Wal-Mart ‘moved’ by fierce public backlash

[Fandango 1,439]

The point of compensatory law suits is to make you 'whole' not better off. Being worse off is outrageous. Talk about adding insult to injury. You think there is something ok about that kind of policy or implementation of policy?

Right, and clearly this woman's lawyer did NOT get her enough money to make her legally whole, did she? And punitive damages mitigate things like pain and suffering...it's NOT to make one 'better off' at all.

Yes, it sucks all the way round...there's no denying that. But my purpose in this thread is to illustrate that this is a pretty common practice and in NO WAY is specific to 'Evil WM Corp'. The hyperbole in the article is way OTT when ya consider that it's a pretty common practice. 'So stunning it didn't even seem possible'? Give me a break.

[rebeccajo 14]

Gary hit the nail on the head, and Lisa gave you the legal name. Subrogation.

If this woman's attorney was aware that WalMart's insurer might sue, that means he realized it AFTER he missed inquiring of them about their subrogation claim.

It's bad lawyering. But WalMart is getting all the bad press because they're the ones with the deep pockets.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

From the WSJ article that was refered to in the blog...

Until recently, many employers didn't vigilantly enforce the provision, and some states and federal courts didn't think the claim held water. But as the cost of covering workers continues to escalate, employers and health plans are getting more aggressive about going after the money. A Supreme Court ruling last year also has given them a clearer legal map to suing employees and winning.

In insurance circles, the recovery practice is called "subrogation." Employers and insurers say it's necessary to ensure that medical expenses aren't paid twice. By recovering those costs from someone who's been compensated elsewhere, they argue, they're saving money for everyone on the plan.

....

Already, the recovery practice is one of the variables that plaintiffs lawyers are considering as they decide whether it's in their clients' interests to participate in the $5 billion offered by Merck & Co. to settle lawsuits over its painkiller Vioxx. Health plans recovered sizable amounts for medical expenses from other big product-liability settlements, such as for the "fen-phen" diet-drug combination and Sulzer Orthopedics' hip implants. Many insurers and the employer plans they administer are expected to pursue a piece of the Vioxx settlement.

....

Until recently, employers and insurers generally didn't go after small claims. But more-sophisticated claims tracking has made it easier. Recovery companies systematically search claims for certain medical codes -- say, a sprained ankle or head trauma -- that flag a potential accident. Claims examiners then mail a questionnaire and often follow up with calls. If the injured person confirms it was an accident, the firm tracks whether the patient files an injury suit.

....

How much power health plans have to enforce subrogation is based on a hodgepodge of federal and state law still being tackled in the courts. A pivotal Supreme Court ruling last year gave health plans a leg up. In that case, a Maryland couple, Joel and Marlene Sereboff, were injured in an accident while returning a rental car to an airport in 2000; they required $75,000 in medical care. The couple later received a settlement of $750,000, from various parties, related to the accident.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1195519524...=hpp_us_pageone

[Peikko 1,575]

I would also like to know why, if the insurance company where already adequately compensating the accident victim and would have continued to pay all necessary fees for ongoing treatment, what was the point of suing the truck company at all? To get the lost wages or what? If this is true, why not sue for everthing except medical costs? There is something very truly wrong going on, particularly if this is common place (which wouldn't surprise me one bit as I have already mentioned).

[Heracles 417]

I don't see a case for punitive damages in a no fault accident - which this is most likely to have been. The reality is this was purely a compensatory suit. Even the best lawyer can't produce negligence when none exists.

Maybe you are thinking of negligence under the English law. I don't know how the US courts work but it looks like you can sue for pretty much anything here. Whereas under the English commonwealth laws you have to prove direct negligence. Most people involved in accidents are simply not able to sue. Because it was an accident.

Edited April 2, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I would also like to know why, if the insurance company where already adequately compensating the accident victim and would have continued to pay all necessary fees for ongoing treatment, what was the point of suing the truck company at all? To get the lost wages or what? If this is true, why not sue for everthing except medical costs? There is something very truly wrong going on, particularly if this is common place (which wouldn't surprise me one bit as I have already mentioned).

From what I gather (see above WSJ article), a recent ruling by the Supreme Court has weighed in favor of the insurance providers.

[Fandango 1,439]

From the WSJ article that was refered to in the blog...

Until recently, many employers didn't vigilantly enforce the provision, and some states and federal courts didn't think the claim held water. But as the cost of covering workers continues to escalate, employers and health plans are getting more aggressive about going after the money. A Supreme Court ruling last year also has given them a clearer legal map to suing employees and winning.

In insurance circles, the recovery practice is called "subrogation." Employers and insurers say it's necessary to ensure that medical expenses aren't paid twice. By recovering those costs from someone who's been compensated elsewhere, they argue, they're saving money for everyone on the plan.

....

Already, the recovery practice is one of the variables that plaintiffs lawyers are considering as they decide whether it's in their clients' interests to participate in the $5 billion offered by Merck & Co. to settle lawsuits over its painkiller Vioxx. Health plans recovered sizable amounts for medical expenses from other big product-liability settlements, such as for the "fen-phen" diet-drug combination and Sulzer Orthopedics' hip implants. Many insurers and the employer plans they administer are expected to pursue a piece of the Vioxx settlement.

....

Until recently, employers and insurers generally didn't go after small claims. But more-sophisticated claims tracking has made it easier. Recovery companies systematically search claims for certain medical codes -- say, a sprained ankle or head trauma -- that flag a potential accident. Claims examiners then mail a questionnaire and often follow up with calls. If the injured person confirms it was an accident, the firm tracks whether the patient files an injury suit.

....

How much power health plans have to enforce subrogation is based on a hodgepodge of federal and state law still being tackled in the courts. A pivotal Supreme Court ruling last year gave health plans a leg up. In that case, a Maryland couple, Joel and Marlene Sereboff, were injured in an accident while returning a rental car to an airport in 2000; they required $75,000 in medical care. The couple later received a settlement of $750,000, from various parties, related to the accident.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1195519524...=hpp_us_pageone

It's a v interesting conversation, for sure, but not one centered around evil WalMart. Out of all the peeps on this thread, I have dealt with an insurer/accident/subrogation, and it wasn't WM. So you can post all the slanted articles you want, but at the end of the day...it's an issue unto itself, and not a WalMart issue.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's a v interesting conversation, for sure, but not one centered around evil WalMart. Out of all the peeps on this thread, I have dealt with an insurer/accident/subrogation, and it wasn't WM. So you can post all the slanted articles you want, but at the end of the day...it's an issue unto itself, and not a WalMart issue.

Walmart = EVIL

[DeadPoolX 9]

The problem here is that what's legally right may not always be morally right. Of course, morals rarely take into account those who abuse the law -- and other situations -- for their own gain as well. While I'm not suggesting that this woman was doing anything of the sort, I'm sure there will be others now who will attempt similar lawsuits against Wal-Mart due to a precedent being set.

That's the problem, I'm afraid. Once Wal-Mart reversed itself on its own policies, it left itself wide open to potential abuse. Unfortunately, Wal-Mart faced a very difficult no-win situation. In either situation, the company would end up screwing itself over, so it probably decided that the best course of action was to help the woman and her family, so that at least it'd appear better in the public's perception.

I will say this, though... while Wal-Mart backpeddled this time, I wouldn't bet they'll do it again or wager many other large companies will either. They might, but you can't assume it. The fact of the matter is that she did sign a binding contract. Always read over what you sign before signing and if need be, get an attorney too. The cost of retaining one for that brief period of time may be minimal compared to the cost later on if you failed to fully understand the documents you put your signature on.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The fact of the matter is that she did sign a binding contract. Always read over what you sign before signing and if need be, get an attorney too. The cost of retaining one for that brief period of time may be minimal compared to the cost later on if you failed to fully understand the documents you put your signature on.

Signing an agreement doesn't necessarily make all of the provisions in it legal and binding, particularly if they infringe on one's civil rights. For example, many employers ask their employees to sign an agreement that if they enter into a legal dispute with their employer, they will choose arbitration, however, as far I understand, you cannot sign away your right to sue. Employers know that but have employees sign the agreement in hopes of discouraging future litigations.

[diadromous mermaid 36]

The point of compensatory law suits is to make you 'whole' not better off. Being worse off is outrageous. Talk about adding insult to injury. You think there is something ok about that kind of policy or implementation of policy?

Right, and clearly this woman's lawyer did NOT get her enough money to make her legally whole, did she? And punitive damages mitigate things like pain and suffering...it's NOT to make one 'better off' at all.

Yes, it sucks all the way round...there's no denying that. But my purpose in this thread is to illustrate that this is a pretty common practice and in NO WAY is specific to 'Evil WM Corp'. The hyperbole in the article is way OTT when ya consider that it's a pretty common practice. 'So stunning it didn't even seem possible'? Give me a break.

Not really true. Compensatory damages are designed to compensate a victim for the costs of any injury, to include pain and suffering in many casses. Punitive damages are to send a clear and precise message to the perpetrator if the injury is egregious, and the claimant would be "better off" if such punitive damages were awarded.

[Fandango 1,439]

The point of compensatory law suits is to make you 'whole' not better off. Being worse off is outrageous. Talk about adding insult to injury. You think there is something ok about that kind of policy or implementation of policy?

Right, and clearly this woman's lawyer did NOT get her enough money to make her legally whole, did she? And punitive damages mitigate things like pain and suffering...it's NOT to make one 'better off' at all.

Yes, it sucks all the way round...there's no denying that. But my purpose in this thread is to illustrate that this is a pretty common practice and in NO WAY is specific to 'Evil WM Corp'. The hyperbole in the article is way OTT when ya consider that it's a pretty common practice. 'So stunning it didn't even seem possible'? Give me a break.

Not really true. Compensatory damages are designed to compensate a victim for the costs of any injury, to include pain and suffering in many casses. Punitive damages are to send a clear and precise message to the perpetrator if the injury is egregious, and the claimant would be "better off" if such punitive damages were awarded.

oh, there you are!

[diadromous mermaid 36]

The point of compensatory law suits is to make you 'whole' not better off. Being worse off is outrageous. Talk about adding insult to injury. You think there is something ok about that kind of policy or implementation of policy?

Right, and clearly this woman's lawyer did NOT get her enough money to make her legally whole, did she? And punitive damages mitigate things like pain and suffering...it's NOT to make one 'better off' at all.

Yes, it sucks all the way round...there's no denying that. But my purpose in this thread is to illustrate that this is a pretty common practice and in NO WAY is specific to 'Evil WM Corp'. The hyperbole in the article is way OTT when ya consider that it's a pretty common practice. 'So stunning it didn't even seem possible'? Give me a break.

Not really true. Compensatory damages are designed to compensate a victim for the costs of any injury, to include pain and suffering in many casses. Punitive damages are to send a clear and precise message to the perpetrator if the injury is egregious, and the claimant would be "better off" if such punitive damages were awarded.

oh, there you are!

Yeah! Just doing my duty...clearing up after "Miss Information" Carry on.........

Edited April 3, 2008 by diadromous mermaid

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

The point of compensatory law suits is to make you 'whole' not better off. Being worse off is outrageous. Talk about adding insult to injury. You think there is something ok about that kind of policy or implementation of policy?

Right, and clearly this woman's lawyer did NOT get her enough money to make her legally whole, did she? And punitive damages mitigate things like pain and suffering...it's NOT to make one 'better off' at all.

Yes, it sucks all the way round...there's no denying that. But my purpose in this thread is to illustrate that this is a pretty common practice and in NO WAY is specific to 'Evil WM Corp'. The hyperbole in the article is way OTT when ya consider that it's a pretty common practice. 'So stunning it didn't even seem possible'? Give me a break.

Not really true. Compensatory damages are designed to compensate a victim for the costs of any injury, to include pain and suffering in many casses. Punitive damages are to send a clear and precise message to the perpetrator if the injury is egregious, and the claimant would be "better off" if such punitive damages were awarded.

oh, there you are!

Yeah! Just doing my duty...clearing up after "Miss Information" Carry on.........

you two play nice or you'll both have to put on string bikinis and wrestle in chocolate to settle this grudge match.

on second thought, carry on, i'll set up the cameras

[Gaby&Talbert 1]

The laws need to be changed! I agree the insurance companies should be able to recoop their money but not from the person injured. The right thing to do would be for the insurance companies to represent the injured person to not only get the money they have paid out but also all future medical needs for the injured person.

This person's lawyer settles for too little and should be sued. Look how much the lawyer received! I would like to know how the lawyer cost nearly as much as all the medical expenses put together? You always hear about how medical expenses have good through the roof but what about the rediculous amounts the lawyers receive? The laws need to change for this too!