|
|
|
Wal-Mart Goes After Disabled Ex-Worker's Settlement
By Robert Patrick - St. Louis Post-Dispatch
January 21, 2006
When Wal-Mart sued a disabled former employee in June to recover what it
spent on her medical care, the retailing giant said it was just meeting a
filing deadline and had not necessarily decided to ask a judge for the
money.
Now the company is asking for the money.
If the suit prevails in federal court in St. Louis, it would force Debbie
Shank, of Cape Girardeau, Mo., to repay the more than $417,000 she won in a
suit over a car wreck unrelated to work - plus the $51,000 her lawyer got.
Her husband and lawyer said it would drain the trust fund set up for her
care and burden the taxpayers with a larger share of her nursing home
expenses.
Wal-Mart's reason
Self-financed company or union health insurance plans are permitted to
demand repayment for medical expenses if the insured collects damages in a
lawsuit or settlement, and they commonly do. Wal-Mart says good stewardship
of its health plan provides no other choice.
"This is a very sad case, and I think many people naturally have an
emotional and sympathetic reaction," said Mona Williams, a Wal-Mart
spokeswoman. "But the reality is that we are required to protect the assets
of our health plan so that it can pay the future claims of other associates
and their family members.
"Unfortunately, it's just not feasible to start making individual
exceptions. Not everyone will understand this, and I'm sure that we will get
a fair amount of criticism."
Shank's lawyer, Maurice Graham, said: "If somebody got some money from a
lawsuit and used it to buy a new home they didn't need or a European
vacation ... that's one thing. But that's not the situation were dealing
with here."
He added, "In view of the unfavorable publicity that Wal-Mart is getting
around the country ..., I'm surprised they're pursuing this against their
former employee, particularly since she remains so devastated and so in need
of these funds."
Critics across the country have accused the company of scrimping on health
benefits and forcing employees to rely on Medicaid, thereby shifting costs
to taxpayers. Last week, Maryland lawmakers overrode a governor's veto to
implement a law, clearly aimed at Wal-Mart, requiring large employers to
spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on employee health care.
Shank worked nights stocking shelves at a Wal-Mart in Cape Girardeau,
leaving days free to spend with her three sons. Her husband, Jim Shank, said
that now she cannot always tell which son is which. She has brain stem
damage, must use a wheelchair and cannot move move more than one arm and two
fingers.
The settlement
She and her husband sued a trucking company and driver over a collision
involving her minivan in 2000. The Shanks settled in 2002 for $900,000.
After legal fees and expenses, an irrevocable trust for Shank's medical
bills got $417,477, and her husband got $119,280, according to court
documents.
Graham and his client's husband, Jim Shank, said a victory by the
Administrative Committee of the Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Associates' Health and
Welfare Plan would mean a lower quality of medical care for Shank, and maybe
shorten her life.
On Jan. 10, a federal judge threatened to dismiss the suit. Jim Shank
learned this week that Wal-Mart would go after the money.
He said his wife stands to lose her private room, wheelchair-accessible van
and daytime caretaker, whom he described as like a "sister" to her.
That would be "really chaotic" for her, Jim Shank said. "She doesn't get
along well with others right now."
His health insurance pays for some of his wife's care, he said, as well as
Medicare and Medicaid. Jim Shank does maintenance and risk management work
at Southeast Missouri State University and has part-time jobs in real estate
sales and at a department store.
|
| |
| |
In article <C4119076.873C%papadillos@hotmail.com>,
Papadillos <papadillos@hotmail.com> wrote:
Wal-Mart Goes After Disabled Ex-Worker's Settlement
By Robert Patrick - St. Louis Post-Dispatch
January 21, 2006
When Wal-Mart sued a disabled former employee in June to recover what it
spent on her medical care, the retailing giant said it was just meeting a
filing deadline and had not necessarily decided to ask a judge for the
money.
Now the company is asking for the money.
Of course Wal-Mart is asking for the money. They paid for the
care for this woman, and now that care money has been reimbursed
to the family in a settlement. Wal-Mart is entitled to that
money. If Wal-Mart doesn't go after it, they can be sued by
their policy holder who will have to foot the bill, and the
state insurance commissioner will certainly take them to court
for not following the law for their existing policy holders.
This is nothing new. Insurance has always worked this way.
Anytime someone reimburses money that was originally paid
by an insurance company, the insurance company is entitled
to get their money back. If they don't, then everyone else
has to pay, and that is certainly not fair.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
|
| |
| |
In article <C4119076.873C%papadillos@hotmail.com>, Papadillos <papadillos@hotmail.com> wrote: Of course Wal-Mart is asking for the money. They paid for the care for this woman, and now that care money has been reimbursed to the family in a settlement. Wal-Mart is entitled to that money. If Wal-Mart doesn't go after it, they can be sued by their policy holder who will have to foot the bill, and the state insurance commissioner will certainly take them to court for not following the law for their existing policy holders. This is nothing new. Insurance has always worked this way. Anytime someone reimburses money that was originally paid by an insurance company, the insurance company is entitled to get their money back. If they don't, then everyone else has to pay, and that is certainly not fair.
military
member/dependent is taken care of at a military facility and wins an
insurance settlement, they are required to pay for the care they received
at the military facility, even though all health care is provided at no
charge to those people.
|
| |
| |
not just the insurance companies. u.s. military care as well. if a
military
member/dependent is taken care of at a military facility and wins an
insurance settlement, they are required to pay for the care they received
at the military facility, even though all health care is provided at no
charge to those people.
Or, another example, that is frequently criticized socially,
is what is commonly referred to as Medicaid.
Specifically, if someone of *very* limited financial resou-
rces has to enter a convalescent facility for elder care.
If the state's Medicaid program is paying the bill, don't
be surprised if any/all assets of this elder patient are
seized upon death. (Seized is probably a little too strong,
but you get the idea).
Actually, in most situations, any/all financial assets will be
diverted for the period of this convalescent stay, until they
are exhausted, or as long as they continue to augment
payment. There are exceptions for surviving spouses,
but this is basically the same concept as previous replies,
and outlined in the Wall-Mart description.
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:15:03 GMT, "AllEmailDeletedImmediately"
<derjda@hotmail.com> wrote:
not just the insurance companies. u.s. military care as well. if a
military
member/dependent is taken care of at a military facility and wins an
insurance settlement, they are required to pay for the care they received
at the military facility, even though all health care is provided at no
charge to those people.
But this is Walmart, so any opportunity to paint them in a bad light
will be pounced upon.
|
| |
| |
"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote in
news:john-BC7B0C.13341727032008@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
In article <C4119076.873C%papadillos@hotmail.com>, Papadillos <papadillos@hotmail.com> wrote: Of course Wal-Mart is asking for the money.
They paid for the
care for this woman, and now that care money has been reimbursed
to the family in a settlement.
The woman probably did not sue to recover medical expenses. Those were
covered. She likely sued for damages (like a lifetime of brain injury)
from negligence on the part of the trucking company.
Wal-Mart is entitled to that money.
Wal-Mart is entitled to that money, not because the woman is double
dipping and getting paid twice for medical care she received, but
because Wal-Mart has a medical policy for its employees that says they
get their expenses covered out of any settlements.
If Wal-Mart doesn't go after it, they can be sued by
their policy holder who will have to foot the bill,
That would be probably be Wal-Mart as they're large enough to be
self-insured.
and the
state insurance commissioner will certainly take them to court
for not following the law for their existing policy holders.
There would have to be a complaint. This isn't a matter of not
following the law, but of not taking advantage of a clause in their
company policy.
This is nothing new. Insurance has always worked this way.
Anytime someone reimburses money that was originally paid
by an insurance company, the insurance company is entitled
to get their money back.
You're missing the point. The woman didn't get money to pay her medical
bills. Wal-Mart paid those. She got damages for negligence. Wal-Mart
wrote their policy so that it can go after those.
If they don't, then everyone else has to pay,
That would be the shareholders. Wal-Mart has about 4B outstanding
shares, so eating this cost amounts to about a hundredth of a cent per
share. The Walton family owns about 40% of the shares.
and that is certainly not fair.
Certainly not. If they didn't screw the woman out of her settlement, all
their employees would be looking to throw themselves in front of trucks.
-john-
|
| |
| |
"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote in
news:john-BC7B0C.13341727032008@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
snip
You're missing the point. The woman didn't get money to pay her medical
bills. Wal-Mart paid those. She got damages for negligence. Wal-Mart
wrote their policy so that it can go after those.
and why didn't she get medical expenses, as well? or maybe they were
rolled
into the negligence part.
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:27:03 GMT, "AllEmailDeletedImmediately"
<derjda@hotmail.com> wrote:
snip
and why didn't she get medical expenses, as well? or maybe they were
rolled into the negligence part.
What it really boils down to is the judgement she received (at least
the part that wasn't immediately skimmed off the top by her attorneys)
was insufficient. She should have been awarded enough money to repay
all the medical bills, pay her attroneys' fees, AND establish a little
nest egg for future expenses. Either her legal team didn't ask for
enough or the jury didn't award her enough - neither of which is
WalMart's fault.
Perhaps her attorneys will take pity on her and refund some of the
rapacious fees they charged her so she can establish that trust fund?
:)
|
| |
| |
"AllEmailDeletedImmediately" <derjda@hotmail.com> wrote in news:ru5Hj.3315
$Xl2.823@trndny01:
snip
and why didn't she get medical expenses, as well? or maybe they were
rolled into the negligence part.
Possibly. I haven't seen the judgment, but generally compensatory damages
make up for losses suffered or losses projected. The woman wasn't out of
pocket for her medical expenses -- they'd been paid.
And remember that Wal-Mart sued for more money than she actually netted.
|
| |
| |
Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:auvpu3tq4ijba7fcm3am1t3v8don36pdr6@4ax.com:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:27:03 GMT, "AllEmailDeletedImmediately"
<derjda@hotmail.com> wrote:
What it really boils down to is the judgement she received (at least
the part that wasn't immediately skimmed off the top by her attorneys)
was insufficient. She should have been awarded enough money to repay
all the medical bills, pay her attroneys' fees, AND establish a little
nest egg for future expenses. Either her legal team didn't ask for
enough or the jury didn't award her enough - neither of which is
WalMart's fault.
Wal-Mart is a corporation. "Fault" for a corporation concerns its legal
obligations. People are complaining that some very rich *people* are
invoking a clause in the medical policy that will cause severe hardship
to an unfortunate for no discernible gain to those people or anyone else.
Perhaps her attorneys will take pity on her and refund some of the
rapacious fees they charged her so she can establish that trust fund?
:)
|
| |
| |
Deadrat <a@b.com> writes:
Possibly. I haven't seen the judgment, but generally compensatory damages
make up for losses suffered or losses projected. The woman wasn't out of
pocket for her medical expenses -- they'd been paid.
I suppose it's possible that this varies from state to state,
but in Massachusetts, at least, insurance companies are
reimbursed for their expenses out of compensatory damages
awarded in legal cases.
I know this because I was the foreman on a jury in a personal
injury case where the defendant had already been found liable
and we were asked to decide on the amount of damages. We
were, however, never told that the insurance company would get
back their money off the top of whatever we awarded, and we
explicitly subtracted from our award the portion of the
plaintiffs' medical expenses that had already been paid by the
insurance companies. Only after we rendered our decision did
we found out that the insurance company's expenses would be
repaid out of it, and we were pretty pissed off.
An attorney friend of mind explained that there are all kinds
of convoluted rules about mentioning insurance payments in
court, and that if we had been told that the insurance
company would be getting their money back, it could have
caused a mistrial. This seems monumentally stupid to me.
In any case, I sent a letter to the judge, CC'd to the
attorneys for the plaintiffs and defendant, notifying him
that I felt the jury had been materially misled and that our
decision was therefore invalid. I never received a response
and don't know if the case was reopened in response to my
letter.
--
http://jews4obama2008.wordpress.com/
|
| |
| |
jik@kamens.brookline.ma.us (Jonathan Kamens) wrote in
news:fsja7f$8eu$1@jik3.kamens.brookline.ma.us:
Deadrat <a@b.com> writes:
I suppose it's possible that this varies from state to state,
but in Massachusetts, at least, insurance companies are
reimbursed for their expenses out of compensatory damages
awarded in legal cases.
I am not sufficiently interested to research it for this case. The news
story says the "reimbursement" follows from a clause in the company's
medical plan, and that they had to go to court after the judgment for
negligence.
But who knows?
I know this because I was the foreman on a jury in a personal
injury case where the defendant had already been found liable
and we were asked to decide on the amount of damages. We
were, however, never told that the insurance company would get
back their money off the top of whatever we awarded, and we
explicitly subtracted from our award the portion of the
plaintiffs' medical expenses that had already been paid by the
insurance companies. Only after we rendered our decision did
we found out that the insurance company's expenses would be
repaid out of it, and we were pretty pissed off.
An attorney friend of mind explained that there are all kinds
of convoluted rules about mentioning insurance payments in
court, and that if we had been told that the insurance
company would be getting their money back, it could have
caused a mistrial. This seems monumentally stupid to me.
In any case, I sent a letter to the judge, CC'd to the
attorneys for the plaintiffs and defendant, notifying him
that I felt the jury had been materially misled and that our
decision was therefore invalid. I never received a response
and don't know if the case was reopened in response to my
letter.
|
| |
| |
In article <1m8Hj.36351$J41.14842@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>,
Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
You're missing the point. The woman didn't get money to pay her
medical bills. Wal-Mart paid those. She got damages for
negligence. Wal-Mart wrote their policy so that it can go after
those.
and why didn't she get medical expenses, as well? or maybe they were
rolled into the negligence part.
What it really boils down to is the judgement she received (at least
the part that wasn't immediately skimmed off the top by her attorneys)
was insufficient. She should have been awarded enough money to repay
all the medical bills, pay her attroneys' fees, AND establish a little
nest egg for future expenses. Either her legal team didn't ask for
enough or the jury didn't award her enough - neither of which is
WalMart's fault.
Wal-Mart is a corporation. "Fault" for a corporation concerns its legal
obligations. People are complaining that some very rich *people* are
invoking a clause in the medical policy that will cause severe hardship
to an unfortunate for no discernible gain to those people or anyone else.
But it isn't the big faceless corporation who will suffer. If
Wal-Mart does not recover the money, each of their health insurance
policy holders (ie, the workers) will have to pass the hat to make
up for it. Wal-Mart has already paid out the $400K to treat the
woman, and if they don't get reimbursed from the settlement, then
the workers will make up the difference. That would be the real
unfair part of the situation.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
|
| |
| |
"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote in
news:john-B3B6AB.14103428032008@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
In article <1m8Hj.36351$J41.14842@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>, Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote: You're missing the point. The woman didn't get money to pay her medical bills. Wal-Mart paid those. She got damages for negligence. Wal-Mart wrote their policy so that it can go after those. and why didn't she get medical expenses, as well? or maybe they were rolled into the negligence part. What it really boils down to is the judgement she received (at least the part that wasn't immediately skimmed off the top by her attorneys) was insufficient. She should have been awarded enough money to repay all the medical bills, pay her attroneys' fees, AND establish a little nest egg for future expenses. Either her legal team didn't ask for enough or the jury didn't award her enough - neither of which is WalMart's fault. But it isn't the big faceless corporation who will suffer. If Wal-Mart does not recover the money, each of their health insurance policy holders (ie, the workers) will have to pass the hat to make up for it. Wal-Mart has already paid out the $400K to treat the woman, and if they don't get reimbursed from the settlement, then the workers will make up the difference. That would be the real unfair part of the situation.
don't "make up the difference" when the company medical plan pays
benefits, and they don't get reimbursed when they collectively have a
"healthy" year. In theory, the shareholders are on the hook to the tune
of one-hundredth of a cent per share.
-john-
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:42:53 GMT, Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:auvpu3tq4ijba7fcm3am1t3v8don36pdr6@4ax.com:
Wal-Mart is a corporation. "Fault" for a corporation concerns its legal
obligations. People are complaining that some very rich *people* are
invoking a clause in the medical policy that will cause severe hardship
to an unfortunate for no discernible gain to those people or anyone else.
Who caused the woman to incur all those medical bills? Was it
Wal*Mart? Was it negligence on the part of Wal*Mart? Or was it the
people whom she sued and won that judgement against?
Now, who do you suppose should be responsible for paying those medical
bills? The people who caused the woman to incur them, or "some very
rich people" who had nothing whatsoever to do with causing the woman's
injuries?
Basically your argument boils down to "Wal*Mart should pay for the
woman's medical bills because they can afford to do so."
|
| |
| |
In article <nkcHj.30484$R84.17975@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
Wal-Mart is a corporation. "Fault" for a corporation concerns its
legal obligations. People are complaining that some very rich
*people* are invoking a clause in the medical policy that will cause
severe hardship to an unfortunate for no discernible gain to those
people or anyone else.
But it isn't the big faceless corporation who will suffer. If
Wal-Mart does not recover the money, each of their health insurance
policy holders (ie, the workers) will have to pass the hat to make
up for it. Wal-Mart has already paid out the $400K to treat the
woman, and if they don't get reimbursed from the settlement, then
the workers will make up the difference. That would be the real
unfair part of the situation.
How do you figure this? Wal-Mart is probably self-insured. The workers
don't "make up the difference" when the company medical plan pays
benefits, and they don't get reimbursed when they collectively have a
"healthy" year. In theory, the shareholders are on the hook to the tune
of one-hundredth of a cent per share.
If Wal-Mart doesn't recover the money, then the health insurance
plan will cost $400,000 or so more to run than planned. The
insurance rates charged to employees is based on their share of
the planned costs. When costs go up, the monthly fee goes up.
The employees pay the monthly fee, not Wal-Mart.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
|
| |
| |
"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote in
news:john-F0B62E.18080128032008@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
In article <nkcHj.30484$R84.17975@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote: Wal-Mart is a corporation. "Fault" for a corporation concerns its legal obligations. People are complaining that some very rich *people* are invoking a clause in the medical policy that will cause severe hardship to an unfortunate for no discernible gain to those people or anyone else. But it isn't the big faceless corporation who will suffer. If Wal-Mart does not recover the money, each of their health insurance policy holders (ie, the workers) will have to pass the hat to make up for it. Wal-Mart has already paid out the $400K to treat the woman, and if they don't get reimbursed from the settlement, then the workers will make up the difference. That would be the real unfair part of the situation. If Wal-Mart doesn't recover the money, then the health insurance plan will cost $400,000 or so more to run than planned. The insurance rates charged to employees is based on their share of the planned costs. When costs go up, the monthly fee goes up. The employees pay the monthly fee, not Wal-Mart.
doubt Wal-Mart is self-insured, so they set the premiums. Also, no doubt
the amount of money recovered less the legal costs of recovering it would
have no discernible affect on subsequent employee fees.
-john-
|
| |
| |
In article <nkcHj.30484$R84.17975@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
a@b.com says...
"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote in
news:john-B3B6AB.14103428032008@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
<Snip>
But it isn't the big faceless corporation who will suffer. If
Wal-Mart does not recover the money, each of their health insurance
policy holders (ie, the workers) will have to pass the hat to make
up for it. Wal-Mart has already paid out the $400K to treat the
woman, and if they don't get reimbursed from the settlement, then
the workers will make up the difference. That would be the real
unfair part of the situation.
How do you figure this? Wal-Mart is probably self-insured. The workers
don't "make up the difference" when the company medical plan pays
benefits, and they don't get reimbursed when they collectively have a
"healthy" year. In theory, the shareholders are on the hook to the tune
of one-hundredth of a cent per share.
You don't think insurance is a cost of doing business, or that
employee benefits are paid for by the employee's labor?
--
Keith
|
| |
| |
Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:t4rqu3l4mj4bijbma9lb8ierifdo078gfq@4ax.com:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:42:53 GMT, Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
Who caused the woman to incur all those medical bills? Was it
Wal*Mart? Was it negligence on the part of Wal*Mart? Or was it the
people whom she sued and won that judgement against?
Now, who do you suppose should be responsible for paying those medical
bills? The people who caused the woman to incur them, or "some very
rich people" who had nothing whatsoever to do with causing the woman's
injuries?
Basically your argument boils down to "Wal*Mart should pay for the
woman's medical bills because they can afford to do so.
My argument is that 1) Wal-Mart should pay the woman's medical bills
because they insured her, regardless of how she came to need medical
care, 2) Wal-Mart is within its legal rights to take repayment from the
woman's settlement because that's what their insurance policy specifies,
and 3) sometimes people in charge of corporations shouldn't do what
they're legally entitled to.
Note that there's no contention from Wal-Mart or anyone else on points 1
and 2.
|
| |
| |
In article <G9fHj.16881$5K1.6422@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,
Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote in
news:john-F0B62E.18080128032008@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
No doubt Wal-Mart contributes to the cost of the insurance plan. No
doubt Wal-Mart is self-insured, so they set the premiums. Also, no doubt
the amount of money recovered less the legal costs of recovering it would
have no discernible affect on subsequent employee fees.
If that is the case, then why is it illegal to simply take things
off of the shelf at Wal-Mart without paying for it? Maybe the
government has a license to print money in these cases, but Wal-Mart
operates on a very thin margin, and they cannot simply photocopy
$100 bills to help every hardship case that comes before them.
Any why are you thinking that Wal-Mart should pay this when the
fault is with the husband and his attorney for now including the
medical costs in their settlement request even after Wal-Mart
told them that they needed to do this. The husband admittted
on CNN last night that Wal-Mart told him about this, and they
still settled for less than what Wal-Mart was entitled to recover.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
|
| |
| |
In article
<john-F0B62E.18080128032008@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:
The employees pay the monthly fee, not Wal-Mart.
-john-
Then why shouldn't the -employee- be made whole before Walmart is made
whole. (English common law)
FWIW, the law that allows for this is contained in the
Employee Retirement and Income Security Act (ERISA) which was signed
into law by Gerald Ford back in (IIRC) 1976.
ERISA, what an oxymoron.
Lesson to be learned; drop your car insurance because you won't benefit
from it anyway. The premiums you pay are for the benefit of your
employer.
|
| |
| |
krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote in
news:MPG.22574aeb54ba8fec989a1f@news.individual.net:
In article <nkcHj.30484$R84.17975@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
a@b.com says...
<Snip>
But it isn't the big faceless corporation who will suffer. If
Wal-Mart does not recover the money, each of their health insurance
policy holders (ie, the workers) will have to pass the hat to make
up for it. Wal-Mart has already paid out the $400K to treat the
woman, and if they don't get reimbursed from the settlement, then
the workers will make up the difference. That would be the real
unfair part of the situation.
You don't think insurance is a cost of doing business, or that
employee benefits are paid for by the employee's labor?
Employee benefits are paid out of the company's profits, which are
determined in part by employees' labor. I'm not saying Wal-Mart isn't
within its rights; I'm saying it wouldn't make any discernible difference
to the bottom line.
At 1% of a cent per share, I think they could have passed this one up.
And that assumes that obtaining the money cost them nothing, either in
the getting or in the marketplace.
In fact, a few clever minds in marketing and legal probably could have
turned the situation into a tax-deductible publicity bonanza.
|
| |
| |
In article <U6fHj.16879$5K1.11747@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,
Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
My argument is that 1) Wal-Mart should pay the woman's medical bills
because they insured her, regardless of how she came to need medical
care,
Exactly.
2) Wal-Mart is within its legal rights to take repayment from the
woman's settlement because that's what their insurance policy specifies,
Because of a clause/loophole in a law enacted in the mid 70s which most
people don't even realize exists.
and 3) sometimes people in charge of corporations shouldn't do what
they're legally entitled to.
I can't imagine that the trucking company that owned the truck that hit
this woman didn't have policy limits in the seven figure range.
Walmart should have gone after that instead.
Note that there's no contention from Wal-Mart or anyone else on points 1
and 2.
My question is; why didn't Walmart file a lien against the at fault
party's insurance from the get go? Instead, they waited until it was
settled before they played their hand. Looks like the injured and her
attorneys were blind sided. Had they known that Walmart was going to
subrogate the claim, they could have gone after a bigger payout.
|
| |
| |
You're missing the point. The woman didn't get money to pay her medical
bills. Wal-Mart paid those. She got damages for negligence. Wal-Mart
wrote their policy so that it can go after those.
and why didn't she get medical expenses, as well? or maybe they were
rolled into the negligence part.
Possibly. I haven't seen the judgment, but generally compensatory damages
make up for losses suffered or losses projected. The woman wasn't out of
pocket for her medical expenses -- they'd been paid.
And remember that Wal-Mart sued for more money than she actually netted.
What SHOULD happen if:
Wal-Mart paid $500K for her care.
Her future care will cost $500K.
She sues and gets $400K (perhaps because the defendant doesn't have any more).
Now, why should Wal-Mart get *all* of that $400K? Combined, they
got 40 cents on the dollar over all, so split it: $200K for Wal-Mart,
$200K for the woman. It still sucks.
|
| |
| |
In article <rjhHj.11055$qS5.4274@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>, a@b.com
says...
krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote in
news:MPG.22574aeb54ba8fec989a1f@news.individual.net:
Employee benefits are paid out of the company's profits, which are
determined in part by employees' labor. I'm not saying Wal-Mart isn't
within its rights; I'm saying it wouldn't make any discernible difference
to the bottom line.
So, they should just hand "undiscernible" amounts of money out to
anyone walking down the street? $400K isn't chicken feed.
At 1% of a cent per share, I think they could have passed this one up.
And that assumes that obtaining the money cost them nothing, either in
the getting or in the marketplace.
Why don't they give me .001%, and you, and the guy down the street,
and...
In fact, a few clever minds in marketing and legal probably could have
turned the situation into a tax-deductible publicity bonanza.
Bull#@($. Tell you what. You give me half a million and I'll pay
your taxes on it.
--
Keith
|
| |
| |
In article <nonelson-9CF395.20580828032008@news.chi.sbcglobal.net>,
nonelson@sbcglobal.net says...
In article <U6fHj.16879$5K1.11747@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>, Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote: Exactly. Because of a clause/loophole in a law enacted in the mid 70s which most people don't even realize exists.
and 3) sometimes people in charge of corporations shouldn't do what
they're legally entitled to.
I can't imagine that the trucking company that owned the truck that hit
this woman didn't have policy limits in the seven figure range.
Walmart should have gone after that instead.
They can't. They have no standing. *SHE* has to go after them.
Note that there's no contention from Wal-Mart or anyone else on points 1
and 2.
My question is; why didn't Walmart file a lien against the at fault
party's insurance from the get go? Instead, they waited until it was
settled before they played their hand. Looks like the injured and her
attorneys were blind sided. Had they known that Walmart was going to
subrogate the claim, they could have gone after a bigger payout.
They can't. They have no standing on the case. They can only go
after her. It's *HER* job to make sure she's covered on the other
end.
--
Keith
|
| |
| |
In article <MPG.225774a688fe3200989a21@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
So, they should just hand "undiscernible" amounts of money out to
anyone walking down the street?
Jesus H. Christ on a bleeding cross. Tell you what, moron. You get brain
damaged while working for Wal Mart, and then we will talk. Oh, wait:
every time your fingers touch the keyboard, you prove you are severely
brain damaged. Either that, or you are very smart for a @$#*ing chimp.
|
| |
| |
krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote in
news:MPG.225774a688fe3200989a21@news.individual.net:
In article <rjhHj.11055$qS5.4274@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>, a@b.com
says...
So, they should just hand "undiscernible" amounts of money out to
anyone walking down the street? $400K isn't chicken feed.
That's pretty much the point here. It is.
What I never fail to understand is that someone like you (who, I take
it, is in the class that thinks $400K is big bucks) is bound and
determined to defend people like those who run and own Wal-Mart, for
whom $400K is chump change.
At 1% of a cent per share, I think they could have passed this one
up. And that assumes that obtaining the money cost them nothing,
either in the getting or in the marketplace.
Why don't they give me .001%, and you, and the guy down the street,
and...
You really see no difference between me and one of their employees
crushed by a semi and fate?
In fact, a few clever minds in marketing and legal probably could
have turned the situation into a tax-deductible publicity bonanza.
Bull#@($.
...., he explained.
Tell you what. You give me half a million and I'll pay your taxes on
it.
You really see no difference between Wal-Mart and their employee on the
one hand and the pair of us on the other?
|
| |
| |
Snowbound <loosebowels@ixnay.invalid> wrote in news:13urcha1javij03
@news.supernews.com:
In article <MPG.225774a688fe3200989a21@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
Jesus H. Christ on a bleeding cross. Tell you what, moron. You get brain
damaged while working for Wal Mart, and then we will talk. Oh, wait:
every time your fingers touch the keyboard, you prove you are severely
brain damaged. Either that, or you are very smart for a @$#*ing chimp.
Now, now. No need for that.
krw is just having a little trouble keeping his argument in focus, that's
all.
Wal-Mart does have a duty to its shareholders to burnish its bottom line,
but do the people who run the company have any other, conflicting duties?
They must think they do, because they hand out quite discernbile amounts of
money if not to just anyone walking down the street, at least to people
unconncted with their business: the company gives several hundred
*million* dollars a year to charity, including multiple small grants to the
communities surrounding the stores.
In comparison to this largesse, the $470K in the unfortunate woman's trust
fund would go unnoticed.
Perhaps krw can reconcile these seemingly conflicting impulses for us.
|
| |
| |
On Mar 27, 1:53 pm, Papadillos <papadil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Wal-Mart Goes After Disabled Ex-Worker's Settlement
By Robert Patrick - St. Louis Post-Dispatch
January 21, 2006
When Wal-Mart sued a disabled former employee in June to recover what it
spent on her medical care, the retailing giant said it was just meeting a
filing deadline and had not necessarily decided to ask a judge for the
money.
Now the company is asking for the money.
If the suit prevails in federal court in St. Louis, it would force Debbie
Shank, of Cape Girardeau, Mo., to repay the more than $417,000 she won in a
suit over a car wreck unrelated to work - plus the $51,000 her lawyer got.
Her husband and lawyer said it would drain the trust fund set up for her
care and burden the taxpayers with a larger share of her nursing home
expenses.
Wal-Mart's reason
Self-financed company or union health insurance plans are permitted to
demand repayment for medical expenses if the insured collects damages in a
lawsuit or settlement, and they commonly do. Wal-Mart says good stewardship
of its health plan provides no other choice.
"This is a very sad case, and I think many people naturally have an
emotional and sympathetic reaction," said Mona Williams, a Wal-Mart
spokeswoman. "But the reality is that we are required to protect the assets
of our health plan so that it can pay the future claims of other associates
and their family members.
"Unfortunately, it's just not feasible to start making individual
exceptions. Not everyone will understand this, and I'm sure that we will get
a fair amount of criticism."
Shank's lawyer, Maurice Graham, said: "If somebody got some money from a
lawsuit and used it to buy a new home they didn't need or a European
vacation ... that's one thing. But that's not the situation were dealing
with here."
He added, "In view of the unfavorable publicity that Wal-Mart is getting
around the country ..., I'm surprised they're pursuing this against their
former employee, particularly since she remains so devastated and so in need
of these funds."
Critics across the country have accused the company of scrimping on health
benefits and forcing employees to rely on Medicaid, thereby shifting costs
to taxpayers. Last week, Maryland lawmakers overrode a governor's veto to
implement a law, clearly aimed at Wal-Mart, requiring large employers to
spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on employee health care.
Shank worked nights stocking shelves at a Wal-Mart in Cape Girardeau,
leaving days free to spend with her three sons. Her husband, Jim Shank, said
that now she cannot always tell which son is which. She has brain stem
dam | | |
