WalMart backed off

[tlynn78]

In this case, I disagree

You're certainly entitled to disagree. It's certainly true that WM didn't HAVE to cave. YOu can bet the negative publicity that was generated was nowhere near as bad as it could have got, so they'll probably come out okay. It was the decent thing to do. And they will benefit from the good feelings generated.

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.

I'm sure my insurance policy had the same caveat. However, my insurer made the decision, completely unprompted, to waive subrogation because, in their words, 'he can never be made whole.' They didn't have to, but it was a good thing.


t.

[TheCalvinator24]

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.

Forget whether the atty knew about the subrogation clause. Why on earth would the atty settle for any amount less than actual medicals?

There may have been an issue with the policy limits for the trucker, but I doubt those limits were $417,000, so my guess is that there should have been some more money available.

Unless, the original accident was at least partly the injured woman's fault, in which case, the settlement would reflect the agreed proportionate responsibility, but the medical bills were what they were.

[peacock2121]

There are 'shoulds' and there are 'shoulds'. Depends on where you look to determine your shoulds and the shoulds for others.

WalMart, in my shoulds, did what a business their size 'should' do.

Those who make the rules have the power to change the rules. Those that agree to the rules have the right to request to be let out of the rules.

All different shoulds make the world go round.

[wintergreen48]

Of course, Wal Mart itself does not have deep pockets: it is a soulless corporation that is just a channel for the money that flows between other people's deep pockets.

The money that 'Wal Mart' paid out didn't actually come from Wal Mart, it actually came from the shareholders (whose dividends are impacted) and/or from the customers (who pay for the goods sold) and/or from the employees (whose salaries and benefits are a function of Wal Mart's costs and earnings); ultimately, it is the shareholders and/or customers and/or employees who will pay for Wal Mart doing 'the right thing.'

As a practical matter, I think it unlikely that the shareholders will actually pay, since, ultimately, management makes the final decision about where the money comes from and where the money goes, and ultimately management is responsible most directly to the shareholders, but rather, it will be the customers who will pay the cost (in the form of higher prices), and it will be lb13 who will pay the cost (in the form of higher medical premiums and/or reduced medical benefits).

Reminds me of something that happened when I was in college. Early in my sophomore year, the 50 Radical Kids on Campus organized a campus strike on behalf of the underpaid cafeteria workers and other service employees. As it happens, those workers were the highest paid in Philadelphia, but that did not come out until afterward; in any event, the University of Pennsylvania (aka, 'the Harvard of the Ivy League') caved, and Penn's cafeteria and other service workers got big pay raises that made them, apparently, the highest paid cafeteria and other service workers in the known universe. So for my junior year, there was a huge jump in tuition (a non-issue for me, as my scholarship kept pace, but a big deal for the students who were actually paying the cost of my tuition). So of course the 50 Radical Kids on Campus (many of whom, as it happened, happened to be among the highest income families, and so, were most directly impacted by the tuition increase, since they were subsidizing my own education) tried to demonstrate against that increase, but it did not go very well, since THIS time the University got its numbers together and was able to show exactly why they had to charge people more.

[Appa23]

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.

Forget whether the atty knew about the subrogation clause. Why on earth would the atty settle for any amount less than actual medicals?

There may have been an issue with the policy limits for the trucker, but I doubt those limits were $417,000, so my guess is that there should have been some more money available.

IIRC, the actual settlement was for $1 million. It ended up being half that amount because of . . . attorney fees.

As Wintergreen points out, the ultimate question is what percentage of the general public should have to bear the weight of Shank's long-term care. With the money being returned from WalMart, the burden is being placed primarily on WalMart customers. Without that money, the brunt would be placed on the entire general public, as Medicaid primarily would have been paying the long-term care bills.

[TheCalvinator24]

Okay. A $1MM policy I can comprehend. For the expenses and Fees to exceed 50% of that without the case going to trial is ridiculous. The "standard" PI Contingent Fee Contract around here is:

25% if Settled without having to file a lawsuit
33 1/3% if Settled after suit is filed but before Trial Commences
40% if Settled after Trial commences or of any jury award
50% if an award is appealed.

[littlebeast13]

As a practical matter, I think it unlikely that the shareholders will actually pay, since, ultimately, management makes the final decision about where the money comes from and where the money goes, and ultimately management is responsible most directly to the shareholders, but rather, it will be the customers who will pay the cost (in the form of higher prices), and it will be lb13 who will pay the cost (in the form of higher medical premiums and/or reduced medical benefits).

I get such a warm, fuzzy feeling inside doing the right thing.....

lb13

[Rexer25]

As a practical matter, I think it unlikely that the shareholders will actually pay, since, ultimately, management makes the final decision about where the money comes from and where the money goes, and ultimately management is responsible most directly to the shareholders, but rather, it will be the customers who will pay the cost (in the form of higher prices), and it will be lb13 who will pay the cost (in the form of higher medical premiums and/or reduced medical benefits).

I get such a warm, fuzzy feeling inside doing the right thing.....

lb13

Ahem

I sense no sarcafont here...

[littlebeast13]

As a practical matter, I think it unlikely that the shareholders will actually pay, since, ultimately, management makes the final decision about where the money comes from and where the money goes, and ultimately management is responsible most directly to the shareholders, but rather, it will be the customers who will pay the cost (in the form of higher prices), and it will be lb13 who will pay the cost (in the form of higher medical premiums and/or reduced medical benefits).

I get such a warm, fuzzy feeling inside doing the right thing.....

lb13

Ahem

I sense no sarcafont here...

Sorry, I can't afford luxuries like Sarcafont anymore. I have to pay too much for good company publicity....

lb13