onegoodmove

subrogation

Asshat makes a good point (i've never seen wikipedia pwn so well). There's probably a reason WalMart can't throw out all their subrogation cases. When you insure 1.9 million employees, you'll get thousands of sob stories like this. What makes this case so special?

"Save money, live better"

I'm frequently branded a contrarian simply because I don't tend to jump to the same conclusion as most. So I'm prepared for the backlash here.

But while I agree 100% that this is a horrible, sad story, factually I have to agree with Wal-Mart's response to the public outrage over this case.

The basic fact is that the clause exists to prevent 'double dipping'. If you are injured, and you win a settlement for your injuries, the idea is that the settlement pays for your medical care. So you cannot - by law - expect your employer to cover the same medical care. That's betterment, not being 'made whole'.

Now, Wal-Mart could make an exception in this case due to the emotional impact of the story. But they are then in a very bad position: they either have to void the clause, thus allowing people injured at work to receive double funding for their injuries; or they have put themselves in a position to be sued by the next person hit by this clause because no exception was made in their case.

Frankly I'm more angered by Olbermann than I am by Wal-Mart. Anybody can take a story and sensationalize it on their entertainment show. Olbermann's a rich guy - if this really bugged him, he could throw a day's pay at the woman to help her out. Instead, he's just making himself a little richer by exploiting a sad story and further vilifying an easy target.

Two things. First, did she have any influence herself on the whole settlement thing? After all, she has brain damage and needs 24h care. That doesn't sound like a state where she herself would be able to make good legal judgments. Second, why didn't they just sue for the amount she actually got? It would still be just, since she wouldn't end up with more than one compensation, but she would not be punished in the state she is in.

"Olbermann's a rich guy - if this really bugged him, he could throw a day's pay at the woman to help her out."

This is pretty lame. You're angered that some rich person refuses to help somebody, but not angered about the person or organization that put them in that situation? You're also wildly exaggerating Olbermann's salary if you think that he makes a half million in a day.

It's the same conservative double-standard: rich liberals should shut up until they've empoverished themselves remedying the social wrongs they identify (while mega rich conservatives who don't care about such things should spend their fortune lobbying Congress on behalf of their deadbeat children's inheritance!). If something really is a wrong, it's not just the responsibility of people who happen to see it or acknowledge it.

Liberals should give more charity. Some statistics show that they give less than conservatives. But you can give half or more of your income to the poor, or not give any, and still have a sincere, authentic position about how employees should be treated. I don't have to give away all my money to the children of dead-beat dads before I have the right to demand that they pay their child support.

If Olbermann is wrong about the particulars of this case (he has been wrong in the past), then I'd like to hear the evidence. Otherwise, I think that yes, a company should think twice and three times before completely sucking dry an incapacitated former employee who needs constant care.

I think what you are missing is that she won the lawsuit against the trucking company to pay her medical expenses. Wal-Mart was her medical insurer who had already paid her medical expenses, so the money was owed to Wal-Mart. If she had been awarded pain and suffering, loss of future wages etc..., Wal-Mart would not have a claim against it.

Frequently, the victim's medical insurance company will pay the medical bills and then sue the liable party (in this case the trucking company) and it would have had the same result (less the Olby drama).

"If she had been awarded pain and suffering, loss of future wages etc..., Wal-Mart would not have a claim against it."

Now I'm beginning to get it.

What baffles (and enrages) me about this is that Wal-Mart, for whatever arbitrary, senseless reason, decided to sue for MORE than she was awarded by the settlement, and thus MORE than was owed to them under their OWN clause. I do agree that it does put a company in a difficult position to make an exception in a situation such as this, but to sue for an extra 50 grand--which means nothing to the company--seems nothing short of vindictive from where I stand, and whether a careless error or a deliberate decision is an extremely troubling insight into the mind of the person responsible for said decision.

The law exists to prevent double-dipping eh? And that is a good thing right, because someone crippled will not end up with too much money, that would be the end of the world. Having money to pay your medical bills and something extra to be comfortable while you are recuperating. For that you get sued by an institution that for more than you are worth for the kind of money they use for pocket change?

Walmart management could have decided not to sue this woman. What would happen then? They get sued by their share holders? Would they even notice? Would they even care for this pocket change? Besides the positive publicity would be a welcome change. Something that their management can justify is better for business.

In any case which jury found it necessary to take money off of a crippled woman? Chances are no one told them about jury nullification. Was this case even decided by a jury trial?

I agree that a company has to ensure there is no double-dipping. Otherwise, some people in less serious situations might take advantage. Having said that, I think a case like this deserves a special analysis by the company. Unfortunately, Walmart is so big that individuals become little footnotes. I'm sure whoever was handling this at Walmart didn't think twice about it since this woman's name was just letter on a piece of paper.

So, why are the laws written this way, so that the victim has to work out the payment schedule between the two companies. Why not write the insurance policy so that any other company who has to pay medical cost has to reimburse the employer for any medical bills they paid, and leave the victim out of the accounting (of course, which also ensures that if such a settlement is made, and the insurance company does get reimbursed, they are held liable for keeping treatment available for the length of the settlement).

That's usually the way it works MEC. I've tried to find more specifics on this case and haven't found much that didn't qualify as editorial. What I did find is that the original judgment was for $1,000,000, out of which her lawyers took $583,000 leaving her with $417,000.

If she had followed custom, Wal-Mart would have sued the trucking company for the medical expenses and she would later sue for P&S, lost future wages, negligence etc..., but then her lawyers wouldn't have received the 60% cut of the medical judgement.

I also found out that while Wal-Mart won it's lawsuit, it didn't win the $470,000 it was asking for. The judge limited the winnings to the amount the woman netted from her original lawsuit ($417,000). If you think about it, why would anyone sue for less than they are out? If you spent $1000 to fix your car after an accident that wasn't your fault, would you sue for $800? If so, why?

Seems to me she got screwed by her lawyers, not Wal-Mart.

I'm not sure why there's even a question here--of course a health plan doesn't have to allow double-payment for an injury. It has made national news because it involves everyone's favorite whipping boy; other than that, it's one of the simpler issues out there: overpaying medical bills is not good public policy.

thanks ahat: hooray for KO doing his homework, instead of just headline grabbing.

Seems to me she got screwed by her lawyers, not Wal-Mart.

Yeah, you may well be right on this one, Syngas. If she stood only to get her medical expenses back (and, as you've pointed out, not even all of that), why would she bother to sue at all. WalMart had already paid, right? Weren't they suing her for reimbursement?

sorry for not understanding the US suing culture.

But by the same logic, Wal-Mart should sue the lawyers for the remaining 583000USD because the compensation she won was 1000000USD.

I guess that was not the case or it would have reported on.

Thanks Tim ;)

neveil,

As far as I can tell, Wal-Mart only spent $470,000 on her medical expenses so there would be no reason to sue for 1m.

Also, in the US, suing lawyers is like pissing in the wind. Your own council is a lawyer, and the judge is a lawyer - you'll be the only one in the room who isn't a lawyer. You'll lose every time.

You may also be surprised to learn that police officers almost never issue speeding tickets to other police officers.

I've got to wonder whether asshat, calligraph, and mpkomara have ever been through the insurance process. Calligraph sounds like he/she has been through it, but from the side of the insurance company, or more likely, WalMart.

What most likely happened here is that the woman got a settlement for pain and suffering. That is, above and beyond her medical bills, this is the amount she deserves for going through the hassle of living the rest of her life without the use of (what was it now? oh yes) HER BRAIN. She also deserves this money for having to deal with the insurance company and the corporation that employed her, both of whom were trying to screw her every step of the way. I know, I've gone through these processes both with my car and with my body. Luckily, I'm okay; I just have to go through life with no feeling in my thigh.

If the third party was paying just for medical bills then Wal Mart would have gone after that themselves. After my car accident, my insurance company had to go after the other driver's insurance company to get what they lost. I separately went after them for pain and suffering. I didn't get much, but I probably got what was fair.

Betterment is when you get something that is better than what you had. For instance, a hunk of metal on the road destroys your 5 year old transmission. The isurance company decides that the rebuilt (used) transmission they have to pay for is better than the one that was destroyed. So they charge you betterment, the difference between the value of the "new" (which is really used) tranny and the 5 year old tranny. Yes, this actually happened to me as well.

So calligraph, are we to assume that this woman got a better brain? That does seem to be what you're claiming.

As far as double dipping, it may be, though I doubt it, that the payment was technically just for medical bills, in which case, by the letter of the law, I imagine Wal Mart is within their right to do this. But if this women does not get any compensation for the loss of her faculties and the hassle (it is like a part time job) of making sure she got what she was owed, then that is an even greater outrage.

Olberman's right. But he's left something out. The insurance companies decide whether we live or die after an accident. It is the insurance companies involved in this case who are the worst people in the world.

Follow up: according to DN, the Bentley Troll has decided to let go of poor Ms. Shank and her $400K. My question: why does it always take public humiliation to make these corporate monsters do the right thing?