http://www.alternet.org/blogs/workplace/80563/
http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=66780
Wal-Mart sues employee for $470,000
http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=66780
Wal-Mart sues employee for $470,000
How evil can a corporation be
- Thread starter Sean
- Start date
- Status
- Location
- Flushing NY 11355
That's evil, indeed!
I wondered if Walmart also own the issuance company that paid the prior bills.
Probably that's why they are the wealthiest family in US
I wondered if Walmart also own the issuance company that paid the prior bills.
Probably that's why they are the wealthiest family in US
ugh i've seen this on so many forums..... its the law, she signed her health contract, wal mart is abiding by it and making sure their policy is enforced... once you compromise for one perosn, others will follow. The situation is sad, and i feel for her family and everything they went through...but business is business. I feel like an a$$ for siding with wal-mart, but i'm not as emotional as most ppl
you should be more concerned with the fact that our government didn't want to hear the case.
you should be more concerned with the fact that our government didn't want to hear the case.
Last edited:
Well according to the CNN report, http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/walmart.insurance.battle/index, the lawyers collected $583K on this poor women.
Wal-Mart..bad
Attorneys..worse
Wal-Mart..bad
Attorneys..worse
- Location
- Flushing NY 11355
I cannot agreed more but in a different context.
I won all landlord tenant cases without a lawyer
and lost all landlord tenant cases with a lawyer!!!!
:irked: Pay to loose- a loose loose situation!:irked:
- Location
- Huntington
Drunk is correct, there was a pre-existing agreement both parties were aware of and wal mart is just acting on that agreement. If they make an exception then everyone is going to hit them up every time they get hurt, it's bad business. However, like every situation like this there are two different sides going on at the same time. On one hand wal mart cannot allow a precedent to be set that would potentially jeopardize millions of dollars. On the other hand they have to make a gesture of some kind if not just for it being the right thing to do than it making them look incredibly bad. I doubt wal mart will collect on the money. They will probably let it fade away until it is forgotten about since that is really the only way both sides win. Wal mart has enforced it's company rules and the family gets their money. It's sad and tragic but you don't get to the 90billion mark by showing weakness in the enforcement of your contracts.
The title of the thread suggests otherwise :tired:
DT is right. It is a contract, she agreed to it when she signed it. If the shoe was on the other foot and walmart got sued and lost nobody would complain. If there is such outrage about this case why not help your fellow man and take up a collection to help the woman and her family instead of talking about it. Talk is cheap but when people are challenged to actually reach deep down and lend a hand ither physically or financially things usually turn from loud roars to small whispers. Translated "Put your money where your mouth is or :shhh: "
That was my gut. After I sat back and thought about the situation a little more it boiled down to the lawyers that screwed her over. Not Wal-Marts or the insurance company she sued but her lawyers that didn't represent her properly. Hopefully Wal-Mart will prove not to be evil but use this as an example of what they can and should do so the next time the lawyers sue for money they keep in mind that they have to pay the medical fees as well.
- Location
- Flushing NY 11355
That's what I feel when I post "attorney are worse". In fact, I actually have won one case with a lawyer and get a judgment against the landlord but my lawyer was reluctant to collect from the other party. Instead, he continues to pressure me to pay him thru a common friend who referenced him to me. I yielded to my friend's plea and ask him to make sure the lawyer to collect. You know the end. No one do anything after I pay him more than I should have. No wonder co-workers of Chief were called to this lawyer's office almost once every week(this side joke is always on the mouth of the other professionals on the same floor.) So many satisfied clients. So I concluded this case is also lost thru a lawyer. I won in the court but lost both the money the landlord should compensate and attorney fees.
In this Walmart case, moneywise, it look as if she should not bother to go thru this hassle of suing the trucking company if the end result is to reimburse Walmart and nothing to safe guard her on going medical care. It looks like only the attorneys are making the extra money out from the case and the trucking company(insurance) is not paying more money to the medical care of her but to attorneys.
Last edited:
You should blame the lawyers... not Walmarts...but her attorneys.
It is standard that insurance companies have a lien on settlements when they have paid out on a claim, as a standard part of settlement negotiations is based upon how much health care has cost thus far. This is known by every competent attorney in the field. It is also standard, that the plaintiff's attorney (i.e. her attorney in the underlying lawsuit) is required to satisfy all liens from the proceeds (the settlement sum). It was her attorney's responsibility to take the lien into account when settling her case. They obviously didn't or this would not have been an issue.
In most cases, if you involve the insurance company in the settlement negotiations they will cut their recovery down by at least 1/3 if not more (often as much as 2/3). This is also something that her attorney needs to do.
Furthermore, the trucking company had at least 1 million policy (very likely much more under what is called a "garage policy" covering all of their trucks). They settled for $700,000, leaving at least $300,000 left. If they had taken the full policy, many states (not all, and I don't know what hers requires) have what is called Supplemental Uninsured/Undersinsured Motorist (SUM) benefits, that would have allowed her to collect against a portion of her own polciy if she exhausted the trucking companies policy. As they did not exhaust the policy (left $300,000), she can not collect against that.
It is standard that insurance companies have a lien on settlements when they have paid out on a claim, as a standard part of settlement negotiations is based upon how much health care has cost thus far. This is known by every competent attorney in the field. It is also standard, that the plaintiff's attorney (i.e. her attorney in the underlying lawsuit) is required to satisfy all liens from the proceeds (the settlement sum). It was her attorney's responsibility to take the lien into account when settling her case. They obviously didn't or this would not have been an issue.
In most cases, if you involve the insurance company in the settlement negotiations they will cut their recovery down by at least 1/3 if not more (often as much as 2/3). This is also something that her attorney needs to do.
Furthermore, the trucking company had at least 1 million policy (very likely much more under what is called a "garage policy" covering all of their trucks). They settled for $700,000, leaving at least $300,000 left. If they had taken the full policy, many states (not all, and I don't know what hers requires) have what is called Supplemental Uninsured/Undersinsured Motorist (SUM) benefits, that would have allowed her to collect against a portion of her own polciy if she exhausted the trucking companies policy. As they did not exhaust the policy (left $300,000), she can not collect against that.
- Location
- Flushing NY 11355
mstrofdisaster
Smokin' Reefer (aka KRS)
- Location
- Great Neck, NY 11020
- 5lb bag of doritos - .99
- 2lb jar of cheez-wiz - 1.99
- Earning record profits by squeezing the poor: priceless
- Location
- Marine Park
meschaefer put it well. As I always tell people, there are Attorneys and then there are Attorneys.
There's a great quote a friend of mine once relayed to me:
"What do you call someone who graduates LAST, the very BOTTOM of their class in medical school?"
Doctor!
I know 40 or 50 attorneys that are clueless and 4 or 5 that are brilliant. I think Wingo knows the same 40 or 50 that I do from his statements. The 4 or 5 I know that are brilliant all practice different facets of law. While one is unparalleled at sending people to jail, he's not the guy to ask a question about a Life Estate. Another who is the guy to ask about a Life Estate, hasn't a clue about personal injury nor criminal defense.
In the same way you wouldn't go to an Ear Nose & Throat doctor for a torn ACL you shouldn't forget that wisdom when picking an attorney. That being said, google is not a good place to look for an attorney. Neither is asking Wingo it would seem
I also wouldn't hire the firm that represented this poor lady.
There's a great quote a friend of mine once relayed to me:
"What do you call someone who graduates LAST, the very BOTTOM of their class in medical school?"
Doctor!
I know 40 or 50 attorneys that are clueless and 4 or 5 that are brilliant. I think Wingo knows the same 40 or 50 that I do from his statements. The 4 or 5 I know that are brilliant all practice different facets of law. While one is unparalleled at sending people to jail, he's not the guy to ask a question about a Life Estate. Another who is the guy to ask about a Life Estate, hasn't a clue about personal injury nor criminal defense.
In the same way you wouldn't go to an Ear Nose & Throat doctor for a torn ACL you shouldn't forget that wisdom when picking an attorney. That being said, google is not a good place to look for an attorney. Neither is asking Wingo it would seem
I also wouldn't hire the firm that represented this poor lady.
I fail to see how they are squeezing the poor. They provide low cost items to primarily low income neighborhoods. They provide a not insignificant number of jobs from within those same neighborhoods and provide those employees with benefits, something that those same employees would not have gotten working for the local mom and pop.
Within those benefits, the provided heath insurance to this woman, which in this case was in an amount approaching a half of a million dollars. This money was paid out to her, without regard to whether she would ever be able to recover that money from another source (the trucking company). If she never brought a law suit, it would not affect her health coverage and she still would received benefits and she would never have had to repay a dime to them. This is worth repeating, if she never brought a law suit she would never have had to pay a dime to them.
As part of the agreement, the health insurance company says in effect "If you do bring suit for your personal injuries, which you don't have to do, you need to account for our damages as much as yours." Someone here, or in one of the articles, stated that this was in "fine" print. These clauses are never in fine print, but are found within the enumerated responsibilities sections that lay out the responsibilites of both parties to the contract. i.e. the insurance company and the insured.
As a practical matter, the insurance companies are always quick to advise both sets of attorneys, (her attorneys and the attorneys for the Trucking company) of their lien against the proceeds of any judgment or settlement. So even if you failed to read your policy, which you have a responsibility to do, in 90% of all cases they remind you of this obligation before you settle your case.
They struck a bargain, and she benefited by it (I guarantee you she has never paid $470,000 in premiums) . She then failed to live up to her end of it, and now complains.
- Location
- Huntington
These cases are usually pretty cut and dry in a court. I have been in a jury seat and on both sides of this type of case for various reasons. Once you have signed an agreement with another party a binding agreement is in place. In matters of payment for certain things, if the events agreed upon occur as stated in the agreement and one party wishes to refuse there isn't much of a gray area. Both parties already had an agreement in place. If they aren't enforced than contracts would be worthless to everyone. The fact of the matter is that in a case like this, and Matt correct me if I am wrong, I think most of the outcome would have been decided out of court where the lawyers would have come to a mutually tolerable agreement like "we'll secede the victory if you forget about collecting afterwards" or whatever.
Your right, this will never go to trial. It will be settled out of court long before they reach that point. I would wager that they end up settling for about $150-200K. The point I would make is that her attorneys should have taken care of this before hand, and recovered that from the trucking company. Now it will have to come out of her pocket.
mstrofdisaster
Smokin' Reefer (aka KRS)
- Location
- Great Neck, NY 11020
Jobs that pay less than $10/hour with substandard benefits? If Target and Costco can pay more than $10/hour why can't Walmart? Only 46% of their associates have coverage. 80% of Costco members have coverage. And Walmart has a deductible of $1,000 for individuals and $3,000 for families. Wal-Mart employees must endure long waits to qualify for benefits: six months for full-time employees and one year for part-time employees. [Wal-Mart 2006 Associate Benefits Book; Wal-Mart Press Release, 4/17/06]
How do you know this? Would she still be receiving benefits today? Is she going to need a lifetime of skilled nursing care? When she maxed out her lifetime limit of 1M (all plans have a lifetime cap) then what? Ya think Walmart is gonna make an exception then? Who will pay for her care? Guess what - you and I and everyone here is going to pay for it.
Wow - complaining? What if that was someone you loved?
I see we have a fundamental difference in world view. While you are correct about contracts and enforcement of said contracts, it eliminates the
inconvenience of dealing with the human aspect of this situation. Walmart is a despicable company with a long history of sleazy behavior towards it employees. Why do you think they have such a bad reputation?
They could have NOT brought this lawsuit and let it go away quietly. But instead they need to be 'fair' to the rest of the associates. BS.
No matter what percentage of other companies employees have benefits, and what those benefits entails, the fact remains that she had benefits. Deductibles and waiting periods before you are covered are the norm.
I never stated that she would still have benefits today, I said that her receipt of benefits for prior medical care (which she did receive) was not contingent upon her bringing a lawsuit.
Yes she is complaining, she made a bad deal when settling her lawsuit and now she wants someone else to pay for it. The insurance company didn't settle this case for $700K because they thought they would win at trial, they settled for that amount because they new they would loose and that they would loose big. I will say it again, she screwed up - not Walmart- and she screwed up big. Now because Walmart has a negative image in the public consciousness, she attempting to leverage that in an attempt to shift responsibility from herself to others, who have done absolutely nothing wrong as it pertains to this matter.
I don't think we have a different world view. The difference is that you are focusing on the individual person, while my concern is the implementation of policy that is going to bring the greatest amount of good, to the greatest amount of people.
Frankly, the law of contracts is the human element. When making policy you have to look at the overall effect everybody, and not just one individual. Once you start asserting that a contract should not be enforced because you don't like the outcome (which is exactly what happened here), it breaks down its essential binding nature . That would bring business to a halt, as you could no longer bargain with anybody and expect that the bargain will be carried out to the end. Contracts allow you to manage expectations. If business came to a halt, the economy would crash and their would be nobody to offer anybody benefits. To the extent they exist, Government sponsored health care programs would come to an end too, as tax revenues would plummet.
Yes they could have not brought the lawsuit, but at what precedent. If they didn't bring the lawsuit, they absorb the cost. Others would ignore the lien on proceeds of their suits, and they would have to absorb their cost too, because their story will be just as heart wrenching as hers. This results in increased premiums, which mean even higher deductibles and/or less coverage for their employees. If not higher deductibles and/or less coverage, perhaps these losses would be passed along to the consumer who buys products in their stores. No matter how this shook out, it would disproportionately affect the low end consumer who works and/or shops in their stores. Why stop at Walmart, is her story any different if it's a well respected company, is her story any less touching.
- Status
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
