Brain-damaged woman at center of Wal-Mart suit

[Spirithound]

The constitution is not the final authority on morality. Such a good little American you are though!

Also, I am talking about morality, not legality. They are different. Abortion is legal. Do you support that too?

It seems to me that the injured party is in a zero-sum situation. She initially got money to pay her med bills from WalMart, then she got the same money from the lawsuit, and now WalMart, as per their policy wants the money back since the injured party has received money from a different source. She is thus no further back than after Walmart initially paid. There is therefore nothing resembling immorality here.

 

[harrisunt]

Personally, I think we need to completely outlaw insurance and insurance companies, and guarantee every citizen some form of basic health care; something like, oh, I don’t know…maybe the same program that members of Congress get on the public dime.

We can easily pay for this by cutting off all foreign aid to everybody else in the world and keeping that money right here at home. Take care of our own citizens first, and then if we have anything left, we’ll see about things like helping North Korea out of it’s latest famine. In the meantime, their old buddies, the Communist Chinese, can help them out.

After all, they were quick enough to help them out in 1950, weren’t they?

Sure, lets be real charitable Christians and cut off all foreign aid so we can shut down an entire industry in this country. Well thought out plan you have there. :banghead:

 

[vern_humphrey]

It seems to me that the injured party is in a zero-sum situation. She initially got money to pay her med bills from WalMart, then she got the same money from the lawsuit, and now WalMart, as per their policy wants the money back since the injured party has received money from a different source. She is thus no further back than after Walmart initially paid. There is therefore nothing resembling immorality here.

Absolutely.

The real theme of this thread is, “I hate Wal-Mart.”

 

[rpp]

Absolutely.

The real theme of this thread is, “I hate Wal-Mart.”

Well, I, as the OP, do not like them as a corporation. My employer has repeatedly sued Wal-Mart for manufacturing and selling knock-offs and counterfeits of our products.

And there is inherent immorality in a wealthy organization taking money from the poor and disabled. How someone can claim otherwise is beyond me.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well, I, as the OP, do not like them as a corporation. My employer has repeatedly sued Wal-Mart for manufacturing and selling knock-offs and counterfeits of our products.

Would it be fair, then for me to conclude if it had been, say the City of San Francisco, you would not have posted this.

And there is inherent immorality in a wealthy organization taking money from the poor and disabled. How someone can claim otherwise is beyond me.

What is immoral is double-dipping, being paid twice for the same claim. How someone can claim otherwise is beyond me.

 

[rpp]

Would it be fair, then for me to conclude if it had been, say the City of San Francisco, you would not have posted this.

No, I think I would have posted it anyway. The real question is would CNN have run the story?

What is immoral is double-dipping, being paid twice for the same claim. How someone can claim otherwise is beyond me.

Clearly no one, except you, thinks of this as double-dipping. It is, in fact, not.

It is not double-dipping. The couple made the investment and ultimately spent more than $500,000 in legal fees to get their settlement. That it was paid out of the settlement is irrelevant. The insurance company did not spend that money. They could have, but decided to let this couple spend their money instead. So morally, the insurance company, if they want to subrogate the claim, should compensate the couple for the legal expenses they incurred essentially on behalf of the insurance company.

I believe this woman, who clearly cannot help herself, has been taken to the cleaners, primarily by her attorneys who appear to be both greedy and incompetent. I think she may even have a case of legal malpractice against her attorneys for not addressing this foreseeable consequence of the award.

The insurance carrier (not Wal-Mart actually) has the final say. They can choose whether, and to what extent, to subrogate the claim. I doubt that Wal-Mart has any real (read: legal) say in how the insurance company pursues such matters.

That the insurance company is legally entitled to renumeration is not something I dispute. My problem with it is that they chose to claim all the assets this woman got from the lawsuit leaving her destitute and disabled.

As has been pointed out repeatedly on this and other threads, legal does not equal moral.

Vern, I do not understand your moral position on this and would like to hear you defend it. Please explain how it is just for a wealthy insurance company to make disabled individual destitute? Keep in mind that the couple paid all the costs to get the money from the offending party to begin with, not the insurance company. Citations from the Catechism in support of your position would be helpful. This is not intended to be a rhetorical question. Also, do not respond with a question; I am looking for a real answer, not an exchange of barbs, like the post I quoted.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No, I think I would have posted it anyway. The real question is would CNN have run the story?

Probably for the same reason you did – it has been spun to reflect on the people you love to hate.

I believe this woman, who clearly cannot help herself, has been taken to the cleaners, primarily by her attorneys who appear to be both greedy and incompetent. I think she may even have a case of legal malpractice against her attorneys for not addressing this foreseeable consequence of the award.

What did I say? A moral lawyer is an oxymoron.

The insurance carrier (not Wal-Mart actually) has the final say. They can choose whether, and to what extent, to subrogate the claim. I doubt that Wal-Mart has any real (read: legal) say in how the insurance company pursues such matters.

Then why bring them into it at all?

That the insurance company is legally entitled to renumeration is not something I dispute. My problem with it is that they chose to claim all the assets this woman got from the lawsuit leaving her destitute and disabled.

The assets to which she was not entitled, and which amounted to double-dipping on her medical claim.

As has been pointed out repeatedly on this and other threads, legal does not equal moral.

And being holier than thou doesn’t make one right.

 

[didymus]

Re-reading the story I’d say the Shanks have an excellent case against their attorney for malpractice:

The family’s attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money.
“We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to,” Graham said.

So Mr. Graham was aware of the subrogation clause but assumed that Wal-Mart would not enforce it? This shows an utter lack of what the legal profession call “due diligence”, known to the rest of us as not doing your homework.
Why isn’t Keith Oblermann naming him as Worst (or at least dumbest) Person in the World? Because it’s more fun to beat up on America’s corporate Snidely Whiplash.

Btw, MC you mentioned that the Shanks “invested half a million dollars in legal fees” to get their award. Not so. I’m sure their attorney took their case on contingency usually 40% + expenses. The story says Ms. Shanks was awarded “about $1 million” and wound up with $417K. Her attorney could set things right by giving back his fee since he’s the one who screwed up.

 

[Aleii]

Agreed, didymus

 

[rpp]

Probably for the same reason you did – it has been spun to reflect on the people you love to hate.

What did I say? A moral lawyer is an oxymoron.

Then why bring them into it at all?

The assets to which she was not entitled, and which amounted to double-dipping on her medical claim.

And being holier than thou doesn’t make one right.

Okay, you would rather attack than have a substantive conversation and defend your position. I was particularly impressed with your ability to remove the context of what I wrote and therefore change the meaning. Very nice.

I believe I now understand your point of view and your motive in posting.

I will not return insult for insult. Good day Vern.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Okay, you would rather attack than have a substantive conversation and defend your position. I was particularly impressed with your ability to remove the context of what I wrote and therefore change the meaning. Very nice.

I believe I now understand your point of view and your motive in posting.

I will not return insult for insult. Good day Vern.

G’day, mite.

 

[Spirithound]

It is not double-dipping. The couple made the investment and ultimately spent more than $500,000 in legal fees to get their settlement. That it was paid out of the settlement is irrelevant. The insurance company did not spend that money. They could have, but decided to let this couple spend their money instead. So morally, the insurance company, if they want to subrogate the claim, should compensate the couple for the legal expenses they incurred essentially on behalf of the insurance company.

I believe this woman, who clearly cannot help herself, has been taken to the cleaners, primarily by her attorneys who appear to be both greedy and incompetent. I think she may even have a case of legal malpractice against her attorneys for not addressing this foreseeable consequence of the award.

That the insurance company is legally entitled to renumeration is not something I dispute. My problem with it is that they chose to claim all the assets this woman got from the lawsuit leaving her destitute and disabled.

I’m not sure whether it’s double-dipping or not (cuz I’m not sure what constitutes that…), but I’d like to talk it out.

The crux of the matter, I believe, is whether Walmart has an obligation to give the woman money. Let’s think, if she had first gotten the money from the settlement and Walmart still had the subrogation clause, but had not yet given her the money, would you still believe that Walmart has the obligation to provide for her?

 

[Wolseley]

Sure, lets be real charitable Christians and cut off all foreign aid so we can shut down an entire industry in this country. Well thought out plan you have there. :banghead:

I think so. Glad to see you agree.

As for nationwide industries, just because something is a nationwide industry doesn’t mean it should be preserved. Abortion is a nationwide industry. So was the Final Solution. So was the Soviet Gulag.

 

[rpp]

I’m not sure whether it’s double-dipping or not (cuz I’m not sure what constitutes that…), but I’d like to talk it out.

The crux of the matter, I believe, is whether Walmart has an obligation to give the woman money. Let’s think, if she had first gotten the money from the settlement and Walmart still had the subrogation clause, but had not yet given her the money, would you still believe that Walmart has the obligation to provide for her?

I believed that the the insurance company engaged in unethical behavior in the manner in which they subrogated their claim. You see, rather than do the work, and incur the expense, themselves, they had their insured do it for them, incurring their own expense. There is no reason why the insurance company could not have not sought compensation from the offending party like the woman did.

A while back, I was involved in an auto accident and was injured. Another party was at fault. I had medical expenses. My insurance carrier went after the at-fault driver’s insurance company to recoup their medical expenses. At the same time, the at-fault driver’s gave me a settlement that represented lost wages and other non-medical expenses above and beyond the cost of repairing my car. So you see, my insurance carrier did their own work to recover their money and left me alone to deal with the insurance in any way I saw fit. My insurance carrier was completely aware that I had received a settlement. But they did not care because they had already recovered their money.

That is not what Wal-Marts insurer did. They waited for a weaker and easier, and cheaper target to recover some money then jumped in and grabbed what they could from her. They should have gone after the at-fault driver and his insurance company. That is what is unethical.

In addition, the award, at least part of it, was intended for her future medical and living expenses.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I believed that the the insurance company engaged in unethical behavior in the manner in which they subrogated their claim. You see, rather than do the work, and incur the expense, themselves, they had their insured do it for them, incurring their own expense.

Riiight. They scouted up a lawyer for her, and whispered in her ear until she hired that lawyer. It was all a plot. Riiiiight.

 

[rlg94086]

Rpp,

What you describe is common practice for auto insurance. I don’t think it is as common for health insurance companies to go after the offender in an auto accident.

Did Mrs. Shank have auto insurance? If so, they probably should have paid her medical bills and gone after the other driver’s insurance. …at least, that is my understanding.

 

[rpp]

Rpp,

What you describe is common practice for auto insurance. I don’t think it is as common for health insurance companies to go after the offender in an auto accident.

Did Mrs. Shank have auto insurance? If so, they probably should have paid her medical bills and gone after the other driver’s insurance. …at least, that is my understanding.

I think you misunderstood. My situation was similar to the Shank’s. My health insurance carrier went after the auto insurance carrier of the at fault driver. In her case, they waited for her to get a settlement then sued her to recover it.

Even if it was a situation where her own auto insurance “uninsured motorist” rider had to pay, the health insurance company would still normally go after the other insurance company. That is the purpose of insurance.

 

[vz71]

Riiight. They scouted up a lawyer for her, and whispered in her ear until she hired that lawyer. It was all a plot. Riiiiight.

No plot at all.
The insurance company was engaged in unethical practice.
The inept lawyer just furthered the problems.

I am uncertain if the lawyer was actually inept or malicious (perhaps another lawsuit could decide this); but at the least he should be made to pay back his fee.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No plot at all.
The insurance company was engaged in unethical practice.

Specifically what did they do that was unethical – I mean in terms of violating the law or an exstablished code of ethics, not merely doing something that some people who aren’t familiar with how insurance works disagree with?

The inept lawyer just furthered the problems.

I am uncertain if the lawyer was actually inept or malicious (perhaps another lawsuit could decide this); but at the least he should be made to pay back his fee.

The country would be much better off if we had fewer lawyers – and we could get that way by enforcing the laws and codes of ethics against lawyers.

 

[geezerbob]

It looks as if Wal-Mart is dropping any efforts to recover the money they paid for medical expenses.
deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/01/848981.aspx