals. We have all seen the young and otherwise healthy first responders, workers and lower Manhattan residents fall victim to rare cancers. For us, the tragedy won't end, as we are forced to relive the attack each time we have to bury another of our friends and family members. The facts are clear to everyone: The air was toxic and now we are sick.

And the government knows this too. In fact, the original 9/11 settlement, which involved thousands of rescue and cleanup workers, created a $23.4 million insurance policy to cover future cancer claims by plaintiffs in the suit.

Why is the science being deemed insufficient now? It is astounding and reprehensible that 10 long years after the dust has settled at Ground Zero, we still lack the basic studies to determine whether that dust was deadly.


Ironically, it was the Bush administration - the same Bush who so eloquently pledged his support for 9/11 heroes- that refused to fund these studies.

With each passing day, more and more of our 9/11 heroes are diagnosed with deadly cancers. Without proper access to medical care and financial assistance, we will languish.

This may be a scientific debate for some, but for hundreds like me, it's life and death. We are not asking for much. Just to have promises kept.

Dambakly, a former technician at Verizon in New York City, is now a martial arts instructor in North Carolina. Rich Dambakly was diagnosed with cancer after working as a 9/11 first responder.


Cancer-stricken WTC worker gets $0 settlement check
By SUSAN EDELMAN and CYNTHIA R. FAGEN, NYPOST, July 31, 2011
LINK

Cancer-stricken Ground Zero worker Edgar Galvis has finally received a compensation check -- for zero dollars.

The 51-year-old Queens man, who suffered sinus problems and then throat cancer after months of removing toxic debris from the World Financial Center, was relieved to get a check in the mail for his court settlement with Merrill Lynch, whose offices he had cleaned.

But he was stunned when he saw the amount: $0.00.

His award had been $10,005, but his lawyers at the firm Worby, Groner, Edelman & Napoli Bern lopped off $2,579 for unitemized legal expenses.

Then they took a 33.3 percent fee of $2,124.

They also subtracted $352, a fee to the lawyer who referred him.

The remaining $4,950 was withheld for unspecified "liens," the letter says. Galvis thinks this was repayment of workers' compensation for aid.

"I have hit rock bottom," said Galvis, who is jobless and $30,000 in debt. "I was expecting a check, and you can imagine how I felt when I opened it. I couldn't believe it. I thought it was a joke."

The father of two, who lives in Glendale with his fiancée and her two kids, said he had to sell his car and relies on relatives for rent. "I get collection agencies whenever I open the mail. What little credit I had I don't have anymore," he said.

Galvis said he arrived in New York from Bogota, Colombia, in February 2001. Hired by contractors clearing dust and rubble from Merrill Lynch offices next to Ground Zero, Galvis said he toiled 16 hours a day for six months in a jumpsuit and paper mask that would tear when he sweated. At $8 an hour, he made close to $800 a week.

In May 2005, a friend gave him a business card passed out by the law firm. A representative came to his home.

"The man told me that more than likely I will get sick and I would get 60 percent of whatever he won," Galvis said. "He even mentioned the words 'millions of dollars.' "

In April 2010, he got a $10,000 offer. A letter from the law firm said he could expect about $5,000 after expenses and fees. It warned that if his case went to trial and he lost, he could owe the firm up to $100,000 in costs. He took the settlement.

His claim cited chronic rhinosinusitis and sleep disorders. He was diagnosed with throat cancer last August and began chemotherapy and radiation. But it was "too late" to adjust his claim.

"It was our pleasure to represent you in this matter," the law firm says in a note that arrived with the zero-dollar check.

It was no pleasure for Galvis.

"I think they are taking advantage of the ignorance of people such as myself," he said.

The total Merrill settlement came to $18 million for about 400 clients, documents show.

Galvis is one of nearly 10,000 Ground Zero workers represented by Napoli Bern, which led talks for a separate settlement with the city for $712 million.

Anger is also stirring among those clients, who have started getting checks for 40 percent of their total awards. Several told The Post the payouts were less than those estimated by Napoli Bern. Some said they felt duped.

A partner in the firm, Paul Napoli, did not respond to a request for comment.

Getting to $0:

$10.005

$2,579 for unitemized legal expenses

- $2,124 for a 33.3% legal fee

-$352 fee to a lawyer who referred him

- $4,950 for unspecified “liens”

=$0