WWTBAM Bored

Keith Olbermann had promised to keep talking about WalMart and them wanting the money back from the Shank family.

I do not know if they dropped their quest to wipe out the trust fund that was to take care of her in the nursing home because of Olbermann and they have dropped it.

"Occasionally, others help us step back and look at a situation in a different way. This is one of those times," Wal-Mart Executive Vice President Pat Curran said in a letter.

The "others" must be WalMart customers.

Bob Juch wrote:"Occasionally, others help us step back and look at a situation in a different way. This is one of those times," Wal-Mart Executive Vice President Pat Curran said in a letter.

The "others" must be WalMart customers.

"Occasionally, we see how this will bite us in the ass and we change out minds. Othertimes - you all can just bite us."

Sam Walton's kids are first-class assholes.

Walton was nowhere near as greedy as the kids are.

peacock2121 wrote:Keith Olbermann had promised to keep talking about WalMart and them wanting the money back from the Shank family.

I do not know if they dropped their quest to wipe out the trust fund that was to take care of her in the nursing home because of Olbermann and they have dropped it.

OK, I have no clue as to what this is about. Could I get an explanation, please?

Jeemie wrote:Sam Walton's kids are first-class assholes.

Walton was nowhere near as greedy as the kids are.

My kids may not be the most scrupulous people in the world, but my empire has now gotten so large that it merely feeds off itself and no one person or persons. LB would have warned me about the failings of my plan to get so large and out of control if it weren't for the fact that I died 6 years before my minions hired his lazy ass....

earendel wrote:

peacock2121 wrote:Keith Olbermann had promised to keep talking about WalMart and them wanting the money back from the Shank family.

I do not know if they dropped their quest to wipe out the trust fund that was to take care of her in the nursing home because of Olbermann and they have dropped it.

OK, I have no clue as to what this is about. Could I get an explanation, please?

WalMart (via its insurance arm) decided to enforce subrogation rights against settlement recovery that former employee received for injuries from traffic accident. She suffered brain damage and now lives in a nursing facility. The woman's settlement was being held in a $417,000 trust. WalMart paid more than $417,000 for her medical treatment. They sued for and got a judgement for the amount remaining in the trust, and WalMart also won on appeal. They apparently lost in the court of public opinion. (Although I had not heard anything about it, but I also do not listen to the bloviations of Olberman.)

(It now is routine for insurance companies to flag medical claims that appear to be the result of accidents or anything else that might result in litigation, so that they can assert its subrogation rights.)

earendel wrote:

peacock2121 wrote:Keith Olbermann had promised to keep talking about WalMart and them wanting the money back from the Shank family.

I do not know if they dropped their quest to wipe out the trust fund that was to take care of her in the nursing home because of Olbermann and they have dropped it.

OK, I have no clue as to what this is about. Could I get an explanation, please?

I could pull a Juch and tell you to look it up.

I won't.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/law/04/02/wa ... =hpmostpop

Appa23 wrote:

earendel wrote:

peacock2121 wrote:Keith Olbermann had promised to keep talking about WalMart and them wanting the money back from the Shank family.

I do not know if they dropped their quest to wipe out the trust fund that was to take care of her in the nursing home because of Olbermann and they have dropped it.

OK, I have no clue as to what this is about. Could I get an explanation, please?

WalMart (via its insurance arm) decided to enforce subrogation rights against settlement recovery that former employee received for injuries from traffic accident.

(It now is routine for insurance companies to flag medical claims that appear to be the result of accidents or anything else that might result in litigation, so that they can assert its subrogation rights.)

OK, now how about an explanation of the explanation? As learned as I am, I don't know nuttin' about "subrogation rights".

earendel wrote:

Appa23 wrote:

earendel wrote: OK, I have no clue as to what this is about. Could I get an explanation, please?

WalMart (via its insurance arm) decided to enforce subrogation rights against settlement recovery that former employee received for injuries from traffic accident.

(It now is routine for insurance companies to flag medical claims that appear to be the result of accidents or anything else that might result in litigation, so that they can assert its subrogation rights.)

OK, now how about an explanation of the explanation? As learned as I am, I don't know nuttin' about "subrogation rights".

Lets take a simple case.

I am walking by a house. A dog leaves its yard and bites me. I go to the emergency room and get stitches to close the wound. My insurance company pays $100 for that treatment. I sue the homeowners for my injuries and pain/suffering. I win $1000. My insurance company can ask to be reimbursed for the $100 that it paid.

peacock2121 wrote:Keith Olbermann had promised to keep talking about WalMart and them wanting the money back from the Shank family.

I do not know if they dropped their quest to wipe out the trust fund that was to take care of her in the nursing home because of Olbermann and they have dropped it.

Good for Keith Olbermann for trying to help the family!

Appa23 wrote:

earendel wrote:

Appa23 wrote: WalMart (via its insurance arm) decided to enforce subrogation rights against settlement recovery that former employee received for injuries from traffic accident.

(It now is routine for insurance companies to flag medical claims that appear to be the result of accidents or anything else that might result in litigation, so that they can assert its subrogation rights.)

OK, now how about an explanation of the explanation? As learned as I am, I don't know nuttin' about "subrogation rights".

Lets take a simple case.

I am walking by a house. A dog leaves its yard and bites me. I go to the emergency room and get stitches to close the wound. My insurance company pays $100 for that treatment. I sue the homeowners for my injuries and pain/suffering. I win $1000. My insurance company can ask to be reimbursed for the $100 that it paid.

But you won't need long-term care to help you live with the consequences of the accident. My understanding is that some of this woman's settlement is to go towards long-term care that Wal-Mart doesn't cover.

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:

Appa23 wrote:

earendel wrote: OK, now how about an explanation of the explanation? As learned as I am, I don't know nuttin' about "subrogation rights".

Lets take a simple case.

I am walking by a house. A dog leaves its yard and bites me. I go to the emergency room and get stitches to close the wound. My insurance company pays $100 for that treatment. I sue the homeowners for my injuries and pain/suffering. I win $1000. My insurance company can ask to be reimbursed for the $100 that it paid.

But you won't need long-term care to help you live with the consequences of the accident. My understanding is that some of this woman's settlement is to go towards long-term care that Wal-Mart doesn't cover.

Yes, my dog bite example was an explanation of subrogation rights.

It does seem like the woman did not receive a very good settlement, as it apparently did not cover even her past medical expenses, let alone future medical expenses.

It does seem like the woman did not receive a very good settlement, as it apparently did not cover even her past medical expenses, let alone future medical expenses

Yeah, doesn't sound like a good deal for her. Was it a jury award or a settlement, or do we know? Different states have different laws, so her award may have been capped.

It now is routine for insurance companies to flag medical claims that appear to be the result of accidents or anything else that might result in litigation, so that they can assert its subrogation rights.)

I'm very lucky my insurance company has waived subrogation in my hub's case. The $1.45 I expect to recover will be mine all mine. I mean, his all his.


t.

I had to read t-girl's post to get that she did not say $1.45M - which she should get to say.

I had to read t-girl's post to get that she did not say $1.45M

LOL - I have to drive over to Cd'A for mediation Thursday, I'll be lucky to recover the cost of the trip. Getting very stressed and trying to remind myself que sera, sera, and fretting does no good at all. Sucks, sucks, sucks. I want it over and behind us, that's the ticket.


t.

tlynn78 wrote:

I had to read t-girl's post to get that she did not say $1.45M

LOL - I have to drive over to Cd'A for mediation Thursday, I'll be lucky to recover the cost of the trip. Getting very stressed and trying to remind myself que sera, sera, and fretting does no good at all. Sucks, sucks, sucks. I want it over and behind us, that's the ticket.


t.

It sucks, suck and then sucks.

Rat bastards

This is a time where I should have read before responding.

I feel for this woman...but she had no case.

She had no legal standing...Wal-Mart's health plan allows for them to do what they did.

This was nothing more than extortion and playing on sympathy.

She should have sued the trucking company for more than she did, apparently.

One more thing that made her situation more poignant was the death of her son in the Iraq war at about the time Wal-Mart was taking her settlement money away from her. As I recall, her husband divorced her for the purpose of slightly increasing her disability payments, and her brain damage resulted in short term memory loss, so her (ex-)husband has to keep telling her that their son is dead. None of which changes the legal merits of the case, but it has caused many people to be sympathetic about her plight.

I don't think it was ever about legality. Basic human kindness, in the face of WalMart's was it $90M profit in the same quarter the story broke. etc. I'm very happy for them. Their lives are forever altered, and money won't change that, but it helps with the details.


t.

tlynn78 wrote:I don't think it was ever about legality. Basic human kindness, in the face of WalMart's was it $90M profit in the same quarter the story broke. etc. I'm very happy for them. Their lives are forever altered, and money won't change that, but it helps with the details.


t.

What t-girl said.

The thing Cal said about legality and morality is true. Just because the law is on your side doesn't mean it is the best thing to do.

peacock2121 wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:I don't think it was ever about legality. Basic human kindness, in the face of WalMart's was it $90M profit in the same quarter the story broke. etc. I'm very happy for them. Their lives are forever altered, and money won't change that, but it helps with the details.


t.

What t-girl said.

The thing Cal said about legality and morality is true. Just because the law is on your side doesn't mean it is the best thing to do.

In this case, I disagree.

It's easy to fall into the trap of "big business vs the little guy", as I did upon just having the cursory facts of the case, but how is it moral that Wal Mart be forced to pay for the fact that this lady obviously got bad legal advice when she brought forth her lawsuit?

When this lady went to work for Wal Mart, she signed onto the deal that says if she wins money in a health-related lawsuit, the company is entitled to be reimbursed for its share of the health expenses.

She WILLINGLY entered into this agreement.

And now we're saying this agreement should be null and void simply because Wal Mart has deep pockets?

When she sued the trucking company, the fact that she would be liable to reimburse WalMart should she win ought to have been factored into the equation when it came time to reach a figure for which to sue.

That is obviously wasn't is in no ways Wal Mart's fault.

And now a precedent has been set- go for the sympathy vote...the "little guy vs big business"- and any agreement you enter into with that business can be made null and void...simply because you're the "little guy" being "picked on".

How soon before business decide "The heck with it! Pay for your own health care!"

Contracts are contracts.

I think much of what Jeemie said is true, but I bet she didn't enter willingly into the agreement with Wal~Mart. That paragraph was probably buried somewhere deep in the back pages of the employee agreement, and I bet most employees of any company don't check for little things like that. Also, much of the settlement was supposed to be for future care and expenses, IIRC.

I really agree that the lawyer who sued the trucking company did not do the job required. He should have known about that clause, and allowed for any money paid directly for medical expenses go to Wal~Mart.

It's just sad all the way around. This family endures 2 tragedies, and Wal~Mart gets a huge, mainly undeserved, black eye.

REC to Jeemie. Wal*Mart should not have caved. Why should it bear the brunt of the woman's medical costs? Did Wal*Mart cause the injuries? No.

Wal*Mart paid for her medical care. She was given a settlement to pay for her medical care (apparently not enough, but that's not Wal*Mart's fault), so in fact, she has been in legal terms "unjustly enriched."

I am really curious as to why the settlement was so low. Even with Tort Reform caps, economic damages aren't usually capped against private parties. Caps are usually only applied to "pain & suffering" and/or punitive damages.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:Wal*Mart should not have caved.

Legally or morally, Wal~Mart was in the right. But being a retailer, even the 400 lb. gorilla of the retail room, public relations are important. This is just not the kind of story that is going to look good for a company, so buy some "good" publicity.

I wonder if the woman's lawyer performed some kind of malpractice for not knowing about the clause in the insurance.