ThenNow

Yes. Good of you to make that critical distinction. I don’t want to create the wrong impression for anyone. Those cases that have tried to apply a global, “BSA has IVF and failed to disclose and protect all of these plaintiffs,” have not been successful, as far as I know. I’m sure you’re aware of these. Am I correct?

As I’ve said, I disagree. There is a clear path if one knocks out of the park a tolling argument based on fraudulent concealment or other. Yes, I know it is a difficult and exacting proof, but I will make a very serious, studied and tenacious run at it. I don’t intend to fail.

Precisely. “Don’t want to be sifted like wheat? I’m showing you the money. It ain’t much, but this is it or come to papa and stand before the judgement seat.”

So much for submit a claim, be anonymous and get a check. I guess those ads were a bit misleading after all? The documentation burden alone is going to be nearly insurmountable for some claimants. What amounts to in one’s “possession”? This is a huge fulcrum to flip people into the Expedited track. I’m ready, but I don’t know how many others are or will be. Zowie.

So, a CSA claimant who suffered abuse in a Gray 1, Gray 2 and Gray 3 state has a potential multiplier of 1.4. Sweet. I’m in the money. Put me in a new tier above Open, please.

Perhaps not to the BSA. It matters greatly to me and us. Anywho, I’m heating up the frying pan for the bigger fish flopping around in the bottom of my canoe.

I’m just babbling as I wait for the breaking news at 11. My anxiety is showing. Pay me no mind for the next few... That detail doesn’t make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

What? Say it ain’t so. This is purely the BSA’s man and not someone agreed to by the other parties? That don’t sound so good. Someone got some splainin’ to do.

That was an attempt at a little levity which may be needed to leaven the lump, as the Book says.

I don’t know about this fella. His CV and educational background are a tad light on substance. Or not.

Yes, thanks. But, I want to see MY policies.

Two questions for the wizards in our midst. The eventual Plan and Disclosure Statement will attach the “comprehensive” list of insurance policies. Does anyone know if they will provide any segmentation data for the applicable fields (CO, LC, additional insured, co-insured, years of coverage...)? And, will we plebes have access to those policies or will they be hidden behind The Great and Powerful’s curtain, shrouded in smoke and guarded by a blustering hologram?

Got it.

Still don't get this fudge factor. "Higher Scaling Factor" than 1% or the applicable Upscaling Claim Value (factors), as they're called? Specifically, Consideration of Aggravating Factors, Abuser Profile and Impact of the Abuse. If a valid case for tolling is accepted by the Trustee and s/he does NOT kick the claim into open state status, that would be mind boggling and contrary to law.

Currently, the only defense with traction that I can find is tolling of the SoL based on fraudulent concealment. From my lawyer's brain perspective, the whole thing is fascinating. It's a longstanding theory that is being successfully applied to the BSA CSA cases. A "counseling reimbursement trust" is what was mentioned to me.

Want to see a bevy of apoplectic claimant attorneys who represent a pile of open staters? Do that. I can picture the conference room when that is proposed. Boy howdy. Yee haw. Sign me up for the midnight showing of that film.

I did finally get a response from the BSA counseling reimbursement division, people, administrator or whatever. They said it is, "all subject to negotiation and settlement terms, at this time." I've not been able to confirm that with anyone on the claimants side, however. I know some non-claimants here think it wrong to get "money" in settlement and get "free" go forward counseling, but I don't think they contemplated the 58,000+ closed state abuse survivors' potential fate. Well, I hope they didn't.

That should be "begin." Moving too fast, yet again...

Agreed. However, I am now in step-up therapy driven by the case. In my case, that means a tailored IOP. My treatment has elevated to twice per week with my primary (abuse and trauma) therapist and one day a week with her staff "intercessional" therapist. The latter basically makes sure I don't fall apart after two weekly sessions of trauma work. There's a point at which it is crushing not to have resolved. Twiddling while legislatures make sausage may be a bit too much for many.

I also think it important for those who may have significant disappointment in the future to being tempering hope with a pragmatic, left brain takeover.

I am truly sorry.

I've said this before and wish it could be heard by the broader public. I believe many of you here have and acknowledge it, to one degree or another. Other than the guys who were geared up and ready to litigate in open states, I don't think many of us sat down and did an available assets analysis and distribution calculus when we read the invite to file a claim. It is a simple matter of fact to say, "there was never going to be a scenario...", but facts and feelings are in play. More so feelings I think. In the minds and hearts of many BSA CSA survivors, we heard a promise. In it was a nod, at long last, and a committment to provide "equitable" payment. It drew us out into the open. Now, here some of us stand, basically naked with our hands out. Oops. "Please, sir. May I have some more?" "Um. Sorry. No equitable compensation for you." I don't think most men ran a decision tree analysis or insurance defense scenarios when they felt a spark of hope for recompense and affirmation of their pain. Yes, maybe it was all there to see and black and white, but it's hard to read through buckets of tears. It may just be me...

I stand corrected and welcome an additional 8150 to the slap fest.

If memory serves (big if), this means about 50,000 men are about to get b-slapped. This is not a proverbial poke, but a legitimate musing. How do open state guys feel about those in closed states being left with an Oliver Twist look on their faces? I’m sure a good many of the 50,000 have similar or more egregious abuse stories and will get precious little. Meanwhile, just over the boarder, someone with a “minor to moderately severe” claim will get a notable sum. Does that feel at all troubling?

Does s/he have a specialty/concentration in CSA and/or abuse-related trauma?