polksalet Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/walmart.insurance.battle/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 Yup. Sam is turning over in his grave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonKnight Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 Heartwarming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTed46 Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 (edited) This is a sticky subject. It isnt so clear what the right thing to do is. Why would her case be ok and not others. I kinda agree with the Walmart spokesperson that says we cant make deicisons based on individual people but rather everyone on the plan. Don't get me wrong, I dont want Walmart to sue and I feel so bad for the woman. But this is very sticky subject. We dont know everyones story. Maybe they should change their plan but since their plan says they can do this then I dont see why they should make exception on any one individual because this will anger many more individuals. Edited April 1, 2008 by MrTed46 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big F'n Dave Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 MrTed=pokey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 This is a tough call. Of course we'd all like to see Wal*Mart drop the recovery suit, but I can see where that's not an option from their perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTed46 Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 MrTed=pokey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 Very sticky case. If they do not follow up on the recovery, then that money has to come from somewhere. More than likely it will be coming in the form of less health care, or more expensive health care for the employees. This woman is in a sad situation, but that doesn't change the fact that she has what amounts to a signed contract with WalMart. WalMart held up their end of the deal, so legally they should recover the judgment. While it is easy to say WalMart should look the other way and let this one pass, where do you draw the line? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sox Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 They may have the legal right,but it doesn't mean they have to hold to the exact amount.Wanting $200k more than they have left in the trust fund after current expenses is bad form,imho. Bankrupting a family trying to take care of a brain damaged woman is just flat out wrong,no matter what the letter of the law states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTed46 Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 They may have the legal right,but it doesn't mean they have to hold to the exact amount.Wanting $200k more than they have left in the trust fund after current expenses is bad form,imho. Bankrupting a family trying to take care of a brain damaged woman is just flat out wrong,no matter what the letter of the law states. If you read the article they said they can only claim the excess. So no they wont bankrupt the family or take more than they have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sox Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 If you read the article they said they can only claim the excess. So no they wont bankrupt the family or take more than they have. I did read the article. "Graham said he believes Wal-Mart should be entitled to only about $100,000. Right now, about $277,000 remains in the trust -- far short of the $470,000 Wal-Mart wants back." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 (edited) Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank's long-term care. am I reading this correctly? the lawyers got almost 600 grand? interesting that it is walmart and walmart alone taking the flak for taking money from these people. edit to add: I can't imagine though why walmart's lawyers think it is a good idea to go after this money. gotta imagine the negative publicity is worth a lot more than $400K. Edited April 1, 2008 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsmayes Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 How is this a sticky situation? Wal-mart should man up and eliminate the clause for *everyone*. The bad press alone is hurting them more than whatever amount of money they would gain from suing a bus load of brain damaged, quadrupalegic nuns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeohiostate Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 Saw that last week and the follow up this Sunday on 60 minutes. Pathetic ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaumont Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 This is her lawyer's fault. You negotiate the ERISA lien up front before you settle the case. Always. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 The 52-year-old mother of three attended her son's funeral, but she continues to ask how he's doing. When her family reminds her that he's dead, she weeps as if hearing the news for the first time. Jesus... I think I would start lying to her after a while and say that he is fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 This is her lawyer's fault. You negotiate the ERISA lien up front before you settle the case. Always. Bingo, her lawyer was one sorry sucker. I wonder if they have a case to sue him for legal malpractice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 This is her lawyer's fault. You negotiate the ERISA lien up front before you settle the case. Always. well, when it comes to lawyers, I guess you get what you pay for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 (edited) am I reading this correctly? the lawyers got almost 600 grand? interesting that it is walmart and walmart alone taking the flak for taking money from these people. edit to add: I can't imagine though why walmart's lawyers think it is a good idea to go after this money. gotta imagine the negative publicity is worth a lot more than $400K. I've read that the total settlement was $900,000, with her husband getting $119,280 of that, likely for loss of consortium. I'm not sure what the attorneys fee was, but its safe to say that it was nowhere near $600k. In any event, subrogation actions like this happen everyday. In Michigan, health care providers get a lien on proceeds arising from civil lawsuits. In most cases, as pointed out above, the plaintiff's attorney negotiates with the lien holder before settling the case. Edited April 1, 2008 by Furd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTed46 Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 I did read the article. "Graham said he believes Wal-Mart should be entitled to only about $100,000. Right now, about $277,000 remains in the trust -- far short of the $470,000 Wal-Mart wants back." After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank's long-term care.Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank's medical expenses and later sued for the same amount. However, the court ruled it can only recoup what is left in the family's trust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wirehairman Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 If Walmart the corporation doesn't step up, I think every one of the roughly 1.2 million Walmart employees should donate a buck to the couple. That should help some. (Polk, you should pass my suggestion on to your wife.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted April 1, 2008 Author Share Posted April 1, 2008 If Walmart the corporation doesn't step up, I think every one of the roughly 1.2 million Walmart employees should donate a buck to the couple. That should help some. (Polk, you should pass my suggestion on to your wife.) The problem with all of this is that we as people are unable to think and rationalize in these terms. Wal-Mart has as many employees as the state of Arkansas has people. These rules must stay because when you bend them you open the floodgates and dissolve the rules for everyone. Bottom line is that society and companies have rules. When you accept and agree to play by these rules, no matter how hard it is, you must do it. With 2 million employees how often does stuff like this happen? 10-50 people per year get mangled, I really don't know. It is a horrible situation for sure but life is a bitch sometimes. The rules worked for us last summer. We played by the rules and wally played by the rules. If no one played by the ruls wally would not have paid the half mil or so for my daughter's issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 These rules must stay because when you bend them you open the floodgates and dissolve the rules for everyone. ya know, I considered that argument when I read the article, but it really doesn't hold water (get it? floodgates, hold water...er, nevermind). I don't believe their decision whether they choose to enforce their contractual right in this case would set any legal precedent that would bar them from enforcing the same contractual right in the future. it would seem to be completely their discretion as to whether they assert the right to recoup or not in each case. if I am correct about that, then they are not opening any "floodgates". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted April 1, 2008 Author Share Posted April 1, 2008 ya know, I considered that argument when I read the article, but it really doesn't hold water (get it? floodgates, hold water...er, nevermind). I don't believe their decision whether they choose to enforce their contractual right in this case would set any legal precedent that would bar them from enforcing the same contractual right in the future. it would seem to be completely their discretion as to whether they assert the right to recoup or not in each case. if I am correct about that, then they are not opening any "floodgates". you might be correct, but a usual, you are not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 ya know, I considered that argument when I read the article, but it really doesn't hold water (get it? floodgates, hold water...er, nevermind). I don't believe their decision whether they choose to enforce their contractual right in this case would set any legal precedent that would bar them from enforcing the same contractual right in the future. it would seem to be completely their discretion as to whether they assert the right to recoup or not in each case. if I am correct about that, then they are not opening any "floodgates". Maybe not legal precedent, but you can bet your hairy red ass that the if WalMart caved on this, the very next time they were due a large settlement, that their employees family would be down at the local TV station, and you would have this exact situation all over again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.