Wal-Mart sues brain-damaged woman for $417,000

[Heath Ledger]

I once read that if Wal Mart lost all of its non employee customers that it would still turn a profit from all of the shopping their employees do when they get their checks, since most are part timers they spend all of their checks before they even get off work on payday.

[101A]

Sparky is on the dime here, what is legal isn't always what's right and just. If Wal-Mart was a human being and not a soul-less corporation, there would be no problem here unless that human being was a real jerk. Fact is, it's a lot easier to be unethical as a corporation than as a person because some of your guilt is diluted.

The obvious non-partisan solution is to make corporations more liable but ethics are hard to code into law. What's most likely to happen I imagine is that some kind-hearted people raise enough money to step in for Wal-Mart's lack of morals.

Again if Wal Mart makes an exception in this case, they must make an exception in ALL cases; present AND past. Otherwise they can be charged with discrimination. The woman is white, probably Christian; her son was in the military; there are any number of factors (and some we no doubt can't imagine) that ANOTHER person's clever lawyer could use to claim THEIR client didn't get those same favors; and the Wal Mart Health plan must pay up!

It doesn't stop there; the DOL gets interested in discrimination suits as they pertain to health plans; and would have direct jurisdiction over this plan. It is undoubtedly self-funded, and therefore directly under their jurisdiction through ERISA. They could then levy fines for each and EVERY case of subrogation that Wal-Mart DID collect on - going back forever if they want. A client of mine just got levied $500,000 for discriminating within their health plan after a DOL audit. That company only has 400 employees - more than a thousand times smaller than Wal-Mart! And again, that's only the DOL - the lawyers of the OTHER tragic accident victims would be ALL over that decision.

Now that it's public? They would be idiots to pay her anything - and Wal-Mart is ANYTHING before they are idiots.

[101A]

Duplicate Post

[xrayzebra]

Gary Clack had a column on this topic in this mornings E-N.
Supposedly, the husband has divorced the woman so she could
get medicaid. For all the post so far, one thing hasn't been
mentioned. She will get disability SOC and possibly had
disability insurance. She will also go on Medicare since she is
disabled and worked under SOC. Evidently she is in a nursing
home. I know she has diminished mental capacity, short term
memory lost, but is she physically disabled? There are so
many issues that we have no knowledge of, how can anyone of
us make even an educated guess. I agree with one thing though.
Her lawyer, if he could read, knew about the clause in her
insurance. He was absolutely incompetent in his representation
for her. He should be sued.

[SPARKY]

Again if Wal Mart makes an exception in this case, they must make an exception in ALL cases; present AND past. Otherwise they can be charged with discrimination. The woman is white, probably Christian; her son was in the military; there are any number of factors (and some we no doubt can't imagine) that ANOTHER person's clever lawyer could use to claim THEIR client didn't get those same favors; and the Wal Mart Health plan must pay up!

It doesn't stop there; the DOL gets interested in discrimination suits as they pertain to health plans; and would have direct jurisdiction over this plan. It is undoubtedly self-funded, and therefore directly under their jurisdiction through ERISA. They could then levy fines for each and EVERY case of subrogation that Wal-Mart DID collect on - going back forever if they want. A client of mine just got levied $500,000 for discriminating within their health plan after a DOL audit. That company only has 400 employees - more than a thousand times smaller than Wal-Mart! And again, that's only the DOL - the lawyers of the OTHER tragic accident victims would be ALL over that decision.

Now that it's public? They would be idiots to pay her anything - and Wal-Mart is ANYTHING before they are idiots.

Well how about going through the legal motions in concert with the Wal-Mart Foundation covering the cost so the net impact to the family is nil?

[SAGambler]

Well, I agree Wal-Mart should make an exception in cases that are extrodinary. Who knows, maybe they would have and maybe the family just pissed them off? Remember, we seldom hear the whole story. Keep an open mind. We all complain about the prices of health care and insurance, then nobody wants to do things to keep the prices in check. How much would Wal-Marts insurance costs go up if they made such changes?

Life can be brutal. This does really sucks.

And...

The lawyer is a liar, incompetent, or both. He knew, or should have known this would happen. They should have gone for more money stating they would have to repay Wal-Mart and fees and still needed long term health care expenses. Look at any insurance policy this is a standard practice to collect the money back if someone else pays for the costs.

Here's a possibility. Sue the lawyer for incompetence? Anyone know if that can be done? They effective got no money. Only the lawyer and Wal-Mart were made whole, at least partially.

Okay, WM gets back less than 500,000. And that was money they PAID OUT. The LEGAL FEES were more than that. So why isn't anyone ing that the LAWYER/LAWYERS should give back what he/they stuck in his/their pocket? It's just amazing how people think. Or don't....

[101A]

Well how about going through the legal motions in concert with the Wal-Mart Foundation covering the cost so the net impact to the family is nil?

Tomato Tomata.

Discrimination.

[SAGambler]

And just what is Wal Mart doing that our own GOVERNMENT doesn't do? Does anyone realize that if a member of the military is involved in a traffic accident and is treated at, say, Wilford Hall and that person then recovers money in a settlement, they owe Big Willy for the treatment they received?

I suspect every group policy is written exactly the same way, it's just that this happens to be BIG BAD WAL MART. Do a search on these people. Web sites for donations, guy appearing on TV. Saying he has divorced her so she can get more medicaid. That smacks of fraud right there. Since when do you get a divorce so someone can draw more medicaid. I mean, what court buys that as a reason for divorce.

Like someone said, we have only heard part of this story. The part that makes Big Bad Wally World look terrible.

[SPARKY]

Tomato Tomata.

Discrimination.

Nope. The foundation can select the recipients of its grants.

[Pistons_In_7]

You obviously don't know what medicaid is, its basicly means if you are receiving it you are the poorest of the poor, but uncle sam fits the bill for your health care be it in a nursing home or whatever, they can and will do a spenddown of any assets, it means these people are in dire straights. Wal Mart has been notorious for ing its employees and has been sued to the nth degree for ing employees out of benefits, over time wages and not giving employees breaks. Wal Mart deserves no sympathy whatsoever. Sam Walton would be rolling over in his grave if he saw the bull that Wal Mart does and gets away with.

[SPARKY]

Maybe her husband ought to take her out back and shoot her. Then we can get on with the business of spreading freedom and rolling back prices across the globe.

[101A]

Nope. The foundation can select the recipients of its grants.

'

The foundation would have to PROVE, especially, again to ALL the other people who have paid Subro claims back to the benefit trust that that was a conicidental, arms-length transaction. Her odds, therefore, of getting paid by the foundation would have to be no greater than anyone elses.

[101A]

You obviously don't know what medicaid is, its basicly means if you are receiving it you are the poorest of the poor, but uncle sam fits the bill for your health care be it in a nursing home or whatever, they can and will do a spenddown of any assets, it means these people are in dire straights. Wal Mart has been notorious for ing its employees and has been sued to the nth degree for ing employees out of benefits, over time wages and not giving employees breaks. Wal Mart deserves no sympathy whatsoever. Sam Walton would be rolling over in his grave if he saw the bull that Wal Mart does and gets away with.

OT: Are liberals capable of making a decision without emotion being a major factor in it?

[SPARKY]

'

The foundation would have to PROVE, especially, again to ALL the other people who have paid Subro claims back to the benefit trust that that was a conicidental, arms-length transaction. Her odds, therefore, of getting paid by the foundation would have to be no greater than anyone elses.

The foundation's managers felt that hers was a compelling case and made a distribution, in keeping with its policy.

[SAGambler]

You obviously don't know what medicaid is, its basicly means if you are receiving it you are the poorest of the poor, but uncle sam fits the bill for your health care be it in a nursing home or whatever, they can and will do a spenddown of any assets, it means these people are in dire straights. Wal Mart has been notorious for ing its employees and has been sued to the nth degree for ing employees out of benefits, over time wages and not giving employees breaks. Wal Mart deserves no sympathy whatsoever. Sam Walton would be rolling over in his grave if he saw the bull that Wal Mart does and gets away with.

Look at it this way. Let's say I was in an accident, and YOU fronted the money for my medical expenses. Then I take the person that was responsible for that accident to court and recover a half million dollars.

Are you telling me you would not expect me to reimburse you for the money you laid out? Am I just to get to keep the windfall, while you suffer the loss that was in no way your fault in any form or fashion?

No difference in this scenario, and the one we are talking about. The real question is, if the lawyer knew this, and he damn well should have, why didn't he go after more money? Why would he settle for a million when he knew she would require more? Did he just want to take his 30% and get on to the next victim? If these people feel they need to do something, sue the damn lawyer that put them in these cir stances.

[SPARKY]

OT: Are liberals capable of making a decision without emotion being a major factor in it?

OTOT: Are conservatives capable of ethical considerations when it comes to corporate behavior or is that solely for social issues?

[SPARKY]

Look at it this way. Let's say I was in an accident, and YOU fronted the money for my medical expenses. Then I take the person that was responsible for that accident to court and recover a half million dollars.

Are you telling me you would not expect me to reimburse you for the money you laid out? Am I just to get to keep the windfall, while you suffer the loss that was in no way your fault in any form or fashion?

No difference in this scenario, and the one we are talking about. The real question is, if the lawyer knew this, and he damn well should have, why didn't he go after more money? Why would he settle for a million when he knew she would require more? Did he just want to take his 30% and get on to the next victim? If these people feel they need to do something, sue the damn lawyer that put them in these cir stances.

Some "windfall."

[SPARKY]

We should be patriotic and support our troops and we should be worried that some frozen embryo in a lab might be destroyed but when it comes to the faithful employee and mother of a soldier who died while serving his country then forget about emotion, forget about doing what is right.

[101A]

OTOT: Are conservatives capable of ethical considerations when it comes to corporate behavior or is that solely for social issues?

I stated in this thread I don't shop at Wal Mart. That is the hammer I wield. So, to answer your question: Absolutely.

I think your response was an epiphany of sorts for me. Liberals, apparently, don't view any action as legitimate unless it originates from the government...and they call conservatives narrow-minded.

[SPARKY]

It's only when businesses provide benefits to the partners of sexuals that we should be concerned.

[101A]

It's only when businesses provide benefits to the partners of sexuals that we should be concerned.

What are you talking about?

I don't shop at Wal Mart because I hate their stores, and what they have done to choice and quality shopping in small-town USA. They are impersonal and sell a bunch of crap. I also believe they used influence with the former administration to acquire MFN for China in the early 90's.

BTW, you gonna vote for Hillary if she wrenches the nomination from Obama? She was on their board, you know?

[SPARKY]

I'm going to vote for neither.

I'd like to vote for the conservative candidate who's about balancing the budget, cutting spending, less regulation, etc...

[101A]

I'm going to vote for neither.

I'd like to vote for the conservative candidate who's about balancing the budget, cutting spending, less regulation, etc...

good luck with that.

[Wild Cobra]

Stealing?

Yes, she wishes to keep what is not rightfully hers. Actually, it's the family. And she settled for money which wasn't sufficient to cover the lawyers cost and her care. That does not give her the right to steal from Wal-Mart. Under the terms of the agreement, she owes them for the medical expenses covered.

Brain-damaged ex-worker must pay $470,000 to Wal-Mart
By Jonathan J. Cooper
POST-DISPATCH WASHINGTON BUREAU
03/18/2008


Now until reading this story, I didn't know it was a settlement. They did not win this case in court, but settled. It is not Wal-Marts fault they didn't settle for enough money!

They would have been better off to take the case to close in the courts. The lawyer knew they would have to reimburse Wal-Mart. Maybe they didn't have a strong enough case for a sure win, and the lawyer would only get money with a settlement?

Again, I say sue the lawyer. He did not do right by his client. Wal-Mart would not be able to sue if the went for it and lost! Wal-Mart might not even go for the case if they went for it and won an insufficient amount. The settlement changes everything.

The woman won a judgment based on the fact that she has been left with a permanent brain injury.

And she was awarded the money which wasn't sufficient to cover the lawyers cost and her care. That does not give her the right to steal from Wal-Mart. Under the terms of the agreement, she owes them for the medical expenses covered.

[Wild Cobra]

People....

The opening article is a lie.

She was not awarded the money. They settled for an insufficint amount.

That changes everything.