Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your assumption is totally incorrect. I have read the whole story and I am fully aware of all that you reiterated. While I realize that what Walmart did was within it's legal rights, I am speaking of the human/compassionate side of the issue.
I re-checked the requirements to form a corporation, I didnt see compassion as one of the requirements..
I do however see their obligation to their stockholders... to recoup the money that they put out for her care, while BEING compassionate...
Facts:
Lady gets hit by truck, not related to Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart pays for her care, not out of a requirement, but out of compassion!
Lady then sues truck company for recouping medical costs, THAT SHE DID NOT PAY FOR..
Why would Wal-Mart not be entitled to recoup the expenses that they essentially loaned this lady? Even her own husband acknowledges that its Wal-Marts money...
I re-checked the requirements to form a corporation, I didnt see compassion as one of the requirements..
I do however see their obligation to their stockholders... to recoup the money that they put out for her care, while BEING compassionate...
Facts:
Lady gets hit by truck, not related to Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart pays for her care, not out of a requirement, but out of compassion!
Lady then sues truck company for recouping medical costs, THAT SHE DID NOT PAY FOR..
Why would Wal-Mart not be entitled to recoup the expenses that they essentially loaned this lady? Even her own husband acknowledges that its Wal-Marts money...
Who said there were compassionate requirements? As a legal assistant, I fully understand the legal ramifications involved in this case. I also agreed that WalMart was within their LEGAL RIGHTS to sue.
At the end of the day, let's agree to disagree because you seem to want to create moot points so that you can pretend we have something to argue about.
Who said there were compassionate requirements? As a legal assistant, I fully understand the legal ramifications involved in this case. I also agreed that WalMart was within their LEGAL RIGHTS to sue.
Well your the one who started out with an argument that Walmart should give this lady money because they arent, Hold, let me quote you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preaching2thechoir
Wow . . . poor Walmart
And then you went off into some tyrade about test tube babies
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preaching2thechoir
I don't think so. Walmart should not have to be shamed into not kicking this family while they are down. Those of you who aren't the descendants of test tubes or clones should be ashamed of yourselves for your lack of human decency. At the end of the day the only reason Walmart caved is because they crunched the numbers and found that it would be financially feasible to drop their battle than having Americans pissed off and no longer purchasing their cheap imported products that are already killing the livelihood of millions of Americans all in the name of "free trade".
And then, to make matters worse, you started talking about losing a brother in Iraq.. as if that has ANYTHING to do with the story!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preaching2thechoir
If that were your mother and you had recently lost a brother in Iraq, would you still feel the same about the egregious inhumanity at the hands of the ginormous traitorous corporation known as Walmart?
Please connect the brother, to Iraq, to Wal-mart being "poor".. to the story because even the husband of the wife says that Wal-mart was entitled to their money.
The woman in question, a WalMart employee, had health insurance, acquired through WalMart. That policy paid her medical bills. That policy also provided that should the employee (patient) successfully sue the person who caused the injury, that resulted in the insurance paying out for the resulting medical costs, WalMart had the LEGAL right to recover the amount the insurance paid out from any monetary judgment the employee (patient) recieved.
The employee in question here was brain damaged and will require care for the rest of her life.
The husband has agreed that WalMart had/has the legal right to recover.
The issue was - if Walmart recovered their costs, as they had the legal right to, there would be little left to pay for the lifetime of care that would be needed -
Personal note: Regardless of the reason - I'm glad this was worked out - for all involved.
The woman in question, a WalMart employee, had health insurance, acquired through WalMart. That policy paid her medical bills. That policy also provided that should the employee (patient) successfully sue the person who caused the injury, that resulted in the insurance paying out for the resulting medical costs, WalMart had the LEGAL right to recover the amount the insurance paid out from any monetary judgment the employee (patient) recieved.
The employee in question here was brain damaged and will require care for the rest of her life.
The husband has agreed that WalMart had/has the legal right to recover.
The issue was - if Walmart recovered their costs, as they had the legal right to, there would be little left to pay for the lifetime of care that would be needed -
Personal note: Regardless of the reason - I'm glad this was worked out - for all involved.
Yes, glad it worked out but WalMart has just set a dangerous precident.. They are officially changing their insurance policy to review such recovery avenues on a case by case basis.. What this means is that, if you cant generate publicity, they will come after their money, if you can.. they wont take it..
They've just opened themself up to blackmail, more bad pr, and more lawsuits because now this case, will be used in future cases against WalMart...
The CEO of WalMart should be fired.. The issue isnt if this lady had enough to take care of herself, the issue is who's money was it, and even the husband admitted it wasnt theirs to keep.
I don't think Wal-Mart set a dangerous precedent. The insurance provider, whether it's owned by Wal-Mart or not, is a separate business entity from Wal-Mart. There were contractual obligations on both sides, one of which required Wal-Mart to sue this lady to recover some of the expenses incurred for her care when she had reached a settlement with the person/company responsible for her injuries. She won the million dollars in the settlement, but only ended up with $470,000 after legal expenses. Wal-Mart exercised it's legal obligation to recover its expenses on behalf of Wal-Mart's group plan insurer. They were legally entitled to that money, as the courts allowed. The bad publicity the case received persuaded Wal-Mart management to waive collection of that money, and they will pay the group plan/insurer back themselves, probably writing the amount off as a charitable deduction of a sort. To Preaching, as a legal assistant you should understand that Wal-Mart had a contract with their insurer which they were legally bound to honor, and that the attorney who originally represented the family in the settlement with the trucking company mishandled the matter by not reasonably communicating with Wal-Mart about the settlement. And that attorney evidently received $530,000 as compensation for his questionable work. According to the latest news, Wal-Mart's attorneys will be assisting her family in setting up a trust and other financial instruments to ensure her continuing care, and they will be doing the "right" thing at no cost to the family. So who's the bad guy here? Wal-Mart that paid her bills up front, then, after she received her settlement, acted in accordance with their contractual obligations and when the courts backed them up laying down the necessary precedent to support insurer contracts, then gave her back the money and offered the assistance of their very competent legal staff to help ensure her continued well-being; OR the attorney that sued the trucking company on behalf of her family, didn't bother to read the insurance policy covering her or deliberately ignored its contingencies, failed to follow up with her insurer, and took 50% of the settlement for himself?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
