Norman Advocates for 9/11 Uniformed Services First Responders

On March 19, 2009, Norman helped organize a press conference/rally on behalf of 9/11 Uniformed Services First Responders. Below are his remarks. Let us know what you think about this issue.

We are here today to be supportive of those New Yorkers – firefighters, NYPD, Port Authority police officers, and emergency medical technicians – who heroically assisted in the rescue and recovery effort after that horrific morning of September 11, 2001.

We are here today to speak out in defense of those New Yorkers – whose injuries and illnesses, in some cases life-threatening, were sustained from their exposure to toxic materials during the rescue and recovery effort after the WTC terrorist attacks.

These New Yorkers are heroes. We should be thanking them, supporting them. We should not be creating unnecessary, callous obstacles to their legitimate claims for financial support as a result of their medical condition.

We are New Yorkers – a compassionate, fair-minded, thankful and diverse group of citizens. We need to remind our elected and appointed government representatives of who we are and of our wish to recognize the City’s responsibility to these New York heroes.

We need to help them, not hurt them. They’ve been hurt enough.

Finally, we are here today to bring needed public attention to what the Bloomberg Administration is attempting to do in the pending federal lawsuit affecting thousands of Uniformed Service 1st Responders regarding their injuries and illnesses.

Recently, the City’s lawyers moved to have certain claims made by the Uniformed Service plaintiffs dismissed. They maintain the firefighters, police officers, and EMTs are not covered under sections 200 and 241(6) of the labor law and sections 205(a) and (e) of the General Municipal law.

The City maintains they are not “employees” as that term is defined under the labor law because they are not “mechanics, working men or laborers” that are “working for others for hire” and that they were not engaged in “construction, demolition or excavation work” in responding to the 9/11 attacks.

They also maintain under the General Municipal law that the plaintiffs can only recover from defendants’ negligence if it results in an “accident” - defined as a “sudden, fortuitous mischance” - and not from failure to provide protection from prolonged exposure to harmful conditions.

The Plaintiff's lawyers say the city is wrong. Wrong on the law and wrong on the facts. The plaintiffs did everything – they removed human remains, they removed debris, they brought down the remains of the WTC structure (demolition work). The law says “provide reasonable and adequate protection to the lives, health, and safety of all persons employed therein or lawfully frequenting such places.” (which would mean the uniformed plaintiffs).

The Plaintiff's lawyers say the term “accident” does encompass “exposure in the course of duty.”

The 1996 amendment to the General Municipal law section 205(a) says in part, “Since our firefighters are required to confront dangerous conditions under many and varied circumstances, there is a need to ensure that a right of action exists regardless of where the violation causing injury or death occurs.”

Of course, this legal debate will be decided in the Federal Court before Federal Judge Alvin Hellerstein. But it is crucial that New Yorkers are informed and aware of what the City – the Bloomberg Administration – is doing in our name.

The cases are scheduled to go to trial in May 2010.

We need to let our City officials know how we feel about what they are doing. We need to tell them as our elected and appointed representatives that we want them to help the people who are plaintiffs in this lawsuit and to do everything humanly and legally possible to amicably resolve the claims – and the sooner the better. Thank you.