Religions > Atheism > Fred's Economic Utopia: WalMart Sues Brain-Damaged Woman For $470K
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c" |
| Date: |
21 Nov 2007 12:56:04 AM |
| Object: |
Fred's Economic Utopia: WalMart Sues Brain-Damaged Woman For $470K |
Classy, almost as classy as their lead-poisoned trinkets.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/20/162419/85
A collision with a semi-trailer truck seven years ago left
52-year-old Deborah Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a
wheelchair. Her husband, Jim, and three sons found a small source of
solace: a $700,000 accident settlement from the trucking company
involved. After legal fees and other expenses, the remaining $417,000
was put in a special trust. It was to be used for Mrs. Shank's care.
Instead, all of it is now slated to go to Mrs. Shank's former
employer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Two years ago, the retail giant's health plan sued the Shanks for
the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care. A federal judge ruled
last year in Wal-Mart's favor, backed by an appeals-court decision in
August. Now, her family has to rely on Medicaid and Mrs. Shank's
social-security payments to keep up her round-the-clock care.
--
Yang
a.a.#28
"I can hardly wait for your head to explode when the Repubs hold onto
both houses of Congress this November. And Yang can quote me on that."
-Fred Stone, 6/14/2006
.
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred's Economic Utopia: WalMart Sues Brain-Damaged Woman For $470K |
21 Nov 2007 11:04:52 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:56:04 +0000, Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
Classy, almost as classy as their lead-poisoned trinkets.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/20/162419/85
A collision with a semi-trailer truck seven years ago left
52-year-old Deborah Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a
wheelchair. Her husband, Jim, and three sons found a small source of
solace: a $700,000 accident settlement from the trucking company
involved. After legal fees and other expenses, the remaining $417,000
was put in a special trust. It was to be used for Mrs. Shank's care.
Instead, all of it is now slated to go to Mrs. Shank's former
employer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Two years ago, the retail giant's health plan sued the Shanks for
the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care. A federal judge ruled
last year in Wal-Mart's favor, backed by an appeals-court decision in
August. Now, her family has to rely on Medicaid and Mrs. Shank's
social-security payments to keep up her round-the-clock care.
Not to shift the blame here or anything, but does anyone else think it a
little obscene that getting a $700K settlement for such devastating
injuries requires $300,000 in legal (and other?) fees? As heartless a
Wal-Mart may appear in this scenario, let's not forget that the lawyers
had first pick on the carcass.
--
MarkA
(This space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred's Economic Utopia: WalMart Sues Brain-Damaged Woman For $470K |
23 Nov 2007 09:16:34 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:04:52 -0500, MarkA <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:56:04 +0000, Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
Classy, almost as classy as their lead-poisoned trinkets.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/20/162419/85
A collision with a semi-trailer truck seven years ago left
52-year-old Deborah Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a
wheelchair. Her husband, Jim, and three sons found a small source of
solace: a $700,000 accident settlement from the trucking company
involved. After legal fees and other expenses, the remaining $417,000
was put in a special trust. It was to be used for Mrs. Shank's care.
Instead, all of it is now slated to go to Mrs. Shank's former
employer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Two years ago, the retail giant's health plan sued the Shanks for
the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care. A federal judge ruled
last year in Wal-Mart's favor, backed by an appeals-court decision in
August. Now, her family has to rely on Medicaid and Mrs. Shank's
social-security payments to keep up her round-the-clock care.
Not to shift the blame here or anything, but does anyone else think it a
little obscene that getting a $700K settlement for such devastating
injuries requires $300,000 in legal (and other?) fees? As heartless a
Wal-Mart may appear in this scenario, let's not forget that the lawyers
had first pick on the carcass.
If it is the "typical deal" then the family would not have had to pay the law
firm any fee if they lost, so they are taking chance. On the other hand I
think it is outrageous where there is a class action suit and the lawyers get
upwards of millions of dollars and everyone else gets lunch money.
Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred's Economic Utopia: WalMart Sues Brain-Damaged Woman For $470K |
02 Dec 2007 07:58:53 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:16:34 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:04:52 -0500, MarkA <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:56:04 +0000, Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
Classy, almost as classy as their lead-poisoned trinkets.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/20/162419/85
A collision with a semi-trailer truck seven years ago left
52-year-old Deborah Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a
wheelchair. Her husband, Jim, and three sons found a small source of
solace: a $700,000 accident settlement from the trucking company
involved. After legal fees and other expenses, the remaining $417,000
was put in a special trust. It was to be used for Mrs. Shank's care.
Instead, all of it is now slated to go to Mrs. Shank's former
employer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Two years ago, the retail giant's health plan sued the Shanks for
the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care. A federal judge ruled
last year in Wal-Mart's favor, backed by an appeals-court decision in
August. Now, her family has to rely on Medicaid and Mrs. Shank's
social-security payments to keep up her round-the-clock care.
Not to shift the blame here or anything, but does anyone else think it a
little obscene that getting a $700K settlement for such devastating
injuries requires $300,000 in legal (and other?) fees? As heartless a
Wal-Mart may appear in this scenario, let's not forget that the lawyers
had first pick on the carcass.
If it is the "typical deal" then the family would not have had to pay the law
firm any fee if they lost, so they are taking chance. On the other hand I
think it is outrageous where there is a class action suit and the lawyers get
upwards of millions of dollars and everyone else gets lunch money.
You mean they actually missed the pocket change? [shock]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred's Economic Utopia: WalMart Sues Brain-Damaged Woman For $470K |
02 Dec 2007 11:25:22 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 17:58:53 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:16:34 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:04:52 -0500, MarkA <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:56:04 +0000, Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
Classy, almost as classy as their lead-poisoned trinkets.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/20/162419/85
A collision with a semi-trailer truck seven years ago left
52-year-old Deborah Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a
wheelchair. Her husband, Jim, and three sons found a small source of
solace: a $700,000 accident settlement from the trucking company
involved. After legal fees and other expenses, the remaining $417,000
was put in a special trust. It was to be used for Mrs. Shank's care.
Instead, all of it is now slated to go to Mrs. Shank's former
employer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Two years ago, the retail giant's health plan sued the Shanks for
the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care. A federal judge ruled
last year in Wal-Mart's favor, backed by an appeals-court decision in
August. Now, her family has to rely on Medicaid and Mrs. Shank's
social-security payments to keep up her round-the-clock care.
Not to shift the blame here or anything, but does anyone else think it a
little obscene that getting a $700K settlement for such devastating
injuries requires $300,000 in legal (and other?) fees? As heartless a
Wal-Mart may appear in this scenario, let's not forget that the lawyers
had first pick on the carcass.
If it is the "typical deal" then the family would not have had to pay the law
firm any fee if they lost, so they are taking chance. On the other hand I
think it is outrageous where there is a class action suit and the lawyers get
upwards of millions of dollars and everyone else gets lunch money.
You mean they actually missed the pocket change? [shock]
Speak of the devil, I just got another notice of a class action suit, this time
for various credit cards overcharging on fees for international charges.
Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred's Economic Utopia: WalMart Sues Brain-Damaged Woman For $470K |
07 Dec 2007 02:15:54 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 00:25:22 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 17:58:53 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:16:34 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:04:52 -0500, MarkA <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:56:04 +0000, Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
Classy, almost as classy as their lead-poisoned trinkets.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/20/162419/85
[]
Two years ago, the retail giant's health plan sued the Shanks for
the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care. A federal judge ruled
last year in Wal-Mart's favor, backed by an appeals-court decision in
August. Now, her family has to rely on Medicaid and Mrs. Shank's
social-security payments to keep up her round-the-clock care.
Not to shift the blame here or anything, but does anyone else think it a
little obscene that getting a $700K settlement for such devastating
injuries requires $300,000 in legal (and other?) fees? As heartless a
Wal-Mart may appear in this scenario, let's not forget that the lawyers
had first pick on the carcass.
If it is the "typical deal" then the family would not have had to pay the law
firm any fee if they lost, so they are taking chance. On the other hand I
think it is outrageous where there is a class action suit and the lawyers get
upwards of millions of dollars and everyone else gets lunch money.
You mean they actually missed the pocket change? [shock]
Speak of the devil, I just got another notice of a class action suit, this time
for various credit cards overcharging on fees for international charges.
Oh. Yeah. I've got 25 usd coming in on that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred's Economic Utopia: WalMart Sues Brain-Damaged Woman For$470K |
23 Nov 2007 09:34:48 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:04:52 -0500, MarkA wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:56:04 +0000, Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
Classy, almost as classy as their lead-poisoned trinkets.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/20/162419/85
A collision with a semi-trailer truck seven years ago left
52-year-old Deborah Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a
wheelchair. Her husband, Jim, and three sons found a small source of
solace: a $700,000 accident settlement from the trucking company
involved. After legal fees and other expenses, the remaining $417,000
was put in a special trust. It was to be used for Mrs. Shank's care.
Instead, all of it is now slated to go to Mrs. Shank's former
employer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Two years ago, the retail giant's health plan sued the Shanks for
the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care. A federal judge ruled
last year in Wal-Mart's favor, backed by an appeals-court decision in
August. Now, her family has to rely on Medicaid and Mrs. Shank's
social-security payments to keep up her round-the-clock care.
Not to shift the blame here or anything, but does anyone else think it a
little obscene that getting a $700K settlement for such devastating
injuries requires $300,000 in legal (and other?) fees? As heartless a
Wal-Mart may appear in this scenario, let's not forget that the lawyers
had first pick on the carcass.
Yeah, it's high. Then again, without the lawyers, she'd have zero, not
$417,000. Also, keep in mind you're asking a lawyer to go up against a
corporation with billions and whole departments of lawyers. An act that
isn't going to be cheap for the lawyer.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
“The men the American people admire most
extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men
they detest most violently are those who try to
tell them the truth.”
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred's Economic Utopia: WalMart Sues Brain-Damaged Woman For $470K |
24 Nov 2007 11:41:54 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:34:48 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:04:52 -0500, MarkA wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:56:04 +0000, Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
Classy, almost as classy as their lead-poisoned trinkets.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/20/162419/85
A collision with a semi-trailer truck seven years ago left
52-year-old Deborah Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a
wheelchair. Her husband, Jim, and three sons found a small source of
solace: a $700,000 accident settlement from the trucking company
involved. After legal fees and other expenses, the remaining $417,000
was put in a special trust. It was to be used for Mrs. Shank's care.
Instead, all of it is now slated to go to Mrs. Shank's former
employer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Two years ago, the retail giant's health plan sued the Shanks for
the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care. A federal judge ruled
last year in Wal-Mart's favor, backed by an appeals-court decision in
August. Now, her family has to rely on Medicaid and Mrs. Shank's
social-security payments to keep up her round-the-clock care.
Not to shift the blame here or anything, but does anyone else think it a
little obscene that getting a $700K settlement for such devastating
injuries requires $300,000 in legal (and other?) fees? As heartless a
Wal-Mart may appear in this scenario, let's not forget that the lawyers
had first pick on the carcass.
Yeah, it's high. Then again, without the lawyers, she'd have zero, not
$417,000. Also, keep in mind you're asking a lawyer to go up against a
corporation with billions and whole departments of lawyers. An act that
isn't going to be cheap for the lawyer.
No, the $300K legal bill was from the action against the trucking company,
not Wal-Mart. And, it is described as a "settlement", which implies that
it may not have even gone to trial. It boils down to getting $300K for
saying, "Give us $700K or I'll sue you for 10 times that much."
--
MarkA
(This space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred's Economic Utopia: WalMart Sues Brain-Damaged Woman For$470K |
25 Nov 2007 11:58:05 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 12:41:54 -0500, MarkA wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:34:48 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:04:52 -0500, MarkA wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:56:04 +0000, Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
Classy, almost as classy as their lead-poisoned trinkets.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/20/162419/85
A collision with a semi-trailer truck seven years ago left
52-year-old Deborah Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a
wheelchair. Her husband, Jim, and three sons found a small source of
solace: a $700,000 accident settlement from the trucking company
involved. After legal fees and other expenses, the remaining $417,000
was put in a special trust. It was to be used for Mrs. Shank's care.
Instead, all of it is now slated to go to Mrs. Shank's former
employer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Two years ago, the retail giant's health plan sued the Shanks for
the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care. A federal judge ruled
last year in Wal-Mart's favor, backed by an appeals-court decision in
August. Now, her family has to rely on Medicaid and Mrs. Shank's
social-security payments to keep up her round-the-clock care.
Not to shift the blame here or anything, but does anyone else think it
a little obscene that getting a $700K settlement for such devastating
injuries requires $300,000 in legal (and other?) fees? As heartless a
Wal-Mart may appear in this scenario, let's not forget that the
lawyers had first pick on the carcass.
Yeah, it's high. Then again, without the lawyers, she'd have zero, not
$417,000. Also, keep in mind you're asking a lawyer to go up against a
corporation with billions and whole departments of lawyers. An act that
isn't going to be cheap for the lawyer.
No, the $300K legal bill was from the action against the trucking
company, not Wal-Mart. And, it is described as a "settlement", which
implies that it may not have even gone to trial. It boils down to
getting $300K for saying, "Give us $700K or I'll sue you for 10 times
that much."
Yeah but. Without that lawyer, she'd gotten how much?
Such as this one time, I was in the wreck that was so clearly not my
fault, the cop started writing the report against the other person soon
as he got out of the car and his only comment as he passed me was, "they
always think they can make it".
(Woman shot out across a 60 mph, two lanes one way, trying to make the
crossover to make a left turn, and did so in front of heavy traffic,
almost caused an 18-wheeler to jack knife, and then *STILL* wouldn't have
been hit if she hadn't left her rear bumper in my lane)
This was so open and shut, I tried going sans lawyer. They offered
$1,000. That wouldn't have even covered the damages to my pickup.
Yeah, the lawyer ate a lot of the settlement. But 60% of something is a
lot better than 100% of next to nothing eh?
Yeah, I think they charge too much. But, then again, contingency is the
only route for those of us who failed to be born as a corporation with
the resources of whole legal departments on staff.
This is why you hear so much squawking about legal fees and "capping".
It's a corporate assault on the public's ability to sue them. They'll
still be able to sue *you* because they can have entire full time legal
departments. You'll be out of luck since you can't front the retainer.
If I have a complaint, it's contingency plus expenses. They should take
their percentage. Period. After all, that's their incentive. They get X
percent of what they get you. And if you have a *really* good case, you
might be able to negotiate that. But sometimes you just don't have that
good a case.
Okay, the lawyer ate a lot of the money. But without him, the woman may
have been left with *just* the Wal-Mart suit against her. Then what?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"What the hell is an aluminum Falcon?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred's Economic Utopia: WalMart Sues Brain-Damaged Woman For $470K |
25 Nov 2007 01:42:38 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 11:58:05 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 12:41:54 -0500, MarkA wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:34:48 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:04:52 -0500, MarkA wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:56:04 +0000, Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
Classy, almost as classy as their lead-poisoned trinkets.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/20/162419/85
A collision with a semi-trailer truck seven years ago left
52-year-old Deborah Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a
wheelchair. Her husband, Jim, and three sons found a small source of
solace: a $700,000 accident settlement from the trucking company
involved. After legal fees and other expenses, the remaining $417,000
was put in a special trust. It was to be used for Mrs. Shank's care.
Instead, all of it is now slated to go to Mrs. Shank's former
employer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Two years ago, the retail giant's health plan sued the Shanks for
the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care. A federal judge ruled
last year in Wal-Mart's favor, backed by an appeals-court decision in
August. Now, her family has to rely on Medicaid and Mrs. Shank's
social-security payments to keep up her round-the-clock care.
Not to shift the blame here or anything, but does anyone else think it
a little obscene that getting a $700K settlement for such devastating
injuries requires $300,000 in legal (and other?) fees? As heartless a
Wal-Mart may appear in this scenario, let's not forget that the
lawyers had first pick on the carcass.
Yeah, it's high. Then again, without the lawyers, she'd have zero, not
$417,000. Also, keep in mind you're asking a lawyer to go up against a
corporation with billions and whole departments of lawyers. An act that
isn't going to be cheap for the lawyer.
No, the $300K legal bill was from the action against the trucking
company, not Wal-Mart. And, it is described as a "settlement", which
implies that it may not have even gone to trial. It boils down to
getting $300K for saying, "Give us $700K or I'll sue you for 10 times
that much."
Yeah but. Without that lawyer, she'd gotten how much?
Such as this one time, I was in the wreck that was so clearly not my
fault, the cop started writing the report against the other person soon
as he got out of the car and his only comment as he passed me was, "they
always think they can make it".
(Woman shot out across a 60 mph, two lanes one way, trying to make the
crossover to make a left turn, and did so in front of heavy traffic,
almost caused an 18-wheeler to jack knife, and then *STILL* wouldn't have
been hit if she hadn't left her rear bumper in my lane)
This was so open and shut, I tried going sans lawyer. They offered
$1,000. That wouldn't have even covered the damages to my pickup.
Yeah, the lawyer ate a lot of the settlement. But 60% of something is a
lot better than 100% of next to nothing eh?
Yeah, I think they charge too much. But, then again, contingency is the
only route for those of us who failed to be born as a corporation with
the resources of whole legal departments on staff.
This is why you hear so much squawking about legal fees and "capping".
It's a corporate assault on the public's ability to sue them. They'll
still be able to sue *you* because they can have entire full time legal
departments. You'll be out of luck since you can't front the retainer.
If I have a complaint, it's contingency plus expenses. They should take
their percentage. Period. After all, that's their incentive. They get X
percent of what they get you. And if you have a *really* good case, you
might be able to negotiate that. But sometimes you just don't have that
good a case.
Okay, the lawyer ate a lot of the money. But without him, the woman may
have been left with *just* the Wal-Mart suit against her. Then what?
This just isn't adding up. Car crash 7 years ago, now with permanent
disabilities. Of a $700K settlement, $300K went to the lawyers, and $400K
was used up in medical expenses in the first 7 years, leaving her with
*nothing* in trust for ongoing expenses.
The Health Insurance company already paid $400K for her care, so, if she
gets an award for medical expenses, it is not unreasonable that the
insurance company should be reimbursed for the money it already spent. If
that doesn't leave her with enough to cover her ongoing expenses, she
should not have settled on such a low amount to begin with. Perhaps she
got bad advice from her lawyer? Too bad lawyers are not nearly as eager
to sue each other for negligence as they are every other profession or
service provider.
--
MarkA
(This space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred's Economic Utopia: WalMart Sues Brain-Damaged Woman For$470K |
25 Nov 2007 09:23:25 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:42:38 -0500, MarkA wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 11:58:05 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 12:41:54 -0500, MarkA wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:34:48 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:04:52 -0500, MarkA wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:56:04 +0000, Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
Classy, almost as classy as their lead-poisoned trinkets.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/20/162419/85
A collision with a semi-trailer truck seven years ago left
52-year-old Deborah Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a
wheelchair. Her husband, Jim, and three sons found a small source
of solace: a $700,000 accident settlement from the trucking company
involved. After legal fees and other expenses, the remaining
$417,000 was put in a special trust. It was to be used for Mrs.
Shank's care.
Instead, all of it is now slated to go to Mrs. Shank's former
employer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Two years ago, the retail giant's health plan sued the Shanks
for
the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care. A federal judge
ruled last year in Wal-Mart's favor, backed by an appeals-court
decision in August. Now, her family has to rely on Medicaid and
Mrs. Shank's social-security payments to keep up her
round-the-clock care.
Not to shift the blame here or anything, but does anyone else think
it a little obscene that getting a $700K settlement for such
devastating injuries requires $300,000 in legal (and other?) fees?
As heartless a Wal-Mart may appear in this scenario, let's not
forget that the lawyers had first pick on the carcass.
Yeah, it's high. Then again, without the lawyers, she'd have zero,
not $417,000. Also, keep in mind you're asking a lawyer to go up
against a corporation with billions and whole departments of lawyers.
An act that isn't going to be cheap for the lawyer.
No, the $300K legal bill was from the action against the trucking
company, not Wal-Mart. And, it is described as a "settlement", which
implies that it may not have even gone to trial. It boils down to
getting $300K for saying, "Give us $700K or I'll sue you for 10 times
that much."
Yeah but. Without that lawyer, she'd gotten how much?
Such as this one time, I was in the wreck that was so clearly not my
fault, the cop started writing the report against the other person soon
as he got out of the car and his only comment as he passed me was,
"they always think they can make it".
(Woman shot out across a 60 mph, two lanes one way, trying to make the
crossover to make a left turn, and did so in front of heavy traffic,
almost caused an 18-wheeler to jack knife, and then *STILL* wouldn't
have been hit if she hadn't left her rear bumper in my lane)
This was so open and shut, I tried going sans lawyer. They offered
$1,000. That wouldn't have even covered the damages to my pickup.
Yeah, the lawyer ate a lot of the settlement. But 60% of something is a
lot better than 100% of next to nothing eh?
Yeah, I think they charge too much. But, then again, contingency is the
only route for those of us who failed to be born as a corporation with
the resources of whole legal departments on staff.
This is why you hear so much squawking about legal fees and "capping".
It's a corporate assault on the public's ability to sue them. They'll
still be able to sue *you* because they can have entire full time legal
departments. You'll be out of luck since you can't front the retainer.
If I have a complaint, it's contingency plus expenses. They should take
their percentage. Period. After all, that's their incentive. They get X
percent of what they get you. And if you have a *really* good case, you
might be able to negotiate that. But sometimes you just don't have that
good a case.
Okay, the lawyer ate a lot of the money. But without him, the woman may
have been left with *just* the Wal-Mart suit against her. Then what?
This just isn't adding up. Car crash 7 years ago, now with permanent
disabilities. Of a $700K settlement, $300K went to the lawyers, and
$400K was used up in medical expenses in the first 7 years, leaving her
with *nothing* in trust for ongoing expenses.
The Health Insurance company already paid $400K for her care, so, if she
gets an award for medical expenses, it is not unreasonable that the
insurance company should be reimbursed for the money it already spent.
The *HELL* it isn't unreasonable. The modern insurance business is you
pay premiums, we pay nothing? What a great gig.
We pay premiums and our health care expenses and taxes to support the
public health system onto which they're pushing us all. They get billions
in profits.
Well I got a word word response: Nationalize.
I am not kidding. If they want out of the health insurance business,
let's give them what they wish. Take it. All of it. Why not go single
payer? We'll pay for it anyway. Look what just happened in this case. The
woman was shoved onto tax payer supported systems. They get the premiums
and get paid back and the taxpayers pick up the tab.
Why?
In *any* *other* field, taking money and providing no services is fraud
and carries a jail sentence. In the health insurance business, you get a
bonus and stock options.
If that doesn't leave her with enough to cover her ongoing expenses, she
should not have settled on such a low amount to begin with. Perhaps she
got bad advice from her lawyer? Too bad lawyers are not nearly as eager
to sue each other for negligence as they are every other profession or
service provider.
He wasn't negligent. He got her almost a half million to pay for her
care. Multi-billion dollar corporate Wal-Mart, however, was terrified
that a $400,000 loss for--of all things!--paying an insurance claim as
they fucking advertise so proudly on TV they're so wonderful for doing,
would just *bankrupt* them!
Have you even seen those ***** ads where Wal-Mart yaps about having now
covered all of 150,000 (of an estimated 50 million) uninsured by their
employee insurance program (For a Low Monthly Fee Even!)?
Well, WHAT coverage? If you use it, they sue you?
Fine. Let's take ALL of them out of the health insurance business.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Warned you we tried! Listen you did not! Now screwed
we will all be!"
http://www.sequentialpictures.com/moviestarwarsepisode3.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred's Economic Utopia: WalMart Sues Brain-Damaged Woman For $470K |
26 Nov 2007 07:29:56 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 21:23:25 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:42:38 -0500, MarkA wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 11:58:05 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 12:41:54 -0500, MarkA wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:34:48 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:04:52 -0500, MarkA wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:56:04 +0000, Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
Classy, almost as classy as their lead-poisoned trinkets.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/20/162419/85
A collision with a semi-trailer truck seven years ago left
52-year-old Deborah Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a
wheelchair. Her husband, Jim, and three sons found a small source
of solace: a $700,000 accident settlement from the trucking company
involved. After legal fees and other expenses, the remaining
$417,000 was put in a special trust. It was to be used for Mrs.
Shank's care.
Instead, all of it is now slated to go to Mrs. Shank's former
employer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Two years ago, the retail giant's health plan sued the Shanks
for
the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care. A federal judge
ruled last year in Wal-Mart's favor, backed by an appeals-court
decision in August. Now, her family has to rely on Medicaid and
Mrs. Shank's social-security payments to keep up her
round-the-clock care.
Not to shift the blame here or anything, but does anyone else think
it a little obscene that getting a $700K settlement for such
devastating injuries requires $300,000 in legal (and other?) fees?
As heartless a Wal-Mart may appear in this scenario, let's not
forget that the lawyers had first pick on the carcass.
Yeah, it's high. Then again, without the lawyers, she'd have zero,
not $417,000. Also, keep in mind you're asking a lawyer to go up
against a corporation with billions and whole departments of lawyers.
An act that isn't going to be cheap for the lawyer.
No, the $300K legal bill was from the action against the trucking
company, not Wal-Mart. And, it is described as a "settlement", which
implies that it may not have even gone to trial. It boils down to
getting $300K for saying, "Give us $700K or I'll sue you for 10 times
that much."
Yeah but. Without that lawyer, she'd gotten how much?
Such as this one time, I was in the wreck that was so clearly not my
fault, the cop started writing the report against the other person soon
as he got out of the car and his only comment as he passed me was,
"they always think they can make it".
(Woman shot out across a 60 mph, two lanes one way, trying to make the
crossover to make a left turn, and did so in front of heavy traffic,
almost caused an 18-wheeler to jack knife, and then *STILL* wouldn't
have been hit if she hadn't left her rear bumper in my lane)
This was so open and shut, I tried going sans lawyer. They offered
$1,000. That wouldn't have even covered the damages to my pickup.
Yeah, the lawyer ate a lot of the settlement. But 60% of something is a
lot better than 100% of next to nothing eh?
Yeah, I think they charge too much. But, then again, contingency is the
only route for those of us who failed to be born as a corporation with
the resources of whole legal departments on staff.
This is why you hear so much squawking about legal fees and "capping".
It's a corporate assault on the public's ability to sue them. They'll
still be able to sue *you* because they can have entire full time legal
departments. You'll be out of luck since you can't front the retainer.
If I have a complaint, it's contingency plus expenses. They should take
their percentage. Period. After all, that's their incentive. They get X
percent of what they get you. And if you have a *really* good case, you
might be able to negotiate that. But sometimes you just don't have that
good a case.
Okay, the lawyer ate a lot of the money. But without him, the woman may
have been left with *just* the Wal-Mart suit against her. Then what?
This just isn't adding up. Car crash 7 years ago, now with permanent
disabilities. Of a $700K settlement, $300K went to the lawyers, and
$400K was used up in medical expenses in the first 7 years, leaving her
with *nothing* in trust for ongoing expenses.
The Health Insurance company already paid $400K for her care, so, if she
gets an award for medical expenses, it is not unreasonable that the
insurance company should be reimbursed for the money it already spent.
The *HELL* it isn't unreasonable. The modern insurance business is you
pay premiums, we pay nothing? What a great gig.
We pay premiums and our health care expenses and taxes to support the
public health system onto which they're pushing us all. They get billions
in profits.
Well I got a word word response: Nationalize.
I am not kidding. If they want out of the health insurance business,
let's give them what they wish. Take it. All of it. Why not go single
payer? We'll pay for it anyway. Look what just happened in this case. The
woman was shoved onto tax payer supported systems. They get the premiums
and get paid back and the taxpayers pick up the tab.
Why?
In *any* *other* field, taking money and providing no services is fraud
and carries a jail sentence. In the health insurance business, you get a
bonus and stock options.
If that doesn't leave her with enough to cover her ongoing expenses, she
should not have settled on such a low amount to begin with. Perhaps she
got bad advice from her lawyer? Too bad lawyers are not nearly as eager
to sue each other for negligence as they are every other profession or
service provider.
He wasn't negligent. He got her almost a half million to pay for her
care. Multi-billion dollar corporate Wal-Mart, however, was terrified
that a $400,000 loss for--of all things!--paying an insurance claim as
they fucking advertise so proudly on TV they're so wonderful for doing,
would just *bankrupt* them!
Have you even seen those ***** ads where Wal-Mart yaps about having now
covered all of 150,000 (of an estimated 50 million) uninsured by their
employee insurance program (For a Low Monthly Fee Even!)?
Well, WHAT coverage? If you use it, they sue you?
Fine. Let's take ALL of them out of the health insurance business.
Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of the current insurance business, and I
desperately hope that the incoming Democratic administration can make some
real headway towards reforming it, without just making an even bigger
mess. However, suppose your best friend had a sudden, large medical
expense that he couldn't pay, and you, having just won the Lottery, paid
the expenses for him. A few years later, he gets a settlement to cover
his medical expenses. Would you not expect him to pay you back for the
money you spent to cover his costs earlier? Even if, at the time, you had
no formal agreement that he would pay you back if ever he could?
--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred's Economic Utopia: WalMart Sues Brain-Damaged Woman For $470K |
26 Nov 2007 08:07:42 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:29:56 -0500, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 21:23:25 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:42:38 -0500, MarkA wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 11:58:05 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 12:41:54 -0500, MarkA wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:34:48 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:04:52 -0500, MarkA wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:56:04 +0000, Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
Classy, almost as classy as their lead-poisoned trinkets.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/20/162419/85
A collision with a semi-trailer truck seven years ago left
52-year-old Deborah Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a
wheelchair. Her husband, Jim, and three sons found a small source
of solace: a $700,000 accident settlement from the trucking company
involved. After legal fees and other expenses, the remaining
$417,000 was put in a special trust. It was to be used for Mrs.
Shank's care.
Instead, all of it is now slated to go to Mrs. Shank's former
employer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Two years ago, the retail giant's health plan sued the Shanks
for
the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care. A federal judge
ruled last year in Wal-Mart's favor, backed by an appeals-court
decision in August. Now, her family has to rely on Medicaid and
Mrs. Shank's social-security payments to keep up her
round-the-clock care.
Not to shift the blame here or anything, but does anyone else think
it a little obscene that getting a $700K settlement for such
devastating injuries requires $300,000 in legal (and other?) fees?
As heartless a Wal-Mart may appear in this scenario, let's not
forget that the lawyers had first pick on the carcass.
Yeah, it's high. Then again, without the lawyers, she'd have zero,
not $417,000. Also, keep in mind you're asking a lawyer to go up
against a corporation with billions and whole departments of lawyers.
An act that isn't going to be cheap for the lawyer.
No, the $300K legal bill was from the action against the trucking
company, not Wal-Mart. And, it is described as a "settlement", which
implies that it may not have even gone to trial. It boils down to
getting $300K for saying, "Give us $700K or I'll sue you for 10 times
that much."
Yeah but. Without that lawyer, she'd gotten how much?
Such as this one time, I was in the wreck that was so clearly not my
fault, the cop started writing the report against the other person soon
as he got out of the car and his only comment as he passed me was,
"they always think they can make it".
(Woman shot out across a 60 mph, two lanes one way, trying to make the
crossover to make a left turn, and did so in front of heavy traffic,
almost caused an 18-wheeler to jack knife, and then *STILL* wouldn't
have been hit if she hadn't left her rear bumper in my lane)
This was so open and shut, I tried going sans lawyer. They offered
$1,000. That wouldn't have even covered the damages to my pickup.
Yeah, the lawyer ate a lot of the settlement. But 60% of something is a
lot better than 100% of next to nothing eh?
Yeah, I think they charge too much. But, then again, contingency is the
only route for those of us who failed to be born as a corporation with
the resources of whole legal departments on staff.
This is why you hear so much squawking about legal fees and "capping".
It's a corporate assault on the public's ability to sue them. They'll
still be able to sue *you* because they can have entire full time legal
departments. You'll be out of luck since you can't front the retainer.
If I have a complaint, it's contingency plus expenses. They should take
their percentage. Period. After all, that's their incentive. They get X
percent of what they get you. And if you have a *really* good case, you
might be able to negotiate that. But sometimes you just don't have that
good a case.
Okay, the lawyer ate a lot of the money. But without him, the woman may
have been left with *just* the Wal-Mart suit against her. Then what?
This just isn't adding up. Car crash 7 years ago, now with permanent
disabilities. Of a $700K settlement, $300K went to the lawyers, and
$400K was used up in medical expenses in the first 7 years, leaving her
with *nothing* in trust for ongoing expenses.
The Health Insurance company already paid $400K for her care, so, if she
gets an award for medical expenses, it is not unreasonable that the
insurance company should be reimbursed for the money it already spent.
The *HELL* it isn't unreasonable. The modern insurance business is you
pay premiums, we pay nothing? What a great gig.
We pay premiums and our health care expenses and taxes to support the
public health system onto which they're pushing us all. They get billions
in profits.
Well I got a word word response: Nationalize.
I am not kidding. If they want out of the health insurance business,
let's give them what they wish. Take it. All of it. Why not go single
payer? We'll pay for it anyway. Look what just happened in this case. The
woman was shoved onto tax payer supported systems. They get the premiums
and get paid back and the taxpayers pick up the tab.
Why?
In *any* *other* field, taking money and providing no services is fraud
and carries a jail sentence. In the health insurance business, you get a
bonus and stock options.
If that doesn't leave her with enough to cover her ongoing expenses, she
should not have settled on such a low amount to begin with. Perhaps she
got bad advice from her lawyer? Too bad lawyers are not nearly as eager
to sue each other for negligence as they are every other profession or
service provider.
He wasn't negligent. He got her almost a half million to pay for her
care. Multi-billion dollar corporate Wal-Mart, however, was terrified
that a $400,000 loss for--of all things!--paying an insurance claim as
they fucking advertise so proudly on TV they're so wonderful for doing,
would just *bankrupt* them!
Have you even seen those ***** ads where Wal-Mart yaps about having now
covered all of 150,000 (of an estimated 50 million) uninsured by their
employee insurance program (For a Low Monthly Fee Even!)?
Well, WHAT coverage? If you use it, they sue you?
Fine. Let's take ALL of them out of the health insurance business.
Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of the current insurance business, and I
desperately hope that the incoming Democratic administration can make some
real headway towards reforming it, without just making an even bigger
mess. However, suppose your best friend had a sudden, large medical
expense that he couldn't pay, and you, having just won the Lottery, paid
the expenses for him. A few years later, he gets a settlement to cover
his medical expenses. Would you not expect him to pay you back for the
money you spent to cover his costs earlier? Even if, at the time, you had
no formal agreement that he would pay you back if ever he could?
Or better yet, an illness not caused by any injury and the friend eventually
wins an equally large lottery himself. An insurance company would have no
recourse but I would expect the friend to pay me back. (Assuming he didn't need
the money for long term care). Of course, "A friend in need is a friend
indeed!"
Ben
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred's Economic Utopia: WalMart Sues Brain-Damaged Woman For$470K |
26 Nov 2007 01:03:07 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:29:56 -0500, MarkA wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of the current insurance business, and I
desperately hope that the incoming Democratic administration can make
some real headway towards reforming it, without just making an even
bigger mess. However, suppose your best friend had a sudden, large
medical expense that he couldn't pay, and you, having just won the
Lottery, paid the expenses for him. A few years later, he gets a
settlement to cover his medical expenses. Would you not expect him to
pay you back for the money you spent to cover his costs earlier? Even
if, at the time, you had no formal agreement that he would pay you back
if ever he could?
A family I'm close enough to as to be considered a relative who I helped
out in a very large way (like half the money I was earning at one point)
won a settlement for a wrongful death (we're talking negligence to a
point people in the company responsible should have gone to jail if not
be executed). The settlement in total, after legal expenses, was about
$3.3 million.
(Not counting the long term of the structured settlement for the daughter
which I figured up will eventually total to about $6 million over its
life, it would bring the total settlement to nearly $10 million)
It never occurred to me to ask for anything back. You bringing it up is
the first I've thought of it in the seven years since the settlement
happened.
(See why I have so much trouble "getting ahead" in a Christian nation?
Money not only isn't the god in which I trust, it's.... I don't know what
it is. It's numbers. Numbers that don't mean anything other than how many
trips to the grocery store I can make.)
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
“Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable
in terms of the not worth knowing.”
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred's Economic Utopia: WalMart Sues Brain-Damaged Woman For$470K |
26 Nov 2007 02:45:24 PM |
|
|
On Nov 26, 6:29 am, MarkA <t...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 21:23:25 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:42:38 -0500, MarkA wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 11:58:05 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 12:41:54 -0500, MarkA wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:34:48 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:04:52 -0500, MarkA wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:56:04 +0000, Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
Classy, almost as classy as their lead-poisoned trinkets.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/20/162419/85
A collision with a semi-trailer truck seven years ago left
52-year-old Deborah Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a
wheelchair. Her husband, Jim, and three sons found a small source
of solace: a $700,000 accident settlement from the trucking company
involved. After legal fees and other expenses, the remaining
$417,000 was put in a special trust. It was to be used for Mrs.
Shank's care.
Instead, all of it is now slated to go to Mrs. Shank's former
employer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Two years ago, the retail giant's health plan sued the Shanks
for
the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care. A federal judge
ruled last year in Wal-Mart's favor, backed by an appeals-court
decision in August. Now, her family has to rely on Medicaid and
Mrs. Shank's social-security payments to keep up her
round-the-clock care.
Not to shift the blame here or anything, but does anyone else think
it a little obscene that getting a $700K settlement for such
devastating injuries requires $300,000 in legal (and other?) fees?
As heartless a Wal-Mart may appear in this scenario, let's not
forget that the lawyers had first pick on the carcass.
Yeah, it's high. Then again, without the lawyers, she'd have zero,
not $417,000. Also, keep in mind you're asking a lawyer to go up
against a corporation with billions and whole departments of lawyers.
An act that isn't going to be cheap for the lawyer.
No, the $300K legal bill was from the action against the trucking
company, not Wal-Mart. And, it is described as a "settlement", which
implies that it may not have even gone to trial. It boils down to
getting $300K for saying, "Give us $700K or I'll sue you for 10 times
that much."
Yeah but. Without that lawyer, she'd gotten how much?
Such as this one time, I was in the wreck that was so clearly not my
fault, the cop started writing the report against the other person soon
as he got out of the car and his only comment as he passed me was,
"they always think they can make it".
(Woman shot out across a 60 mph, two lanes one way, trying to make the
crossover to make a left turn, and did so in front of heavy traffic,
almost caused an 18-wheeler to jack knife, and then *STILL* wouldn't
have been hit if she hadn't left her rear bumper in my lane)
This was so open and shut, I tried going sans lawyer. They offered
$1,000. That wouldn't have even covered the damages to my pickup.
Yeah, the lawyer ate a lot of the settlement. But 60% of something is a
lot better than 100% of next to nothing eh?
Yeah, I think they charge too much. But, then again, contingency is the
only route for those of us who failed to be born as a corporation with
the resources of whole legal departments on staff.
This is why you hear so much squawking about legal fees and "capping".
It's a corporate assault on the public's ability to sue them. They'll
still be able to sue *you* because they can have entire full time legal
departments. You'll be out of luck since you can't front the retainer.
If I have a complaint, it's contingency plus expenses. They should take
their percentage. Period. After all, that's their incentive. They get X
percent of what they get you. And if you have a *really* good case, you
might be able to negotiate that. But sometimes you just don't have that
good a case.
Okay, the lawyer ate a lot of the money. But without him, the woman may
have been left with *just* the Wal-Mart suit against her. Then what?
This just isn't adding up. Car crash 7 years ago, now with permanent
disabilities. Of a $700K settlement, $300K went to the lawyers, and
$400K was used up in medical expenses in the first 7 years, leaving her
with *nothing* in trust for ongoing expenses.
The Health Insurance company already paid $400K for her care, so, if she
gets an award for medical expenses, it is not unreasonable that the
insurance company should be reimbursed for the money it already spent.
The *HELL* it isn't unreasonable. The modern insurance business is you
pay premiums, we pay nothing? What a great gig.
We pay premiums and our health care expenses and taxes to support the
public health system onto which they're pushing us all. They get billions
in profits.
Well I got a word word response: Nationalize.
I am not kidding. If they want out of the health insurance business,
let's give them what they wish. Take it. All of it. Why not go single
payer? We'll pay for it anyway. Look what just happened in this case. The
woman was shoved onto tax payer supported systems. They get the premiums
and get paid back and the taxpayers pick up the tab.
Why?
In *any* *other* field, taking money and providing no services is fraud
and carries a jail sentence. In the health insurance business, you get a
bonus and stock options.
If that doesn't leave her with enough to cover her ongoing expenses, she
should not have settled on such a low amount to begin with. Perhaps she
got bad advice from her lawyer? Too bad lawyers are not nearly as eager
to sue each other for negligence as they are every other profession or
service provider.
He wasn't negligent. He got her almost a half million to pay for her
care. Multi-billion dollar corporate Wal-Mart, however, was terrified
that a $400,000 loss for--of all things!--paying an insurance claim as
they fucking advertise so proudly on TV they're so wonderful for doing,
would just *bankrupt* them!
Have you even seen those ***** ads where Wal-Mart yaps about having now
covered all of 150,000 (of an estimated 50 million) uninsured by their
employee insurance program (For a Low Monthly Fee Even!)?
Well, WHAT coverage? If you use it, they sue you?
Fine. Let's take ALL of them out of the health insurance business.
Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of the current insurance business, and I
desperately hope that the incoming Democratic administration can make some
real headway towards reforming it, without just making an even bigger
mess. However, suppose your best friend had a sudden, large medical
expense that he couldn't pay, and you, having just won the Lottery, paid
the expenses for him. A few years later, he gets a settlement to cover
his medical expenses. Would you not expect him to pay you back for the
money you spent to cover his costs earlier? Even if, at the time, you had
no formal agreement that he would pay you back if ever he could?
This is a bad analogy. Nobody I know of makes payments to their
friends to cover their own future health care needs. However, we *do*
make payments to insurance companies for just this reason.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred's Economic Utopia: WalMart Sues Brain-Damaged Woman For $470K |
24 Nov 2007 11:46:10 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 12:41:54 -0500, in alt.atheism
MarkA <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
<pan.2007.11.24.17.41.53.20654@nowhere.com>:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:34:48 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:04:52 -0500, MarkA wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:56:04 +0000, Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
Classy, almost as classy as their lead-poisoned trinkets.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/20/162419/85
A collision with a semi-trailer truck seven years ago left
52-year-old Deborah Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a
wheelchair. Her husband, Jim, and three sons found a small source of
solace: a $700,000 accident settlement from the trucking company
involved. After legal fees and other expenses, the remaining $417,000
was put in a special trust. It was to be used for Mrs. Shank's care.
Instead, all of it is now slated to go to Mrs. Shank's former
employer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Two years ago, the retail giant's health plan sued the Shanks for
the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care. A federal judge ruled
last year in Wal-Mart's favor, backed by an appeals-court decision in
August. Now, her family has to rely on Medicaid and Mrs. Shank's
social-security payments to keep up her round-the-clock care.
Not to shift the blame here or anything, but does anyone else think it a
little obscene that getting a $700K settlement for such devastating
injuries requires $300,000 in legal (and other?) fees? As heartless a
Wal-Mart may appear in this scenario, let's not forget that the lawyers
had first pick on the carcass.
Yeah, it's high. Then again, without the lawyers, she'd have zero, not
$417,000. Also, keep in mind you're asking a lawyer to go up against a
corporation with billions and whole departments of lawyers. An act that
isn't going to be cheap for the lawyer.
No, the $300K legal bill was from the action against the trucking company,
not Wal-Mart. And, it is described as a "settlement", which implies that
it may not have even gone to trial. It boils down to getting $300K for
saying, "Give us $700K or I'll sue you for 10 times that much."
There was only a $1 million in insurance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred's Economic Utopia: WalMart Sues Brain-Damaged Woman For $470K |
24 Nov 2007 07:19:11 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 11:46:10 -0600, Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 12:41:54 -0500, in alt.atheism MarkA
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
<pan.2007.11.24.17.41.53.20654@nowhere.com>:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:34:48 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:04:52 -0500, MarkA wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:56:04 +0000, Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
Classy, almost as classy as their lead-poisoned trinkets.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/20/162419/85
A collision with a semi-trailer truck seven years ago left
52-year-old Deborah Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a
wheelchair. Her husband, Jim, and three sons found a small source of
solace: a $700,000 accident settlement from the trucking company
involved. After legal fees and other expenses, the remaining
$417,000 was put in a special trust. It was to be used for Mrs.
Shank's care.
Instead, all of it is now slated to go to Mrs. Shank's former
employer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Two years ago, the retail giant's health plan sued the Shanks
for
the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care. A federal judge ruled
last year in Wal-Mart's favor, backed by an appeals-court decision
in August. Now, her family has to rely on Medicaid and Mrs. Shank's
social-security payments to keep up her round-the-clock care.
Not to shift the blame here or anything, but does anyone else think
it a little obscene that getting a $700K settlement for such
devastating injuries requires $300,000 in legal (and other?) fees?
As heartless a Wal-Mart may appear in this scenario, let's not forget
that the lawyers had first pick on the carcass.
Yeah, it's high. Then again, without the lawyers, she'd have zero, not
$417,000. Also, keep in mind you're asking a lawyer to go up against a
corporation with billions and whole departments of lawyers. An act
that isn't going to be cheap for the lawyer.
No, the $300K legal bill was from the action against the trucking
company, not Wal-Mart. And, it is described as a "settlement", which
implies that it may not have even gone to trial. It boils down to
getting $300K for saying, "Give us $700K or I'll sue you for 10 times
that much."
There was only a $1 million in insurance.
What an amazing coincidence, eh?
The other favorite bargaining chip is "punitive damages." By law, awards
for punitive damages cannot be covered by insurance. SO,..."if you don't
settle this with us, we'll also sue for a million dollars in punitive
damages. You have a million bucks in the bank? Do you really want to
take that chance? Settling for $700K of an insurance company's money is
a *bargain*."
--
MarkA
(This space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred's Economic Utopia: WalMart Sues Brain-Damaged Woman For $470K |
24 Nov 2007 07:50:34 PM |
|
|
MarkA <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:pan.2007.11.25.01.19.09.918548@nowhere.com:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 11:46:10 -0600, Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 12:41:54 -0500, in alt.atheism MarkA
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
<pan.2007.11.24.17.41.53.20654@nowhere.com>:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:34:48 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:04:52 -0500, MarkA wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:56:04 +0000, Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
Classy, almost as classy as their lead-poisoned trinkets.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/20/162419/85
A collision with a semi-trailer truck seven years ago left
52-year-old Deborah Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a
wheelchair. Her husband, Jim, and three sons found a small source
of solace: a $700,000 accident settlement from the trucking
company involved. After legal fees and other expenses, the
remaining $417,000 was put in a special trust. It was to be used
for Mrs. Shank's care.
Instead, all of it is now slated to go to Mrs. Shank's former
employer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Two years ago, the retail giant's health plan sued the Shanks
for
the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care. A federal judge
ruled last year in Wal-Mart's favor, backed by an appeals-court
decision in August. Now, her family has to rely on Medicaid and
Mrs. Shank's social-security payments to keep up her
round-the-clock care.
Not to shift the blame here or anything, but does anyone else
think it a little obscene that getting a $700K settlement for such
devastating injuries requires $300,000 in legal (and other?) fees?
As heartless a Wal-Mart may appear in this scenario, let's not
forget that the lawyers had first pick on the carcass.
Yeah, it's high. Then again, without the lawyers, she'd have zero,
not $417,000. Also, keep in mind you're asking a lawyer to go up
against a corporation with billions and whole departments of
lawyers. An act that isn't going to be cheap for the lawyer.
No, the $300K legal bill was from the action against the trucking
company, not Wal-Mart. And, it is described as a "settlement", which
implies that it may not have even gone to trial. It boils down to
getting $300K for saying, "Give us $700K or I'll sue you for 10 times
that much."
There was only a $1 million in insurance.
What an amazing coincidence, eh?
The other favorite bargaining chip is "punitive damages." By law,
awards for punitive damages cannot be covered by insurance. SO,..."if
you don't settle this with us, we'll also sue for a million dollars in
punitive damages. You have a million bucks in the bank? Do you
really want to take that chance? Settling for $700K of an insurance
company's money is a *bargain*."
It's in her employment contract. A contract is a contract. Simple as
that.
WalMart's health insurer paid out for her care, she got punitive
damages, the insurer is entitled to reclaim the money they paid out from
that settlement.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
The books that help you most are those which make you think that most.
The hardest way of learning is that of easy reading; but a great book
that comes from a great thinker is a ship of thought, deep freighted
with truth and beauty.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred's Economic Utopia: WalMart Sues Brain-Damaged Woman For $470K |
24 Nov 2007 08:16:24 PM |
|
|
On 25 Nov 2007 01:50:34 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns99F2D4090CFAfreddybear@216.151.153.34>:
MarkA <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:pan.2007.11.25.01.19.09.918548@nowhere.com:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 11:46:10 -0600, Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 12:41:54 -0500, in alt.atheism MarkA
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
<pan.2007.11.24.17.41.53.20654@nowhere.com>:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:34:48 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:04:52 -0500, MarkA wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:56:04 +0000, Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
Classy, almost as classy as their lead-poisoned trinkets.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/20/162419/85
A collision with a semi-trailer truck seven years ago left
52-year-old Deborah Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a
wheelchair. Her husband, Jim, and three sons found a small source
of solace: a $700,000 accident settlement from the trucking
company involved. After legal fees and other expenses, the
remaining $417,000 was put in a special trust. It was to be used
for Mrs. Shank's care.
Instead, all of it is now slated to go to Mrs. Shank's former
employer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Two years ago, the retail giant's health plan sued the Shanks
for
the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care. A federal judge
ruled last year in Wal-Mart's favor, backed by an appeals-court
decision in August. Now, her family has to rely on Medicaid and
Mrs. Shank's social-security payments to keep up her
round-the-clock care.
Not to shift the blame here or anything, but does anyone else
think it a little obscene that getting a $700K settlement for such
devastating injuries requires $300,000 in legal (and other?) fees?
As heartless a Wal-Mart may appear in this scenario, let's not
forget that the lawyers had first pick on the carcass.
Yeah, it's high. Then again, without the lawyers, she'd have zero,
not $417,000. Also, keep in mind you're asking a lawyer to go up
against a corporation with billions and whole departments of
lawyers. An act that isn't going to be cheap for the lawyer.
No, the $300K legal bill was from the action against the trucking
company, not Wal-Mart. And, it is described as a "settlement", which
implies that it may not have even gone to trial. It boils down to
getting $300K for saying, "Give us $700K or I'll sue you for 10 times
that much."
There was only a $1 million in insurance.
What an amazing coincidence, eh?
The other favorite bargaining chip is "punitive damages." By law,
awards for punitive damages cannot be covered by insurance. SO,..."if
you don't settle this with us, we'll also sue for a million dollars in
punitive damages. You have a million bucks in the bank? Do you
really want to take that chance? Settling for $700K of an insurance
company's money is a *bargain*."
It's in her employment contract. A contract is a contract. Simple as
that.
WalMart's health insurer paid out for her care, she got punitive
damages, the insurer is entitled to reclaim the money they paid out from
that settlement.
She never got any punitive damages. All of the damages were for health
care costs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred's Economic Utopia: WalMart Sues Brain-Damaged Woman For $470K |
25 Nov 2007 05:32:42 AM |
|
|
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:3nmhk3t0g4toj019v9sfaemmnvj2el1vu5@4ax.com:
On 25 Nov 2007 01:50:34 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns99F2D4090CFAfreddybear@216.151.153.34>:
MarkA <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:pan.2007.11.25.01.19.09.918548@nowhere.com:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 11:46:10 -0600, Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 12:41:54 -0500, in alt.atheism MarkA
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
<pan.2007.11.24.17.41.53.20654@nowhere.com>:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:34:48 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:04:52 -0500, MarkA wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:56:04 +0000, Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
Classy, almost as classy as their lead-poisoned trinkets.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/20/162419/85
A collision with a semi-trailer truck seven years ago left
52-year-old Deborah Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a
wheelchair. Her husband, Jim, and three sons found a small
source of solace: a $700,000 accident settlement from the
trucking company involved. After legal fees and other expenses,
the remaining $417,000 was put in a special trust. It was to be
used for Mrs. Shank's care.
Instead, all of it is now slated to go to Mrs. Shank's
former
employer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Two years ago, the retail giant's health plan sued the
Shanks for
the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care. A federal judge
ruled last year in Wal-Mart's favor, backed by an appeals-court
decision in August. Now, her family has to rely on Medicaid and
Mrs. Shank's social-security payments to keep up her
round-the-clock care.
Not to shift the blame here or anything, but does anyone else
think it a little obscene that getting a $700K settlement for
such devastating injuries requires $300,000 in legal (and
other?) fees? As heartless a Wal-Mart may appear in this
scenario, let's not forget that the lawyers had first pick on
the carcass.
Yeah, it's high. Then again, without the lawyers, she'd have
zero, not $417,000. Also, keep in mind you're asking a lawyer to
go up against a corporation with billions and whole departments
of lawyers. An act that isn't going to be cheap for the lawyer.
No, the $300K legal bill was from the action against the trucking
company, not Wal-Mart. And, it is described as a "settlement",
which implies that it may not have even gone to trial. It boils
down to getting $300K for saying, "Give us $700K or I'll sue you
for 10 times that much."
There was only a $1 million in insurance.
What an amazing coincidence, eh?
The other favorite bargaining chip is "punitive damages." By law,
awards for punitive damages cannot be covered by insurance.
SO,..."if you don't settle this with us, we'll also sue for a
million dollars in punitive damages. You have a million bucks in
the bank? Do you really want to take that chance? Settling for
$700K of an insurance company's money is a *bargain*."
It's in her employment contract. A contract is a contract. Simple as
that.
WalMart's health insurer paid out for her care, she got punitive
damages, the insurer is entitled to reclaim the money they paid out
from that settlement.
She never got any punitive damages. All of the damages were for health
care costs.
My bad. It was a settlement.
In any case, the insurer is entitled to recover its costs. I'm surprised
they didn't do so before the family ever saw the dough.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
The books that help you most are those which make you think that most.
The hardest way of learning is that of easy reading; but a great book
that comes from a great thinker is a ship of thought, deep freighted
with truth and beauty.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred's Economic Utopia: WalMart Sues Brain-Damaged Woman For $470K |
25 Nov 2007 11:51:36 AM |
|
|
On 25 Nov 2007 11:32:42 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns99F342E46FDAFfreddybear@216.151.153.44>:
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:3nmhk3t0g4toj019v9sfaemmnvj2el1vu5@4ax.com:
On 25 Nov 2007 01:50:34 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns99F2D4090CFAfreddybear@216.151.153.34>:
MarkA <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:pan.2007.11.25.01.19.09.918548@nowhere.com:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 11:46:10 -0600, Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 12:41:54 -0500, in alt.atheism MarkA
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
<pan.2007.11.24.17.41.53.20654@nowhere.com>:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:34:48 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:04:52 -0500, MarkA wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:56:04 +0000, Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
Classy, almost as classy as their lead-poisoned trinkets.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/20/162419/85
A collision with a semi-trailer truck seven years ago left
52-year-old Deborah Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a
wheelchair. Her husband, Jim, and three sons found a small
source of solace: a $700,000 accident settlement from the
trucking company involved. After legal fees and other expenses,
the remaining $417,000 was put in a special trust. It was to be
used for Mrs. Shank's care.
Instead, all of it is now slated to go to Mrs. Shank's
former
employer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Two years ago, the retail giant's health plan sued the
Shanks for
the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care. A federal judge
ruled last year in Wal-Mart's favor, backed by an appeals-court
decision in August. Now, her family has to rely on Medicaid and
Mrs. Shank's social-security payments to keep up her
round-the-clock care.
Not to shift the blame here or anything, but does anyone else
think it a little obscene that getting a $700K settlement for
such devastating injuries requires $300,000 in legal (and
other?) fees? As heartless a Wal-Mart may appear in this
scenario, let's not forget that the lawyers had first pick on
the carcass.
Yeah, it's high. Then again, without the lawyers, she'd have
zero, not $417,000. Also, keep in mind you're asking a lawyer to
go up against a corporation with billions and whole departments
of lawyers. An act that isn't going to be cheap for the lawyer.
No, the $300K legal bill was from the action against the trucking
company, not Wal-Mart. And, it is described as a "settlement",
which implies that it may not have even gone to trial. It boils
down to getting $300K for saying, "Give us $700K or I'll sue you
for 10 times that much."
There was only a $1 million in insurance.
What an amazing coincidence, eh?
The other favorite bargaining chip is "punitive damages." By law,
awards for punitive damages cannot be covered by insurance.
SO,..."if you don't settle this with us, we'll also sue for a
million dollars in punitive damages. You have a million bucks in
the bank? Do you really want to take that chance? Settling for
$700K of an insurance company's money is a *bargain*."
It's in her employment contract. A contract is a contract. Simple as
that.
WalMart's health insurer paid out for her care, she got punitive
damages, the insurer is entitled to reclaim the money they paid out
from that settlement.
She never got any punitive damages. All of the damages were for health
care costs.
My bad. It was a settlement.
In any case, the insurer is entitled to recover its costs. I'm surprised
they didn't do so before the family ever saw the dough.
One thing that didn't seem to help is that the family hadn't worked with
Wal-Mart during the settlement, even though Wal-Mart had told them that
they needed to. I suspect this was a failure on the lawyer's part.
I don't have any arguments with the reading of the law in this case.
ERISA seems to be applied correctly. That, of course, is the problem.
Wal-Mart comes out okay, we pay the bills of the woman in the nursing
home through Medicaid, and the underinsured trucking company loses
nothing.
There might be some advantage to changing the law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred's Economic Utopia: WalMart Sues Brain-Damaged Woman For $470K |
25 Nov 2007 01:50:35 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 11:51:36 -0600, Free Lunch wrote:
On 25 Nov 2007 11:32:42 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns99F342E46FDAFfreddybear@216.151.153.44>:
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:3nmhk3t0g4toj019v9sfaemmnvj2el1vu5@4ax.com:
On 25 Nov 2007 01:50:34 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns99F2D4090CFAfreddybear@216.151.153.34>:
MarkA <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:pan.2007.11.25.01.19.09.918548@nowhere.com:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 11:46:10 -0600, Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 12:41:54 -0500, in alt.atheism MarkA
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
<pan.2007.11.24.17.41.53.20654@nowhere.com>:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:34:48 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:04:52 -0500, MarkA wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:56:04 +0000, Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
Classy, almost as classy as their lead-poisoned trinkets.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/20/162419/85
A collision with a semi-trailer truck seven years ago left
52-year-old Deborah Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a
wheelchair. Her husband, Jim, and three sons found a small
source of solace: a $700,000 accident settlement from the
trucking company involved. After legal fees and other expenses,
the remaining $417,000 was put in a special trust. It was to be
used for Mrs. Shank's care.
Instead, all of it is now slated to go to Mrs. Shank's
former
employer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Two years ago, the retail giant's health plan sued the
Shanks for
the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care. A federal judge
ruled last year in Wal-Mart's favor, backed by an appeals-court
decision in August. Now, her family has to rely on Medicaid and
Mrs. Shank's social-security payments to keep up her
round-the-clock care.
Not to shift the blame here or anything, but does anyone else
think it a little obscene that getting a $700K settlement for
such devastating injuries requires $300,000 in legal (and
other?) fees? As heartless a Wal-Mart may appear in this
scenario, let's not forget that the lawyers had first pick on
the carcass.
Yeah, it's high. Then again, without the lawyers, she'd have
zero, not $417,000. Also, keep in mind you're asking a lawyer to
go up against a corporation with billions and whole departments
of lawyers. An act that isn't going to be cheap for the lawyer.
No, the $300K legal bill was from the action against the trucking
company, not Wal-Mart. And, it is described as a "settlement",
which implies that it may not have even gone to trial. It boils
down to getting $300K for saying, "Give us $700K or I'll sue you
for 10 times that much."
There was only a $1 million in insurance.
What an amazing coincidence, eh?
The other favorite bargaining chip is "punitive damages." By law,
awards for punitive damages cannot be covered by insurance.
SO,..."if you don't settle this with us, we'll also sue for a
million dollars in punitive damages. You have a million bucks in
the bank? Do you really want to take that chance? Settling for
$700K of an insurance company's money is a *bargain*."
It's in her employment contract. A contract is a contract. Simple as
that.
WalMart's health insurer paid out for her care, she got punitive
damages, the insurer is entitled to reclaim the money they paid out
from that settlement.
She never got any punitive damages. All of the damages were for health
care costs.
My bad. It was a settlement.
In any case, the insurer is entitled to recover its costs. I'm surprised
they didn't do so before the family ever saw the dough.
One thing that didn't seem to help is that the family hadn't worked with
Wal-Mart during the settlement, even though Wal-Mart had told them that
they needed to. I suspect this was a failure on the lawyer's part.
I don't have any arguments with the reading of the law in this case.
ERISA seems to be applied correctly. That, of course, is the problem.
Wal-Mart comes out okay, we pay the bills of the woman in the nursing
home through Medicaid, and the underinsured trucking company loses
nothing.
There might be some advantage to changing the law.
But the other way, where she keeps the $400K, has us all paying higher
insurance premiums to cover their un-reimbursed expenses.
So, the final score is: The lawyers make out like bandits, the injured
party gets screwed, the health insurance company breaks even, Wal-Mart
doesn't incur any real expense (they weren't a party to any of this,
anyway), and the trucking company gets off easier than it should.
Small wonder the lawyers are not keen to change the current system.
--
MarkA
(This space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Fred's Economic Utopia: WalMart Sues Brain-Damaged Woman For $470K |
25 Nov 2007 02:37:47 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:50:35 -0500, in alt.atheism
MarkA <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
<pan.2007.11.25.19.50.33.826593@nowhere.com>:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 11:51:36 -0600, Free Lunch wrote:
On 25 Nov 2007 11:32:42 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns99F342E46FDAFfreddybear@216.151.153.44>:
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:3nmhk3t0g4toj019v9sfaemmnvj2el1vu5@4ax.com:
On 25 Nov 2007 01:50:34 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns99F2D4090CFAfreddybear@216.151.153.34>:
MarkA <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:pan.2007.11.25.01.19.09.918548@nowhere.com:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 11:46:10 -0600, Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 12:41:54 -0500, in alt.atheism MarkA
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
<pan.2007.11.24.17.41.53.20654@nowhere.com>:
< | | | | | | | | | | | |
