Bridge Compensation Fund
From Logical Lady Sue Jeffers
As construction of the new 35W Bridge continues ahead of schedule to go up, so does the level of political bickering. About the only thing legislators agree on is it is the other guys fault and MN needs decisive action NOW.
The action called for includes many options, usually Carol Molnau’s job, tax increases, and more spending on transportation. Again, repeat after me: Priority spending must be on Roads and Bridges, Roads and Bridges, Roads and Bridges.
Scott Newman sent a letter to Republican leadership and the media last week. It reads as follows:
Gentlemen:
In deciding whether to proceed with legislation to create a special compensation fund for victims of the 35W bridge collapse, please consider the following:
1. Every victim has available mandatory no fault automobile coverage consisting of medical expenses, wage loss, replacement services or survivors benefits.
2. Every victim had the right to purchase increased no fault coverage over the state mandatory minimum.
3. Every victim has available or had a right to elect to purchase health insurance and disability insurance to cover medical expenses and lost wages.
4. Every victim who has had medical bills paid under an “Erisa” (federal law) health insurance policy will receive bridge compensation funds only after the health insurance company has been reimbursed from the fund for medical bills paid.
5. The government should get involved in disaster relief type payments for the public good only and not be an insurer for damages claimed by private persons.
6. The legislature has deemed it appropriate to cap damages in any single event where the state may be liable, at one million dollars. In this case, legislation to tender the one million dollars to the court would be appropriate. The effect of such legislation would be to protect the state from the cost of multiple lawsuits and would allow the correct branch of government to determine distribution of the funds.
7. We have approximately five million people in Minnesota and about 100 bridge victims. To create a special class of claimants for a small group is an extraordinarily risky proposition with a very real possibility of unintended consequences resulting. This is generally true when the government attempts to treat one group of people differently or provides benefits unique to that group. For example, individual claimants in cases other than the bridge collapse in which the State of Minnesota has potential liability, could request the State to set up a special compensation fund for them as it did for the 35W bridge victims. If the State refused or failed to act, they would have standing to file separate suits in State or Federal Court claiming among other causes of action a violation of equal protection and discrimination.
As outlined above, this proposed legislation is fraught with legal issues, unintended consequences and will set a dangerous precedent. Consequently, I encourage you to carefully research and analyze this bill before lending any support to the Bridge Compensation Fund.
Respectfully Submitted:
Scott J. Newman
(Scott Newman is a former member of the Minnesota House of Representatives from Hutchinson)
As construction of the new 35W Bridge continues ahead of schedule to go up, so does the level of political bickering. About the only thing legislators agree on is it is the other guys fault and MN needs decisive action NOW.
The action called for includes many options, usually Carol Molnau’s job, tax increases, and more spending on transportation. Again, repeat after me: Priority spending must be on Roads and Bridges, Roads and Bridges, Roads and Bridges.
Scott Newman sent a letter to Republican leadership and the media last week. It reads as follows:
Gentlemen:
In deciding whether to proceed with legislation to create a special compensation fund for victims of the 35W bridge collapse, please consider the following:
1. Every victim has available mandatory no fault automobile coverage consisting of medical expenses, wage loss, replacement services or survivors benefits.
2. Every victim had the right to purchase increased no fault coverage over the state mandatory minimum.
3. Every victim has available or had a right to elect to purchase health insurance and disability insurance to cover medical expenses and lost wages.
4. Every victim who has had medical bills paid under an “Erisa” (federal law) health insurance policy will receive bridge compensation funds only after the health insurance company has been reimbursed from the fund for medical bills paid.
5. The government should get involved in disaster relief type payments for the public good only and not be an insurer for damages claimed by private persons.
6. The legislature has deemed it appropriate to cap damages in any single event where the state may be liable, at one million dollars. In this case, legislation to tender the one million dollars to the court would be appropriate. The effect of such legislation would be to protect the state from the cost of multiple lawsuits and would allow the correct branch of government to determine distribution of the funds.
7. We have approximately five million people in Minnesota and about 100 bridge victims. To create a special class of claimants for a small group is an extraordinarily risky proposition with a very real possibility of unintended consequences resulting. This is generally true when the government attempts to treat one group of people differently or provides benefits unique to that group. For example, individual claimants in cases other than the bridge collapse in which the State of Minnesota has potential liability, could request the State to set up a special compensation fund for them as it did for the 35W bridge victims. If the State refused or failed to act, they would have standing to file separate suits in State or Federal Court claiming among other causes of action a violation of equal protection and discrimination.
As outlined above, this proposed legislation is fraught with legal issues, unintended consequences and will set a dangerous precedent. Consequently, I encourage you to carefully research and analyze this bill before lending any support to the Bridge Compensation Fund.
Respectfully Submitted:
Scott J. Newman
(Scott Newman is a former member of the Minnesota House of Representatives from Hutchinson)
Labels: 35W Bridge collapse, MN Legislature
posted by The Lady Logician at
3:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home