Full Version: This Is So Wrong!
Hmmmmmmmmmmph!
Terrible situation.
Oh, my. How awful. And to lose the son in Iraq as well.
Now, according to everyone involved, Wal Mart is entitled to the money, and they are within their rights to seek it. But how mercenary to do so.
Now, according to everyone involved, Wal Mart is entitled to the money, and they are within their rights to seek it. But how mercenary to do so.
Exception must be made, what a tragedy.
QUOTE (smelka @ Mar 24 2008, 05:13 PM) 
Exception must be made, what a tragedy.
There are exceptions to every rule and I'm just really disappointed that one was not made in this case. Unbelievable. Nothing like kicking a person when they're down.
And that doesn't even get us into questioning the fairness of the "rule". What choice do people have in accepting those terms -- none. And I think they should get a really good lawyer.....John Edwards, maybe! Usually what you win in a lawsuit, in addition to your medical expenses, is something for pain and suffering, which I don't see how Walmart could touch. But of course I don't know anything about the facts of this case, nor very much about personal injury law either. But something doesn't smell right here.
And isn't that just the apex of heartbreaking -- the husband saying, "Well, Walmart is within their rights, but how much do they really need the money?"
And isn't that just the apex of heartbreaking -- the husband saying, "Well, Walmart is within their rights, but how much do they really need the money?"
Another thing that greatly disturbed me - their son died at the age of 18 in Iraq, without going in to the rights or wrong of that war, at the age of 18 how much training he managed to get before being sent to Iraq?
I was very disturbed by it.
I was very disturbed by it.
Could I get a synopsis? The video is not pulling in on my computer.
lmatchgrl, This will explain it all:http://blog.wakeupwalmart.com/ufcw/2007/11...rt_sues_fo.html
OMG what a tragedy. No more Walmart ever for me.
About a year ago, I decided to never shop at WalMart anymore. This just confirms it.
And in some places, they are the only business in town since the other retailers, both the chains and the mom-and-pop places, have gone out of business.
Keith Olbermann has made this a daily issue in his "Worst Person in the World!" portion of Countdown (MSNBC). He likes to point out that Wal-Mart had $11 Billion in profit last year, and yet they're going after their own employee for more than she has.
This was also discussed on Consumerist.com. Most commenters there felt that this family had a pretty bad lawyer (although Consumerist commenters tend to be heavy on blame-the-victim).
This was also discussed on Consumerist.com. Most commenters there felt that this family had a pretty bad lawyer (although Consumerist commenters tend to be heavy on blame-the-victim).
What a tragic story.
I'm not a lawyer, but I do a lot of personal injury work (albeit generally in the construction area) and my first thought was "OMG, who was their lawyer?!"
I work in about a dozen states (though not MO) and sit on a committee that hears cases all over the country. In many (most?) states, Work Comp, Auto insurance and health care plans have statutory rights to recover the money they spend (medical and in the case of WC and auto, often wages and/or services as well) in a liability case.
Assuming a strong liability case, depending on the state and type of benefit, they're usually entitled to somewhere between 2/3 to 100% recovery of their "lien," or what they spent in benefits.
If it's a weak liability case, they have to compromise off their maximum recovery figure.
Generally speaking, aside from punitive situations, the theory is that people should be made whole. To have medical bills paid by a carrier and then receive money for those same bills is considered double dipping, since non-economic damages - things like pain and suffering, permanency, loss of function, loss of consortium - are considered separately in addition to the medical. Additionally, it's generally preferred to put those expenses where they ultimately should belong - with the responsible party.
Since insurance carriers generally fund the settlements for the responsible party, the liens are usually figured into the settlement, because everyone knows the plaintiff has to pay them back. It's part of the negotiation process, and the plaintiff attorney negotiates the liens so his client gets more of the settlement money.
This is so basic any lawyer who does personal injury should Absolutely.Know.This.
And incorporate it into settlement negotiations.
And if he did not know the amount of the liens or deal with them up front, he had better put his E&O carrier (error & omission, what you would think of malpractice for professionals like lawyers, architects, etc.) on notice.
'Gads, even claim handlers know to include it in their evaluations!!!!!
I'm not a lawyer, but I do a lot of personal injury work (albeit generally in the construction area) and my first thought was "OMG, who was their lawyer?!"
I work in about a dozen states (though not MO) and sit on a committee that hears cases all over the country. In many (most?) states, Work Comp, Auto insurance and health care plans have statutory rights to recover the money they spend (medical and in the case of WC and auto, often wages and/or services as well) in a liability case.
Assuming a strong liability case, depending on the state and type of benefit, they're usually entitled to somewhere between 2/3 to 100% recovery of their "lien," or what they spent in benefits.
If it's a weak liability case, they have to compromise off their maximum recovery figure.
Generally speaking, aside from punitive situations, the theory is that people should be made whole. To have medical bills paid by a carrier and then receive money for those same bills is considered double dipping, since non-economic damages - things like pain and suffering, permanency, loss of function, loss of consortium - are considered separately in addition to the medical. Additionally, it's generally preferred to put those expenses where they ultimately should belong - with the responsible party.
Since insurance carriers generally fund the settlements for the responsible party, the liens are usually figured into the settlement, because everyone knows the plaintiff has to pay them back. It's part of the negotiation process, and the plaintiff attorney negotiates the liens so his client gets more of the settlement money.
This is so basic any lawyer who does personal injury should Absolutely.Know.This.
And incorporate it into settlement negotiations.
And if he did not know the amount of the liens or deal with them up front, he had better put his E&O carrier (error & omission, what you would think of malpractice for professionals like lawyers, architects, etc.) on notice.
'Gads, even claim handlers know to include it in their evaluations!!!!!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.