Department of the Coroner
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation: FEMA-942-DR-CA; Los Angeles County; DSR 48374
Cross Reference: Emergency Work, Immediate Threat
Summary: As a result of the civil unrest, Los Angeles County (subgrantee) was responsible for the removal of 60 corpses. Damage Survey Report (DSR) 48374 was prepared to propose funding for costs incurred as a result of removing and transporting the corpses, performing autopsies, and staffing the emergency operations center (EOC) for seven days. The costs associated with performing autopsies were determined to be ineligible, because the autopsies were not necessary to eliminate or lessen an immediate threat. It was determined that the immediate threat posed by the corpses was alleviated following the transportation of the corpses to the morgue. DSR 48374 was approved in the amount of $35,874 to provide funding for the staffing of the EOC and the emergency response to death scene locations. The subgrantee submitted a first appeal of this determination stating that the costs associated with removing the corpses should not be arbitrarily separated from other associated costs. In its second appeal, the subgrantee restates its arguments from the first appeal that FEMA's "cut-off" point for when the immediate threat ended is arbitrary and without foundation.
Issues:Were the autopsies necessary to eliminate or lessen an immediate threat?
Findings: No. The immediate threat posed by the corpses was eliminated once the corpses were transported to the morgue.
Rationale: According to 44 CFR 206.225(a)(3), emergency protective measures must eliminate or lessen immediate threats to life, public health or safety, or threats of significant damage to improved property to be eligible.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-0942-DR |
| Applicant | Los Angeles County |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 037-00000 |
| PW ID# | 48374 |
| Date Signed | 1999-10-04T04:00:00 |
Cross Reference: Emergency Work, Immediate Threat
Summary: As a result of the civil unrest, Los Angeles County (subgrantee) was responsible for the removal of 60 corpses. Damage Survey Report (DSR) 48374 was prepared to propose funding for costs incurred as a result of removing and transporting the corpses, performing autopsies, and staffing the emergency operations center (EOC) for seven days. The costs associated with performing autopsies were determined to be ineligible, because the autopsies were not necessary to eliminate or lessen an immediate threat. It was determined that the immediate threat posed by the corpses was alleviated following the transportation of the corpses to the morgue. DSR 48374 was approved in the amount of $35,874 to provide funding for the staffing of the EOC and the emergency response to death scene locations. The subgrantee submitted a first appeal of this determination stating that the costs associated with removing the corpses should not be arbitrarily separated from other associated costs. In its second appeal, the subgrantee restates its arguments from the first appeal that FEMA's "cut-off" point for when the immediate threat ended is arbitrary and without foundation.
Issues:Were the autopsies necessary to eliminate or lessen an immediate threat?
Findings: No. The immediate threat posed by the corpses was eliminated once the corpses were transported to the morgue.
Rationale: According to 44 CFR 206.225(a)(3), emergency protective measures must eliminate or lessen immediate threats to life, public health or safety, or threats of significant damage to improved property to be eligible.
Appeal Letter
October 4, 1999
Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Disaster Field Office - Public Assistance Section
74 North Pasadena Avenue
West Annex, 2nd Floor
Pasadena, CA 91103-3678
Reference: Second Appeal - Los Angeles County; DSR 48374 (Department of the Coroner); FEMA-942-DR-CA, P.A. 037-00000
Dear Mr. Najera:
This is in response to your letter dated June 29, 1999, transmitting the referenced appeal. Damage Survey Report (DSR) 48374 was prepared to propose funding for costs incurred as a result of removing and transporting 60 corpses, performing autopsies, and staffing the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) for seven days. The costs associated with performing autopsies were determined to be ineligible, because the autopsies were not necessary to eliminate or lessen an immediate threat. It was determined that the immediate threat posed by the corpses was alleviated following the transportation of the corpses to the morgue.
DSR 48374 was approved in the amount of $35,874 to provide funding for the staffing of the EOC and the emergency response to death scene locations. Although transportation of the corpses was determined to be eligible work, the costs associated with this work were not sufficiently separated from the costs related to the autopsies. The subgrantee did not provide an adequate breakdown of its costs; therefore, no funding for the transportation of the corpses was provided.
In the second appeal, Los Angeles County (subgrantee) restates arguments from the first appeal that Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) "cut-off" point for when the immediate threat ended is arbitrary and without foundation. The subgrantee states that the sole act of removing and transporting the bodies was not sufficient to alleviate the immediate threat; the complete treatment of the bodies prevented decomposition and disease, thereby eliminating the immediate threat. Further, the subgrantee states that the Medical Examiner is legally mandated to perform all of the functions originally addressed by DSR 48374 during a civil disturbance. While the subgrantee contends that all claimed costs are eligible, cost documentation for "Forensic Services" was submitted with the second appeal.
FEMA has previously addressed the subgrantee's position in the response to the first appeal (see enclosure). The response to the first appeal accurately states that while the autopsies were necessary, they were not required to eliminate or lessen an immediate threat. Pursuant to Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) 206.225(a)(3), emergency protective measures must eliminate or lessen immediate threats to life, public health or safety, or threats of significant damage to improved property to be eligible.
The response to the first appeal also states that the costs claimed by the subgrantee under the heading of "Investigations," included eligible costs for the transportation of corpses and ineligible costs for death scene investigations, notification of next-of-kin, and identification of the decedent. The eligible costs were not separated from the ineligible costs; therefore, FEMA was unable to provide funding for the transportation of the corpses in DSR 48374. The documentation submitted with the second appeal is for costs claimed under the heading of "Forensic Services." These costs were included in the eligible amount approved by DSR 48374. The subgrantee has submitted no additional documentation regarding the costs claimed under the heading of "Investigations."
I have carefully reviewed the subgrantee's second appeal and have determined that the subgrantee has not sufficiently demonstrated that an immediate threat remained after the corpses were transported to the morgue. Further, the documentation submitted with the appeal summarizes costs that have already been approved by DSR 48374. The subgrantee has not provided justification for the reversal of the Regional Director's determination. Therefore, I am denying the second appeal.
Please inform the subgrantee of my determination. In accordance with the appeal procedure governing appeal decisions made on or after May 8, 1998, my decision constitutes the final decision on this matter. The current appeal procedure was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on April 8, 1998. It amends 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
cc: Richard A. Buck
Disaster Recovery Manager
FEMA Region IX
Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Disaster Field Office - Public Assistance Section
74 North Pasadena Avenue
West Annex, 2nd Floor
Pasadena, CA 91103-3678
Reference: Second Appeal - Los Angeles County; DSR 48374 (Department of the Coroner); FEMA-942-DR-CA, P.A. 037-00000
Dear Mr. Najera:
This is in response to your letter dated June 29, 1999, transmitting the referenced appeal. Damage Survey Report (DSR) 48374 was prepared to propose funding for costs incurred as a result of removing and transporting 60 corpses, performing autopsies, and staffing the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) for seven days. The costs associated with performing autopsies were determined to be ineligible, because the autopsies were not necessary to eliminate or lessen an immediate threat. It was determined that the immediate threat posed by the corpses was alleviated following the transportation of the corpses to the morgue.
DSR 48374 was approved in the amount of $35,874 to provide funding for the staffing of the EOC and the emergency response to death scene locations. Although transportation of the corpses was determined to be eligible work, the costs associated with this work were not sufficiently separated from the costs related to the autopsies. The subgrantee did not provide an adequate breakdown of its costs; therefore, no funding for the transportation of the corpses was provided.
In the second appeal, Los Angeles County (subgrantee) restates arguments from the first appeal that Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) "cut-off" point for when the immediate threat ended is arbitrary and without foundation. The subgrantee states that the sole act of removing and transporting the bodies was not sufficient to alleviate the immediate threat; the complete treatment of the bodies prevented decomposition and disease, thereby eliminating the immediate threat. Further, the subgrantee states that the Medical Examiner is legally mandated to perform all of the functions originally addressed by DSR 48374 during a civil disturbance. While the subgrantee contends that all claimed costs are eligible, cost documentation for "Forensic Services" was submitted with the second appeal.
FEMA has previously addressed the subgrantee's position in the response to the first appeal (see enclosure). The response to the first appeal accurately states that while the autopsies were necessary, they were not required to eliminate or lessen an immediate threat. Pursuant to Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) 206.225(a)(3), emergency protective measures must eliminate or lessen immediate threats to life, public health or safety, or threats of significant damage to improved property to be eligible.
The response to the first appeal also states that the costs claimed by the subgrantee under the heading of "Investigations," included eligible costs for the transportation of corpses and ineligible costs for death scene investigations, notification of next-of-kin, and identification of the decedent. The eligible costs were not separated from the ineligible costs; therefore, FEMA was unable to provide funding for the transportation of the corpses in DSR 48374. The documentation submitted with the second appeal is for costs claimed under the heading of "Forensic Services." These costs were included in the eligible amount approved by DSR 48374. The subgrantee has submitted no additional documentation regarding the costs claimed under the heading of "Investigations."
I have carefully reviewed the subgrantee's second appeal and have determined that the subgrantee has not sufficiently demonstrated that an immediate threat remained after the corpses were transported to the morgue. Further, the documentation submitted with the appeal summarizes costs that have already been approved by DSR 48374. The subgrantee has not provided justification for the reversal of the Regional Director's determination. Therefore, I am denying the second appeal.
Please inform the subgrantee of my determination. In accordance with the appeal procedure governing appeal decisions made on or after May 8, 1998, my decision constitutes the final decision on this matter. The current appeal procedure was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on April 8, 1998. It amends 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
cc: Richard A. Buck
Disaster Recovery Manager
FEMA Region IX
Last updated