This morning on my way to the train I picked up my free NY Metro paper (I love saying free in front of anything!) and as I started flipping through the pages. I found an article on the Golf Oil spill and how BP is offering compensation and distribution of 20 billion dollars that was set aside to help victims from the spill. While I know all this is going on, since they capped the leak, its sort of fallen to the wayside in the papers and on the news. In the paper, the article I was reading says:
"For the next six months - anyone claiming an emergency payment can also sue BP at a future date; but beyond that period, claimants would forfeit the right to file against the company", Feinberg said. (page 8, NY Metro News)
Reading this seems alittle confusing to me, are they saying that if the person claims an emergency payment now then they can sue over the next 6 months but forfeit the right to file suit against the company after the 6 month period? If thats the case I think its not fair to the workers who helped clean up the oil. When 9/11 happened, alot of the workers went into the site to help and cleanup and ended up with alot of lung and health problems afterwards. They were able to sue later on and get the help they needed for the sickness they endured because of their time around the site. It makes sense to me that anytime cleaning up a site, especially one involving oil, there could be long term health issues involved that may not come out of the woodwork until later on.
What do you think about this? What is Feinberg actually saying? Is BP's Feinberg who is running the fund aware that people who take the emergency help now could later have a worse sickness and wouldn't be able to sue because of the clause "claimants would forfeit the right to file against the company"? If he does know, isn't that unfair and maybe alittle like fraud?
I think the idea is that if BP pays out now, then your not allowed to re-sue them again, or sue the govt or sue anyone in regards to this case again.
ReplyDeleteI also heard that some of the workers down there have to deduct what they earned working from their payout.. which seems unfair in that doing work was counter-intuitive to them repairing their livelihood.
I agree with you. There are things that cannot be seen in 6 months, and there should not be that type of stipulation.
ReplyDeleteHey Nikki,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment on my blog!! That was so fun to have someone new on my blog! I just started it in June and it's slowly taking form. :)
I love your blog! It has a cute design and lots of good simplicity ideas. I'm excited to be encouraged by another member of the simplicity movement!
PS- Glad you liked my skirt too! Totally not eco-friendly (in regards to how it was made) but oh well... couldn't pass it up! haha At least it was cheap! ;)
~Angela
I think six months is just about the time long term affects will start showing. So once they go past that mark, they can't sue regardless if there are health concerns or not. I get it, and yet in the same breath I say, "so very wrong." They could save themselves a lot of trouble by paying medical bills, therapy if needed for say 1 year. It has to be the patient's doctor and not a company doc. Think Erin Brokovich! I can see that taking place anyway. It's a mess still. *sigh*
ReplyDelete