Wal-Mart sues employee injured at their store.

[Eric J in MN]

Wal-Mart Sues Brain Damaged Employee As Reward for Giving Her Health Insurance

Just when you think that Wal-Mart had already exhausted every last possible strategy for screwing over its employees, here comes this story in the Wall Street Journal. Deborah Shank, a Wal-Mart employee gets into an accident with a semi and ends up permanently brain-damaged a few years back. Her Wal-Mart health insurance paid her medical bills, but she also sued the trucking company for damages. She wins $700,000, which after legal fees and expenses, nets her about $400,000, which was put in a trust to pay the nursing home she now lives in.

But Wal-Mart gets wind of the settlement and turns around and sues Shank for $470,000, the money its insurance company paid for her care from the accident. Now, the woman is reliant on Medicaid and Social Security and Wal-Mart apparently got a much needed windfall.

Wal-Mart isn't alone in such behavior. Insurance companies seizing lawsuit winnings from catastrophically injured Americans is a common practice that gives lie to the notion that anyone gets rich off a personal injury lawsuit these days, as insurance companies often get first dibs on any judgment or settlement in such cases. But Wal-Mart's cruelty, as always, is extreme in this case. Not only is Shenk profoundly disabled, but while her family was fighting off the company in court, her son was killed while fighting the war in Iraq. Not even bad PR like this, apparently, can eke out a drop of compassion from the retail giant.

We need legislation to stop health plans from clauses letting them seize court awards. It's called "subrogation." We need a Senator or Rep who will take a position against using subrogation on employees.

[Richard Steele]

1. Grrrecommended.

[Deja Q]

2. Son killed while in Iraq? Talk about redefining family AND community values.

This does seem exceptionally cruel under the circumstances.

[Selatius]

3. I think we should take health insurance out of the for-profit hands of corporations.

It should be non-profit like Social Security or Medicare. This kind of inhumane treatment must end somewhere.

[McCamy Taylor]

31. Then she would not have gotten 400k in medical expenses in the court judgment.

Because she would have been covered by the national health. See my post at the bottom. Awards specify what the money is for.

[northzax]

113. yep

and if the award was to pay medical expenses then whoever paid those bills upfront should be repaid for them.

[FREEWILL56]

128. That I believe to be 100% wrong.

If the insurance carrier feels that a 3rd party caused their client injury then they themselves need to sue for their money from that 3rd party in court and cannot go after the client for it as the client was given this paid by the employer to do this for the client unless the client paid for it his or herself. The point is, it is an insurance that they were paid to do a service for the client in the unlikely event of harm to the client. To sue the client is getting out of their legally binding contractual obligations with the client. The insurance company was paid so does the client then sue the insurance carrier for breach of contract, damages, and monies paid into the insurance because of their failure?
edit to add:
Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate proposing a not for profit health care system.

[JDPriestly]

103. How right you are.

A lot of the litigation in this country would not be filed if it were not for the medical damages, past, present and future. This is especially true for the kinds of injuries people get in minor accidents in which they have some medical bills for therapy and maybe a few stitches but only miss at most a couple of days of work. We waste so much time, energy and the many, many costs involved in litigation over minor injuries that involve a few doctor's visits. People fear longterm repercussions from these minor injuries -- which may well occur. And, of course, in these cases, fault must always be determined -- even when, in cases in which the damages are small or the evidence already destroyed, the "facts" are just memories dimmed by trauma and confusion. Fault is sometimes clear and needs to be allocated -- as in cases of driving under the influence. But, most accidents result not from gross negligence or intentional wrongs but from inadvertence, misreading cues, confusing traffic signs, or other that are best punished by a ticket and a big fine, not thousands spent on attorneys, the waste of boxes of paper and the intervention of a judge.

National insurance would ease the minds of those injured in accidents and stop the waste of time and money on these lawsuits that are not really frivolous but could easily be made unnecessary.

[safeinOhio]

4. Would seem to me

That Wal-Mart might owe her for her lawyer fees, as they are the ones to benefit from the court case.

[Psephos]

5. Seems that way to me, too n/t

[Lorien]

8. It seems to me like she should be the only one entitled to benefit

from her court case. Her life is effectively destroyed, yet that doesn't stop Wally Mart from trying to take everything that's left. Once again the class war can only be waged by the upper class against the rest of us.

[Eric J in MN]

11. Wal-Mart wrote the health insurance contract so that they get the court award....

...but not the legal expenses.

[Eric J in MN]

12. duplicate NT

NT

[NC_Nurse]

6. Despicable. nt

[liberalmuse]

7. This is sickening.

As long as we allow a thing (a 'corporation')to take precedence over human beings, we're nothing more than slaves. Buy local and fuck the greedy bastards hiding behind The Corporation. Forget 'The Terminator'. The Corporation is the cold, unfeeling machine that will destroy us.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

9. Stockholders are culpable when corporations act like this.

This is a message to say a big FU to any company that does business in this manner. :mad:

[gulfcoastliberal]

10. And which dem candidate was a Wal mart board member for many years?

Hint: Arkansas.

[Eric J in MN]

14. Maybe...

...a President Hillary Clinton would veto anything which Wal-Mart objects to.

Then again, Wal-Mart doesn't seem to have been using "subrogation" against injured employees until recently, not when Hillary Clinton was on their board.

[PinkTiger]

38. No, you don't understand.

Senator Clinton was on the board while Bill was Governor, but she later got off the board because she disagreed with many of the issues the board was involved in.
Wal-Mart was also different while Sam was alive, which is when she was on the board.
She is not loved by Wal-Mart, at all.

On edit: Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20walmart.html

[blondeatlast]

92. Yep--Sam must roll over daily when he sees what his greedy, nasty, despicable progeny

did to his company.

[gulfcoastliberal]

129. She quit the board when Bill started his campaign- not because she disagreed with the union-busting

nt!

[Nomad559]

19. Who Praises Wal-Mart On Environment?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13840755

Former Vice President Al Gore on Wednesday praised Wal-Mart for a newfound focus on environmental sustainability, saying the retailer showed there is no conflict between the environment and the economy.

“I believe that this kind of commitment is so important that the rest of the world is likely to be listening and learning,” Gore told an auditorium of more than 800 Wal-Mart employees, suppliers and outside experts who are advising the company.

Chief Executive Lee Scott last October said Wal-Mart would become a leader in sustainability, with three goals: reducing waste to zero, moving toward using only renewable energy and offering more products made in a way that preserves the environment.

[brentspeak]

13. A brain-damaged woman is sued by Mall-Wart; her son, killed in the Iraq War

If there's any story out there that captures more than this one the tragic absurdity of life in today's corrupt, exploitative corporate and political America, I'd like to hear about it.

[emilyg]

15. Calm down. Go read the other post on this story.

[Eric J in MN]

16. You support Wal-Mart in this? NT

NT

[brentspeak]

17. ???

[HCE SuiGeneris]

20. Link? Your point? Hello?

[brentspeak]

60. Care to follow up on your hit-and-run bizarro post?

[no_hypocrisy]

18. I'm lost. Is the health insurance company acting as the conduit for workman's comp?

[progressoid]

21. As if I needed another reason to despise Walmart.

[unblock]

22. sorry to not support the groupthink outrage here, but...

first, this isn't really a mal-wart issue, it's an insurance issue. mal-wart isn't any different from any health insurance provider in this regard.

second, let me say that i have been a "victim" of exactly this sort of "subrogation". i was in a car accident (passenger in a cab, clearly not my fault). my auto and then my health insurance initially paid my medical bills. eventually i won a settlement from both the cab company and the car behind that rammed the cab i was in. the insurance companies got first dibs on my settlement money (well, second dibs, after my lawyers).

and i support this. my insurance was to compensate me for out of pocket medical expenses. having won those settlements, that means that SOMEONE ELSE paid my medical bills. therefore, i had no medical expenses. so why should i be entitled to reimbursment of medical expenses that in the end were fully paid by someone else?

i suppose one could argue that my insurance companies should be out money either way, and that perhaps the defendants i sued should get the insurance money, but *I* certainly should not be entitled to money from both the defendants AND the insurance company for the same expenses. that's double-dipping, and clearly wrong, imho.


where one *could* get a mild bit of outrage is that perhaps mal-wart could have made an *exception* to a reasonable standard practice and in this one particular case waived its right to recoveries from settlements. but if they did that, how exactly does one decide which cases to grant exceptions to and which not to?

sorry, but there are SOOOO many better reasons to hate mal-wart.

[Eric J in MN]

23. So you wound up with no more money than if you hadn't sued? NT

NT

[unblock]

61. my settlements gave me enough to pay the medical bills & lawyers and still have something

for economic loss and pain and suffering.

not much, especially when pro rated for the hours it took just for recordkeeping. if i wanted to be 100% compensated, obviously that was never going to happen in a settlement, i would have had to go to trial.

now, the fact that insurance companies can avoid paying things they CLEARLY owe (my case was ridiculously obvious) and successfully pressure plaintiffs into taking less than they deserve years later to avoid even further delay and uncertainty by going to trial is definitely a flaw in our system. but that's a different topic.

[eShirl]

25. difference: her bills as a result of her injuries will continue for the rest of her life

It's not like she fully recovered, her medical bills were all paid in full and she had $400,000 left over.

[unblock]

63. my injuries will likely continue the rest of my life

at least the chronic migraines.

and as i work on wall street and therefore lost out on very big bonuses, my economic injury was likely far greater than hers.


not that that's really the point.

[treestar]

68. That should be accounted for in the award, though

The injured plaintiff asks for compensation for medical bills, future medical bills, lost earning, future lost earnings, and pain and suffering. So the award should include the medical bills, no matter how they were paid. So the insurance company should not be suing the injured plaintiff, they would be suing the same defendant for reimbursement, because the insurance company had to make the pay out due to the Defendant's negligence.

That is the way it usually happens. This case would be odd in that the Defendant has already compensated Plaintiff for her medical bills and she holds the funds. She didn't pay them out of pocket, though, and isn't being reimbursed for something she already paid, she's getting an extra windfall in the amount of the already paid medical bills. Thus the insurance company sues her, since they were the ones that paid that.

The son in Iraq is a completely unrelated issue. That's just there to ratchett up the emotional quotient of the story. Al Gore was right - there is an assault on reason and it infects us all.

[Lorien]

26. You pay for insurance so that they will pay for your expenses ( IF

you need it-if not, pure profit for them). That's the deal. They should pay, regardless of whether or not you can afford to pay for your injuries out of pocket, or if anyone else can afford to pay, because that's what your agreement was with them. That's why you send them $450.00 a month or whatever it is that you pay. The settlement from the car & cab company was between you and those two separate entities. One should have nothing to do with the other.

[unblock]

64. disagree completely.

as i said, there might be an argument that the insurance companies should be out the money and that it should go to the *defendants*. but under NO system of fairness and justice would it be right for me to be compensated for expenses BOTH from insurance AND from defendants.

[Lorien]

101. So your insurance company has no responsibilty to you as a client

if you hold a negligent driver responsible for their actions?? Only one party should do the moral, responsible and legal thing if that's all it takes to cover your medical expenses?

[unblock]

117. again, why should my expenses be paid twice?

if my insurance pays my medical bills, and i sue for pain and suffering and FUTURE medical bills, that's a DIFFERENT QUESTION.

but if my insurance pays my medical bills, and then a defendant ALSO pays my medical bills, why on earth should i get paid twice for the exact same expense?

i could say that, in theory, one could sue for pain and suffering, future medical bills, and economic loss and choose NOT to also sue for medical expenses. however, that simply never happens, because it's virtually impossible to prove the other things without also introducing the actual medical bills.

[orleans]

36. so...basically you sued to reimburse the insurance company? i'm sure

they were very happy you went to all that time, trouble, and expense. or did they let you keep $1000?

[unblock]

65. no, i also sued to reimburse my lawyer :)

actually i did have a bit left over. no bonanza, and hardly worth the injuries and the time and so on, but considerably more than $1000.

[Blue Diadem]

41. There is at minimum about $130,000 in bills from rehab and hospital stay that weren't paid

by the insurance company because her insurance ran out. The bills should at least have been paid first. In this case, it seems the settlement was not just for the injury but for future medical bills, otherwise, why would the court place it in a trust?

[unblock]

66. that's a more interesting question. my insurance didn't run out.

seems to be that insurance ought to be reimbursed ahead of pain & suffering and possibly economic loss, but not ahead of other unpaid medical bills.

[davekriss]

76. Very revealing, your use of "ought"

"insurance ought to be reimbursed ahead of pain & suffering and possibly economic loss, but not ahead of other unpaid medical bills"

Why should the insurance company, which collected premiums that are supposed to finance payment of claims (plus provide tidy profits for management and shareholders) -- why "ought" they come first? That is plainly ridiculous.

If you mean that the laws are written in such a way as to protect shareholder interest over the common man, well then you are right. But that is a whole other problem, isn't it?

[unblock]

83. well, if you think insurance should be liable for economic loss & pain & suffering

then that would be something far more than "health" insurance, and the premiums would be even higher.

now, if the government could manage this so that everybody was covered, then that would be great, but with anything resembling the current system of private/employer-funded health insurance, what we have is fair (within the context of an overall approach to health insurance that is otherwise very UNfair in many ways).

[davekriss]

88. No

I think the insurance company was already recompensed for the claims it paid via the acturarily-sound insurance premiums it had been collecting, thus subrogated award money should be last in line. Pain and suffering, economic loss, and unpaid medical bills should VERY DEFINATELY precede any recompense to the insurance company for claims paid. Otherwise the insurance company would have been paid twice -- first, via collected premiums, and second bia subrogated awards. You think the insurance company "ought" to collect twice, but not the injured party.

That you say "ought" suggests to me that you think we should manage our democracy for shareholder value. Blech! No way no how!

[Lorien]

102. He works on Wall Street

so your last sentence seems to be correct.

[unblock]

107. emphasis on WORK.

i don't OWN, i WORK.

the vast majority of WORKERS on wall street are good old new york liberals.

it's the owners who are usually the the screw-the-poor types.


let's try not to stray from the topic at hand to ad hominem fallacies or gross generalizations. we probably agree on far more than we disagree when it comes to things like democracy and corporate control/power.

[WillowTree]

131. Those "acturarily-sound insurance premiums"

were calculated based on the inclusion of a subrogation clause in the policy terms. I feel quite certain that the insurance company would be glad to have their actuaries re-calculate those premiums to remove that clause.

[davekriss]

132. I too would be glad to have the actuaries recalculate...

...as I think the effect on premiums would be minor. However, you miss my point: My issue with the previous poster is the hierarchy he/she assigns: Recompense for claims paid comes first, followed by recompense for pain and suffering, economic loss, and unpaid medical expenses. IMO recompense for claims paid should come last in this series.

The insurance company has already been substantially paid (via premiums) for claims paid. The injured party has not yet been paid for pain and suffering, ecomomic loss, and unpaid medical expenses. Why would any progressive-to-center minded person support paying the insutance company twice? Once via paid claims and a second time via subrogated awards? And at the same time leave the injured party potentially unpaid in the three categories noted. It's not how I would regulate the insurance industry, but then I don't receive the industry campaign contributions that allow this absurdity to exist.

[rAVES]

104. That money you payed back your your insurance company was minus your Premium right?

[whathappened]

125. that makes your point

employer funded insurance , not true , employee funded insurance is what we have here , if you don't pay for the insurance , you have no insurance with wally world , they drop you like a hot potatoe , so they should get nothing from this women , it was her pay check that funded her owe insurance , now the amount that was racked up is useally not this much , but when you are in the insurance buiness to make a profit like they are doing , wally world should just bite the bullet , it is just a little wave in there profit margin

[SharonAnn]

86. If Insurance Companies can't "subrogate", then your rates will go up.

Your rates are calculated on how much the calculate (actuarially) they may have to pay out and how much they may get back in subrogated cases.

You can changes the rules, but that will change your rates.

[davekriss]

90. I'm not against subrogation per se

I am against the hierarchy set by the previous poster, who somehow thinks the insurance company should be paid twice -- first, from the insurance premiums collected that fund claims and profit, and second from the subrogated award. My order would ensure pain and suffering, economic loss, and unpaid claims have first claim on any award, and insurance company recompense for claims paid would be last in line.

I understand that the acturarial calculations will include a probability of x dollars of subrogated awards and that this means premiums will be (very) slightly lower than if subrogation was not allowed, but I think the calculation should respect the hierarchy I laid out anyway. Who, after all, is the injured party and what is the purpose of "insurance"?

[nashville_brook]

91. another successful corporate colonization -- you can't buy this kind of loyalty

you have to breed it into the herd.

[davekriss]

133. Though slightly out of context...

...William Burroughs was right when he said, "A functioning police state needs no police". Sure don't when "progressives" so easily surrender to corporate advantage.

[dmr]

45. There is something terribly wrong when a settlement is eaten up

by both attorney fees and insurance reimbursements, leaving a victim with little or nothing but lifelong pain, suffering, loss of future income, and more medical bills.

I think we need to have new laws written to protect the common man.

[unblock]

69. what we need is less bad press for large settlements

people have no clue what the total can be once you add up medical bills, lawyer fees, economic loss, and lifelong pain & suffering. the numbers involved can sound enormous and still be not enough to break even.

the result is easily charicatured as a plaintiff winning the lottery when in fact it's nothing of the sort. next time the media trots out some plaintiff as "lucky" to win a $1,000,000 verdict, i'd like them to show some minimal itemization of the actual damages so that people can see how the jury reasonably can to that figure.

[nashville_brook]

93. people need to understand that insurance co's NEED all that money.

[Wednesdays]

98. Really.

Those poor, poor, downtrodden insurance corporations.

:nopity:

[iaviate1]

105. EXACTLY

There is nothing left over for the victim after fighting for 5+ years, as with my case. And now I have to go into bankruptcy. I lost a career and am permanently injured and have to drop my case because if I proceed, it would only determine which insurance company gets what. My advice: don't skimp on safety features in your cars if you can help it. You're on your own!

[lynne]

46. Agreed - and everyone needs to look at their own policies -

- for auto, home, health, etc. and they will find the word "subrogation" in each. This is a standard insurance policy clause and procedure and is not something invented by Walmart. It is certainly an unfortunate situation - I wish the lady and her family the best - but subrogation is not unusual in insurance claims.

[JeanGrey]

75. Yes, something I pointed out in an earlier post.

This has happened to me twice and both times, the guilty party had to reimburse my health insurance company.

This does seem a little heartless, however, how do you pick and choose?

[orleans]

130. then what's the point of accident insurance? why should victims go

through all this court crap? why don't the insurance companies just sue?

i had some shit happen to me at a jewel grocery store. i went for a year of various physical therapy and pain and pain killers. my medical bills totaled a little over $8000. i didn't have insurance. i found a lawyer. sued. won/settled for $12000. my lawyer took $4000. i ended up with $8000 which reimbursed me for most of the medical bills. got nothing for time off work, pain & agony, etc.

if i had had insurance, i would have paid more for dr bills & physical therapy. i would have ended up OWING the fucking insurance company.

bottom line? don't use your insurance if you're in an accident and planning to sue.

[AllyCat]

54. So are you not then entitled to get a refund of all insurance premioums

you paid?

This woman was not using the money to live high on the hog. She was using it to pay for her care for the rest of her life which I'm sure Wal-Mart's stupid insurance probably wasn't going to pay.

So now, she is stuck with Medicaid paying for it (read: us paying for it) so that Wal-Mart and the slimy insurance co. aren't out any of their precious profits. In fact, they probably made money since they held onto her paid premiums too. Have you ever seen the circus that Medicaid recipients go through to get care in long-term care facilities? We've had to move my great aunt to 3 different homes in 2 years to meet requirements imposed by state aid.

It sucks.

[unblock]

70. see above responses

[The Straight Story]

100. Why didn't the insurance company sue em then?

Just wondering.

[unblock]

108. as a practical matter, they don't have the facts at hand

all they had was the medical bills. they can't really get anywhere in court without the victim having an independent incentive to sue.

[Rex]

24. Slave-mart where prices are king.

Makes sense now.

[Skittles]

30. it sickens me, people who think they are saving money

SOMEONE IS PAYING FOR IT

[begin_within]

27. If Wal-Mart had to sue someone, shouldn't they have sued the trucking company?

If the trucking company was at fault, and caused harm to the woman as well as causing financial harm to Wal-Mart, shouldn't Wal-Mart have sued the trucking company for the damages, and not the woman? The woman didn't cause the accident, so how could Wal-Mart target her in a court of law?

The party that caused the damages should have paid for everything, including (if the court so decides) whatever damages they cause to Wal-Mart. I don't see how the court could possibly hold the woman in the middle of a financial dispute between the trucking company and Wal-Mart over medical bills. That should have only involved the 2 companies and should not have affected the woman's compensation at all.

[AdHocSolver]

35. The trucking company has the means of fighting back that this woman does not have. n/t

[begin_within]

39. The court should have thrown out Wal-Mart's suit and told Wal-Mart to sue the proper party

meaning the trucking company, since that is the party that caused Wal-Mart's losses. In my opinion, the court did not serve justice.

[lynne]

48. The injured woman and her family should sue the trucking company.

Walmart wasn't involved in an accident with the trucking company so they have no grounds for a suit. BUT, the injured woman certainly has grounds to sue them for her long term care and expenses.

[WillowTree]

82. She did sue the trucking company.

Or at least she filed a claim for her damages with their insurer. And they paid. Apparently she (and her attorney) settled for an amount that is insufficient to cover all of her ongoing expenses.

[Triana]

28. Mal-Wart is the epitome of the psychopathic corprat

...and the Dear Leader of them all is GWB.

[McCamy Taylor]

29. MOney you collect for your medical expenses has to go to pay the medical

expenses or the insurance company that paid your medical expenses. This is as old as time. Lots of people will use their employer sponsored health insurer to cover their MRI and their specialist appointment and their physical therapy and their lumbar disc surgery if they need it. But once you get the money from the insurance company, either through a settlement or through a court judgment, you either have to pay the medical bills with it (assuming you were uninsured) or you reimburse your health insurance company. The money that the court assigns to cover your health care costs is not "free money" that you get to spend on a car or a trip or even on the cost of dealing with a disability. If you have an ongoing disability that will require you to spend money for the rest of your life or keep you fro working, then you have to file a claim for that money, too. If you have pain and suffering, that is a different claim. If you could not sleep with your spouse, he or she can file for loss of your company. Each item gets you more money. It is up to the lawyer to see that you collect on each thing.

If the woman had 400 k medical bills and is unable to work for the rest of her life and needs round the clock medical care for an accident with a fully insured semi that was at fault and her lawyer only got her medical expenses plus 300k, the lawyer should be sued for legal malpractice. He could have done that in a settlement, and then she would not have had to give him half of her money.

There must be something more to this case. Was the semi driver not insured? Was she partially negligent? Did they reach an out of court settlement? If so, why is he collecting 50% of her settlement?

[WillowTree]

34. Exactly.

All medical insurance policies include subrogation clauses. If another party is responsible for her injuries and disability, then they or their automobile insurance needs to pay for them. The policies covering those at fault in the accident made a settlement that should have paid her medical expenses and for her ongoing disabilities. If her attorney didn't get her a settlement sufficient to cover all of her expenses resulting from the accident, then he or she is incompetent and should be sued.

In this case, Wal-Mart's insurer will probably not recoup all of what they paid-out but will settle for a lesser amount since the lady has little or no other assets. Or they may not recoup any of their payments at all. But contractually, they are entirely justified in attempting to enforce the subrogation clause. We don't have to like it, but that's just the way it is.

[pattmarty]

53. Then WE need to change the fucking law.

this is just one more of many, many laws and regulations that hurt the majority of citizens in this country and that most (like myself) are unaware of. That is exactly why we need more politicians like Kucinich, Kennedy, Sanders et al to stand up for the rights of ALL citizens and not just for the "wealthy few".

[WillowTree]

78. How so?

Why should Wal-Mart or their inurer or anyone else have to pay for the injuries that someone else caused by their negligence? The guy who hit her and their insurers should be made to pay for everything.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WillowTree]

87. Ah.

Such a classy retort.

I think I'll just stick to conversing with people who possess better vocabularies. And who seem more interested in discussing the actual subject matter.

Carry on.

[pattmarty]

94. And, have a nice fucking day..........

[Beaverhausen]

97. What is your problem? Why so hostile?

There is no need to use the language you are using here.

[pattmarty]

115. Hey, I'm first and foremost an angry liberal.

I don't turn the other cheek or take shit from so called "conservatives" or "uninformed?" liberals. I am a mad, pissed off, fighting, take no prisoner liberal and damn proud of it. You, or anybody else has a problem with that, FUCK YOU!!!!!! Your attitude is why we are losing ground today and for the past 30+ yrs. Why the hell do you think Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, and the Coulters on the right have gotten so embedded in our TV pundit culture? There still has to be a debate and hopefully a civil one, but when you have to stand up and fight do it and don't apologize for it. Back in the 30's and 60's liberals were tough and actually won fights. When the hell was the last time we won a notable fight? Take a look at ALL the replies to that entry, and see how almost all responded. My first response was civil and the reply was dipshit. You want to be an ass hole too, go right ahead and vote for the "Lieberman" candidates in 2008 while your at it and see where that gets you.

[Marrah_G]

138. Less coffee!

"Angry liberal"?

Sorry but your entire post looks like a Puke doing his/her best to act like an out of control "angry liberal" as THEY like to call us.....

just sayin'..... :shrug:

[treestar]

71. It isn't legal malpractice to not get a verdict that is exactly what

the plaintiff needs and wants. We don't know any of the facts regarding the case, the accident or even the injuries, whether there were elements of the plaintiff's current condition not attributable for the accident.

The settlement is ultimately up to the plaintiff or guardian of the plaintiff, and could have been entered into against the lawyer's advice.

It's like expecting a lawyer to "get you off" when you know you are guilty. A lawyer is not a fairy godmother.

[WillowTree]

79. I didn't say it was malpractice.

I said incompetence. There's a difference.

[AllyCat]

77. Then what I want to know is when does she get reimbursed for the premiums she paid?

That's why we pay for insurance and get denied repeatedly because these scummy insurance companies won't pay for stuff. Then we get to pay them monthly premiums of hundreds if not thousands a month for the privilege of just maybe getting our claim paid. Then if we get damages to pay for our bills when injured, we have to pay them back?

This is insane.

[WillowTree]

80. Premiums were paid for coverage that included a subrogation clause.

[AllyCat]

135. Then it is unethical and someone should go after them.

It is unreasonable that they would take the money to pay their bills and not refund the premiums paid to the insured.

Insurance is an utter joke.

[MiniMandaRuth]

32. Welcome to the Jungle.

the book, not the forest.

[McCamy Taylor]

33. Read the article. Semi co. underinsured.

Lesson is if all you will get from filing a claim is your medical expenses that were fully covered by your health insurance, why bother? It will just make a bunch of lawyers on each side money and tie up the courts. Let your health insurer hire a lawyer and file a claim if they are so hot to sue.

[liberal hypnotist]

37. The fix has been in for years.

A few years ago, I worked with a retired insurance company executive. He had been a senior executive for all three major insurance companies, jumping ship for more money. He told me that the three major insurance companies and four minor companies control or own all the insurance companies in this county. They are all inter-related, share executives and meet frequently to set policy.

He had three "golden parachute" retirements from the three companies. Half out of guilt and half out of boredom, he was into venture capital for non-typical companies- poor people.

His take was that insurance companies are far more powerful than most Americans understand. Present day mind set is that only they will win and congress is part of their plan.

Their investments are so deep and large, they cannot lose and will not lose. Premiums just pay the expenses. As a recovering neo-con, he sadly concluded, we the people are screwed. He suggested investing in major insurance companies whenever you can.

[Fool_Me_Once]

40. I went to Wal-Mart picture studio last night...

wearing a shirt that read "The High Cost Of Low Prices" With a sad smiley face on it.. I told them I was there for my Christmas photos.. They refused to take my picture with that t-shirt on.. On my way out, I observed the lady at the entrance stopping shoppers as the alarm sounded, (almost every 5th customer.)Then I watched them stop a woman for no reason at all, only because she had a cart load of stuff. No alarm sounded. They asked for the ladies receipt, and I asked the walmart lady, "Why are you searching her bags? No alarm went off, are you assuming she is a thief?" She replies, "Sir, I am just doing my job, do I need to call security? Judging from your T-Shirt, I think you had better leave."

So I did before I got tasered!

Fuck Walmart.. Corporate Nazi Scum.

But as far as their Insurance goes, ALL insurance is a fraud. I fought tooth and nail for over a year trying to get insurance to pay for my on-the-job injury. Ended up settling for a measly $10,000 plus medical bills. I was layed up out of work for over 3 months. If you need to know, a 16 foot long 6x12 beam fell 7 feet down onto my back. And the man who dropped it on me had tested positive for Crack Cocaine 2 weeks prior to the incident and was never disciplined for it. And workmen's comp would not pay, saying I had a pre-existing condition, and that I did not suffer a traumatic experience.. Assholes.

[Deja Q]

42. The alarms went off for every 5th customer? Only during Christmas season!

Don't want Walmart giving things away... that's hurt their "community image".

[Fool_Me_Once]

43. They sure did...

it was weird, it was the first time I have actually stood there and watched the whole operation at the front gates of Hell-Mart... Everyone is a thief until they prove otherwise.

[indepat]

44. That's it: no more annual forays to Walmart just for one over-the-counter product

[rAVES]

47. This should be on the front cover of every paper in the world

these vultures make me sick and should be run into the ground by public opposition..

[Botany]

49. Nobody should ever shop @ a Wal Mart again.

"Walton family's wealth ($90 billion) estimated to equal that of bottom 40% of Americans."
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/BurtWorm/2596


The company has made more selling yellow "Support the Troops," magnetic
stickers than it would recover in the law suit.

[Joanne98]

50. I really hate these people!

[Haole Girl]

51. Yet another reason to avoid Wal-Mart. nt

[1monster]

52. Yep. Even private insurance companies do that. I have a friend who has

permanent, dengenerative conditions due to a car accident twelve years ago. The accident was NOT her fault, but both car insurance companies refused to pay any of her medical bills related to the accident.

She fianlly sued. They kept her tied up in court for three years, then settled for $45,000 when it looked like she would probably win big (even bigger than the cap on the insurance because they failed to pay any of the medical costs... failure to show good faith).

First her lawyer took his piece of the settlement, then the private health insurance that paid for the hospital and doctor charges, then the hospitals and doctors who were still owed for services rendered.

There wasn't anything left for future medical care. The trauma of the accident also triggered auto-immune disease which will take years off of her life. She lives in constant pain and her movement is more and more limited as time goes bye.

In another case, my sister's husband was helping a friend repair his roof when somehow, he shot himself in the knee with a nail gun.

Even though the nail gun belonged to my brother-in-law and he was the one using it, their health insurance company started calling my sister and her husband, harranging them to tell them the name of the friend whose home he was working on so that the insurance company could try to recover the medical costs for the accident and subsequent surgery from the homeowners.

My sister, who works in the insurance business, knew what they were up to. She and my brother-in-law told the company "NO WAY!"

[DCKit]

55. Shopping at Wal Mart is unAmerican.

How many times to they have to demonstrate their disdain for the general population before we finally get it?

[1monster]

56. So the moral is, in order to stymie subrogation by the insurance companies,

one should itemize one's law suits in injury and tort cases.

Sue for:

1. All past and ongoing medical treatments related to the accident, payable directly to the medical provider by the defendent

2. All medical costs paid by insurance related to the accident, payable directly to the insurance companies by the defendent

3. All legal fees related to the lawsuit payable directly to the plaintiff's legal advisors and the courts by the defendent

4. Generously estimated dollar amount (health care costs are rising dramatically all the time) for future medical treatments that will be needed due to the accident payable directly to the plaintiff

5. Lost wages, Loss of potential income

6. The maximu of whatever pain and suffering award is allowed by the plaintiff's State.

7. (One that I've seen thrown into law suits) an additional "loss of marital services" award from the spouse of the accident victim (my personal comment on that is :eyes: )

8. Auxiliary child care, housekeeping, drivers (taxis, etc.), miscellaneous costs required as a result of the accident.

(P.S.: in a local lawsuit against a large unnamed discount chain, a woman was injured by a forklift driven by an inexpierence operator. She was unable to continue in her job in which she was able to pass along lucrative tips and contracts to her husband. Because she was unable to pass on these contracts to her husband, their income suffered greatly... the loss of her income and the loss of potential jobs to her husband.

The large unnamed discount chain, belittling her income producing ability, demanded that she take an I.Q. test. This demand was upheld by the court. She did not do well on the test and this went against her in the award phase of the trial...

I've lived long enough to see that often times, an I.Q. score has little to do with earning powers.

[gatlingforme]

57. I do not see the outrage here? I mean the insureance company

paid her bills, and she is in a nursing home now on medicaid and fed. Her bills are paid and that is what this is about. SHould I be outraged that she did not make any money off of her accident?? NO - why should she?? Jesus, her insureance paid a hell of alot more than 470k in expenses and I should be pissed she could not keep the money and do what with it?? get a new car for her family, buy a house for her family?? NO SORRY NO CAN DO HERE!! THIS IS A DUMB POINT AND MAKES NO SENSE>

[Fool_Me_Once]

58. So, she isn't entitled to lost wages and pain and suffering???

She will never work again, her life was basically taken away at the fault of someone else. That is called negligence and , Yes she should be rewarded accordingly. At least $30,000 a year from whatever her age was to retirement. Plus damages, PLUS ongoing medical.

Besides, her insurance company is Liable to pay for her care, THAT's what the fuck it's for.. And they do not have the right to take more money from you once your deductible is met!!!!!

I think you are out of touch with reality here.

[treestar]

72. Sure she is. That's included in the verdict or settlement.

The insurance company pays, and then goes after the defendant. Here the defendant paid. You only get your medical expenses paid once. The insurance company is simply stepping into her shoes and recovering the medical bills for her - the defendant could have reimbursed the insurance company directly - if they paid her trust, then that trust can simply turn around and reimburse the insurance company.

[brentspeak]

59. Apparently, you didn't even bother to read the article

You said: "Jesus, her insureance paid a hell of alot more than 470k in expenses and I should be pissed she could not keep the money and do what with it?? get a new car for her family, buy a house for her family?? NO SORRY NO CAN DO HERE!! THIS IS A DUMB POINT AND MAKES NO SENSE>

The article said:

Mrs. Shank, who needs help with eating and other basic tasks, spends more time alone since Mr. Shank had to let her private caregiver go. At some point, he says, she may have to be moved from a private to a semi-private room in the nursing home where she lives.

The money won from her settlement went to paying for a private caretaker; Medicaid won't cover that cost.

You were saying something about a "dumb point" that "makes no sense"?

[AllyCat]

136. And wasn't it nice of her to go to the trouble of suing the trucking company for them?

Gee, that was real nice of her. And won't it be great to have MANDATED insurance through these wonderful, caring corporations if HRC is elected? Boy, I can't wait!!!

[SnowCritter]

62. It may be legal, but perhaps it shouldn't be.

So I fired off an email with a link to the Wall Street Journal story to both my Senators and my Congresswoman. I expect that my Congresswoman will be cheering for the insurance company (MN-6th: Bachmann) but perhaps one of the Senators will see it differently.

[Lord Wortherington]

67. Hurray for capitalism!

After the woman dies WAl-Mart should take her corpse and reduce it to it's base elements for sale, they could net another $60.00 or $70.00 at least.

[file83]

84. Next: Same story, except woman gets sued by Wal-Mart for NOT suing the truck company.

...and wins. How dare she not try and recover money for the insurance company. Afterall, what's an insurance company expected to do, pay out medical expenses?

[jeff30997]

85. They would get far more then that...

The price of a kidney on the black market:

Location/Price to Kidney "Donor"

Brazil $6,000

India $1,000

Iraq $500

Philippines $2,000

Israel $20,000

Turkey $5,000

United States $30,000-$40,000 (!)

So I'm surprised that Wal-Fart doesn't force their employees to

sign a document stating that in case of death their bodies are the

propriety oh the company.:puke:


Edit: http://www.havocscope.com/trafficking/organs.htm

[Girlieman]

73. Don't Blame Walmart -- It's the lawyer's fault

Nobody detests Walmart more than I do, but from what I can tell, this problem was created by the woman's lawyer. He agreed that he would notify Walmart before settling the case, but he didn't.

Any lawyer practicing in this area of the law should know not to settle a case before the liens are negotiated. In a case like this, the lien is usually negotiated down before the case is settled.

Here, the woman's total future expenses were estimated at 12 million, but they settled for 750,000, suggesting that their case was rather weak. Under these kinds of circumstances, a party can usually negotiate the lien considerably. Either that, or don't settle the case.

In my view, somebody screwed up. I hope that the woman's lawyer has malpractice insurance.

[northzax]

116. not to mention

the question of what, exactly, she sued for. if the award was for 'medical expenses' then she, in essence, sued on behalf of the people who paid her medical expenses, which was stupid of her attorney. if it was for continued care or pain and suffering, then the insurance company wouldn't have had a claim. this was shoddy lawyerin', no question.

[JeanGrey]

74. The last two times I was injured (car accidents) the insuance company

of the guilty parties (not me) had to pay back my health insurance company for what they paid. However I have never heard of this happening in this way, this is awful.

[burythehatchet]

89. Its not really subrogation its the collateral source rule.

[blondeatlast]

95. Despicable. WM is the nearest "grocery" store to me by several miles

but I won't go there. I haven't yet, I never will, and many of my friends won't either because of their despicable treatment of their sla--I mean, employees.

Betcha Sam would disinherit the vile children running his company if he could do it from the grave.

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR... :mad:

[nightrain]

96. any progressive Dems still shopping at Walmart? stop enabling them! vote with your feet! nt

[PinkTiger]

121. Oh, shut up.

I have no choice. There is no other place for us. We live in Wal-Mart country and I'm not driving 100 miles to buy groceries.
Those of you who live in places where you have a choice, go for it. I don't buy things there if I can help it, but I often can't.
And besides, Wal-Mart is a large part of our local economy. Friends and family work there. I have to support what we have.

[HughMoran]

99. Glad I have been boycotting since early 2005

Don't miss the place and their RW ways of doing business.

[Maine-ah]

106. if you could point out to me where in the article it says

that she was working AT the store the time of the accident, that would be great. 'cause all I have found for statements are she was an employee of walmart who got in an accident with a semi. None that say she was at walmart, working, and got hit by a semi.

not that I don't think that the whole thing is BS, and walmart's insurance co. should back off and let it go, but your headline is a bit misleading. Please correct me if I'm wrong though, I may have just missed it somewhere.

[Gormy Cuss]

110. No it doesn't say that.

She was going to yard sales with a friend and a semi hit the vehicle. She was an employee of Walmart, but nothing in the article suggests that she was actually on the clock at the time. In fact, quite the opposite, since her Wallyworld shift was overnight ending at 6:00 A.M. -- no yard sales during those hours as a rule.

[Maine-ah]

127. Thanks Gormy,

op is a little misleading, imho. I still don't approve of what they're doing to this woman and her family.

[proud2BlibKansan]

109. Wait a minute. Was this employee injured AT THE STORE?

Or was she in a car accident? The title doesn't seem to go along with the article.

I don't shop at WalMart anyway. :)

[Liberty Belle]

111. Forward this to Pres. candidates, members of Congress & candidates for House & Senate.

Demand that this predatory and cruel practice be stopped!

[roxnev]

112. Oh how people love money

One day Wall Mart will get their comings

[Cha]

114. I don't see why

wallmart should win..just cause they sued.

She paid for her insurance..she had the accident, she lives in a nursing home. What the fuck does wallfuck have to do with it?

[TomClash]

118. Her attorney is an idiot

The settlement agreement should state that all of her recovery is for pain and suffering. That makes it more difficult to subrogate. Plus, he should never have settled without settling the subrogated insurer's claim. This is ridiculous.

[Canuckistanian]

119. ??????????? I don't understand.

How can Walmart sue someone who gets a payout from another company's insurance settlement?

That would imply that Walmart IS the insurer and they're defaulting on their OWN insurance.

Either the insurance company is a SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY or it's not.

How the Hell can they sue the beneficiary of another company's client?

[Ewellian]

123. In this case Walmart is the "insurer"

Walmart self-insures it's medical benefits. The insurance company is just paid a fee for administrative services (processing the claims) but the money paid out is Walmart's.

[Canuckistanian]

126. What a byzantine system

If you had universal coverage in the first place, NO corporation could either get sued OR profit from such a relationship.

I have a hard time as a Canadian keeping up with so many bizarre interrelationships when the solution is so simple.

Wake up and smell the corporate coffee, America.

[AllyCat]

139. Many of us are trying to wake them up. It's an uphill battle so far

and will only get worse if most of the Dem candidates running are actually elected in November '08.

[ikojo]

120. I hate Wal Mart but most insurance companies will

subrogate with auto or accident insurance policies. What most tend to do is pay and pursue. They group health insurance will pay but they do expect to be reimbursed should there be any settlement as a result of the accident.

[rocktivity]

122. If anyone owe Walmart reimbursement, it's the trucking company's insurance company!

They're not entitled to that money. I hope they're suing Walmark RIGHT BACK!

:mad:
rocknation

[Sam_Smith]

124. I was so hoping that was a story from the Onion.

Just hard to believe the crap corporations pull.

[alarimer]

134. Yet another reason to eliminate private insurance companies

With everyone covered under universal health care, none of those subrogation clauses would exist. The government would pay your bills, no matter who is at fault.

[McCamy Taylor]

137. It's the fault of the semi company for being underinsured. This case shows what happens when guilty

party is fully insured.

http://www.star-telegram.com/state_news/story/326046.html

Couple gets $5.5 million settlement from trucking company in I-35W wreck
By MARTHA DELLER
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

A couple seriously injured last year when a tanker truck hit their car on Interstate 35W near Burleson have received a $5.5 million settlement from the Oklahoma company that owns the truck.

Mary and John Reutter received the settlement after a mediation conference last month between their attorney and those representing United Petroleum Transports.

"This will ensure that my clients are compensated for their injuries for the rest of their lives," said William Berenson, the Fort Worth attorney representing the Reutters.

This is ten times their medical damages, so they are just like the people in the case above. They got lots for pain, suffering and ongoing expenses and they did not even have to go before a jury. The company at fault was willing to settle because they were insured (it doesn't say so, but you know this is this case).

The moral is that companies that operate big ass trucks and machinery need to be required by law to have big ass liability policies so that when they run over you and me they can actually pay our damages.

If the couple is lucky, all this negative publicity aimed at Wal-Mart will cause the company to dip into their endless pockets and offer them a Christmas present to make up for the negligence of the people who were really to blame, but we can not count of major corporations to play Santa. We need to protect ourselves.

If we had universal health care, it is quite likely that companies like the one that hired the semi would decrease their insurance coverage, unless they were required to have more.