Thousands of rescue workers sickened after the September 11 attacks in New York have until the end of Monday to accept a settlement that could near 800 million dollars.
A settlement on Friday saw a subgroup of workers compensated 28 million dollars for exposure to debris removed and transferred from Ground Zero to Staten Island by marine transportation company Weeks Marine.
But US District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein said in a related order that the plaintiffs could only claim compensation for it if they backed the larger agreement for up to 712.5 million dollars.
That settlement with New York City was reached in June and requires approval from 95 percent of the plaintiffs by 11:59 pm (0459 GMT) on Monday in order to be validated.
The proposed funds would be used for payments to the roughly 10,000 firefighters, health workers, police and other emergency responders who sought legal remedy after falling ill from toxic dust and debris emanating from the destroyed World Trade Center nine years ago.
Paul Napoli, who leads a legal team representing most of the plaintiffs, said he has since brokered additional agreements with other defendants, bringing the total potential compensation to 796.45 million dollars.
And further agreements are still possible, further increasing the amount.
Micheline Tang of Kekst and Company said proposed compensation from different defendants now totals 811.5 million dollars, but noted it could be inaccurate to aggregate the figures because different plaintiffs are suing different defendants.
“In addition, compensation will be determined based on the severity of the injury and the strength of the claim,” she told AFP.
Her firm represents the WTC Captive Insurance Company, which will pay the larger settlement out of a federally financed fund.
Lawyers also reached a separate 47.5 million dollar settlement last month with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owned the World Trade Center.
Napoli said he and his colleagues “are very happy we have reached agreements with these defendants, following extensive negotiations that lasted several years.”
“Negotiations with remaining defendants have been going on as well and we hope that the latest settlements will encourage those defendants to take this opportunity to resolve the remaining plaintiffs’ claims against them in the near future,” he added in a statement on Saturday.
In all cases, Hellerstein found the allocation process to be “fair and reasonable.”
Inspector general found ‘no evidence of political bias’ in Trump-Russia probe: report
Inspector General Michael Horowitz's report on the origins of the probe into the Trump campaign's contacts with Russia has found that there was no evidence of political bias on the part of law enforcement officials who began the investigation.
The Associated Press reports that the report "is expected to conclude there was an adequate basis for opening one of the most politically sensitive investigations in FBI history and one that Trump has denounced as a witch hunt."
The IG's report also found that former British spy Christopher Steele, whose infamous dossier on Trump featured salacious allegations about the president and Russian prostitutes, played no role in the opening of the probe, despite claims from Trump's Republican allies who argued that it was central to the investigation.
Tulsa man shot for making ‘racial derogatory remark’ to random passerby — after being stabbed for the same thing
According to Tulsa police, a man has been hospitalized after being shot in the back after using a "racial derogatory remark" to another man he encountered while walking home, a local ABC affiliate reports.
No one has been arrested for the crime. Speaking to police, the victim's girlfriend said this was the second time he's been attacked for using racist remarks, the first time being when he was stabbed by someone he racially insulted.
Watch Tulsa 8's report on the story below:
DOJ argues Congress can’t stop Trump Org from taking foreign payments — despite Constitution’s emoluments clause
The so-called emoluments clause has been the center of a case that many legal scholars have been making that President Donald Trump is regularly violating the Constitution by continuing to accept payments from foreign governments via his businesses.
The Washington Post reports that an attorney from the Trump Department of Justice argued on Monday that the emoluments clause doesn't actually prevent Trump from accepting payments from foreign governments, even though the clause specifically states that "no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."