Wal-Mart Wins Suit Against Brain-Damaged Woman

This may be technically legal but this is so wrong!

I think she and her family had a xxx poor lawyer to not examine her health insurance and already have a contingency plan in place.... And the lawyer took how much for his effort?

The death of her son is sad.... but it is immaterial to the justice of this case. .....Which seems lacking. Either one has health insurance or one doesn't: However, there's a good chance that most of our group policies.... and possibly individual policies have clauses which give insurance companies, or self insured providers the rights of financial recovery. If this is the case, these companies should also be subject to pay the cost of litigation so that it doesn't drain the trust meant for the injured.

Do I see hints of another Terry Shivo happening. She was considered by some to be just a tad short of consciousness but the courts permitted withdrawal of norishment and even interfered with her familiy's willingness to assist with her feedings!

 

It is fair and just. You can't say that it's fair for the insurance company to pay thousands and thousands for injuries, and not be paid back when the insured is reimbursed for those cost.

The only way it's unfair is if her lawyer didn't sue for enough to cover ALL the expenses she incurred. If that's the case, be upset with the lawyer, not Wal-Mart or their insurer.

Think of it on a smaller scale. If I run over you in my car and you incur $1000 in medical bills. Your insurance company steps up and pays the $1000 so that you get the treatment you need. Then you sue me for $1000 because that's the amount of damage I did, and you win. Should you keep the $1000 or should the insurance company be reimbursed for the money they already paid?

 

Sure hope you never need compassion if we receive as we give. When you pray the Lord's prayer do you really want to be forgiven with the same attitude you have shown in your post above? I assume you are a staunch Republician .... profits over people.

 

And you are obviously a staunch, emotionally driven liberal...when you meet an intellectual argument you don't like but can't answer, you go immediately to a personal attack. If you don't like the logic of the argument, ANSWER THE ARGUMENT! DON'T ATTACK THE PERSON!

 

Actually I am a Christian who values people ... is there something wrong with placing value on people? If that is liberal then I guess I am guilty. But we also know from his example that Christ valued people, so I guess he was liberal also. So I am in good company.

The 4th quarter of 2007 Walmart's net income rose to $3.94 billion, or 95 cents a share. Note this is net income not gross in come. I believe a company that makes 3.94 billion in a quarter can show some compassion toward its employees and former employees. Don't you think so?

Oh, and you did not answer my question. What kind of compassion would you like shown to you if you are ever in need?

:tonofbricks:

 

I believe Crabtownboy makes a valid argument. I saw a small snippet of this on CNN the other night and am absolutely appalled at WM's high-handedness. This may be technically legal, but WM is morally bankrupt. This confirms even more, why I refuse to shop (unless I absolutey have NTHER CHOICE) at WM. It's not as if they (or insurance co. needs a paltry $200,000). If WM really wanted to maintain a good reputation within the community, it could easily have 'forgiven the debt' or in fact, the expense could have been privately & quietly taken care of thru the Walton Fdn. Believe CNN was saying the woman's husband has had to divorce her in order to keep their home and he's doing everything he can working 2 jobs to pay the bills - never mind paying back the $200,000!.

What has happened when a company puts dollars before people and excuses away its ruthlessness? I will not support that kind of treatment and apparently (according to CNN) there are about 1.5 million other people who are appalled too. I hope every one of those 1.5 million folks boycott WM and write them explaining why. I just bought a tea kettle there 2 weeks ago because I couldn't find anything elsewhere that I liked. I'm out tomorrow looking for another kettle and will be returning the one I purchased (much as I like it) and when Customer Service asks me why I'm returning it - I'll be very glad to say why!

 

Forget attacking Wally World, her lawyer sucked most of the money out of the system.
We hear political ads telling us that wind-fall profits shouldn't be allowed with oil companies and then allow these legal pirates to snag the cream of the winnings.

Rob

 

Lawyers always gather large fees. I do not believe that is ethical either. There are lawyers who work pro bono on occasion and I think that is great. But surely WalMart, a company that makes over 3 billion is one quarter, can show a bit of compassion. One lawyers greed does not give absolution to WalMart IMHO.

 

Well, I read you post a couple of times and if there's a rational, logical thought in there I'm just missing it. This is the problem with you limp wristed liberals (thought I would try the name calling thing, since it worked so well for you) you're really compassionate as long as it's someone else's money. Until you send the woman a check, shut up about who needs to be compassionate.

A few more points for you to try to understand:

1. Wal-mart has a ficuciary obligation to it's stock-holders. If my retirement plan was investing in Wal-mart stock, I would be ticked if they were just letting $200,000 walk out the door. And if I were a Wal-mart employee whose compensation included stock options (most do) I would be ticked over the company giving away $200K. Because if you do it once, you pretty much have to do it every time.

2. Most of us have trouble affording the health insurance we have. Wal-mart has a fiduciary responsibility to every person who is on their health plan to keep the premiums as low as possible. $200,000 would be a considered a catastrophic loss, and those are what drive premiums through the roof. If my family were paying for Wal-mart insurance, I'd be ticked if they just blew off $200k and my premiums increased.

3. By reading the story, here's what I can almost guarantee you. The lawsuit was filed for $1 million because that's the amount of liability insurance the trucking company carried. It was a slam dunk for the lawyer - he probably spent very little time on this. Good chance it's the easiest half mil he'll ever make. If you want to be mad, be mad at a state government that allows companies to hurl 80,000 pound trucks down the interstate with only a million in liability insurance. That's chicken feed when you consider the cost of health care and rehab care when someone is injured in an accident.

4. Be mad at a government that allows trial lawyers to rape their clients for outrageous sums of money. There is no way on God's earth that attorney EARNED half a million dollars of this woman's money. It's amazing to me that the lawyer took more than twice the money due Wal-mart, yet the Communist News Network never mentions that.

 

Well here is what my twisted logic rests on:

1-The Golden Rule says we are to treat other the way we would like to be treated. I would not want to be treated as this woman was, thus I should not treat her, if I were in a position of responsiblity, the way she was.

2-In the Lord's Prayer we say, "forgive our sins as we forgive those who sin against us." I do not take that narrowly, that is as sins only. Rather I take it in a broad sense which goes back to the Godlen Rule.

3-Matthew 7:1 reads in the KJV as: Judge not, that ye be not judged.
The Message puts it very clearly: "Don't pick on people, jump on their failures, criticize their faults— unless, of course, you want the same treatment

Again, I do not take this with a narrow interpretation, but broadly, as we treat others in all aspects of our life that is the way God will treat us.

As for investing in companies, and I am an investor, I would not invest in any company with the questionable business ethics of WM. By the way, I checked their chart and it has been a poor company to own stock in even though they make huge profits. I take a technical approach to investing and I would not touch this stock at the present time even if I believed they are a very ethical company. The chart shows no near-term upward movement.

 

As much as this kills me to say, we have to be fair.
It is not Walmart's fault she failed to read her agreement with Walmart.
When she signed her name to the papers, she should have understood what she was signing.
Her Lawyer should have counselled her better.

Walmart is a business. They are only acting fair.

Now, Walmart is going to have a lot of PR damage control, and although I think the family owes Walmart, Walmart should step up and give back to the community by reaching out to this woman.

If I was Walmart's PR man, I would encourage Walmart to abide by the contractual agreement, but then give something back to this family by way of a trustfund or something.

That way, all parties win.

This is a lesson for all of us... what is in your insurance papers?

 

She bought insurance that said they would be reimbursed if she were reimbursed. This is what she she agreed to.

 

You know, when I first saw this in CNN the other day, I couldn't figure out what the big deal was. I can't ever remember having insurance that didn't expect to be repaid if I won a settlement on something I had already had covered. Why should I be paid twice for the same episode?

Obviously some here, have no idea of our legal or insurance systems work. This is NOT a new thing and for grown people to not understand how something so important to them works, is nothing less than glaring ignorance. You have to read the fine print people!

 

From a legal and business perspective, Wal-Mart has a solid case.

From a PR perspective, they are making a bone-headed decision.

 

EXACTLY Tim! I could live with WM legally getting back the monies so employees' premiums aren't increased, but the Walton family which makes BILLIONS each year, could have quietly or even publicly given to this family. This would have sent a HUGE message of compassion & 'we take care of our own'. What great PR. Instead the Walton family and business have generated a nightmare - for what? "Everday low prices?" Can you imagine how conflicted any current employee is about all of this? The bully of bentonville is alive and well.

 

Just curious, how many other people have had to pay back insurance companies. My guess would be thousands... we have had to...

People need to understand their policy...
Just because someone gets hurt, doesn't excuse them legally.

Ignorance is not excusable.

So, if this is an ordinary occurance, then why is the media running to this story?.. .I bet there are others also.

Walmart already has some of the worst PR out there.
This doesn't help.

Something smells fishy...

I wonder if there isn't a Target on Walmarts doors....

Or I wonder if this isn't a setup for a political move, since Hillary has been tied to Walmart.

Who is the media's favorite Candidate? I have learned that the Media doesn't cover this type of story unless there is another angle to be persued here.

If Walmart ignores this bad PR, it will hurt them in the long run.

(Just some random thoughts that run through my head.... )

 

Yeah, you really sound like a pastor, a minister of the Word of God. You would last about 5 minutes in our church.

Back to the op, she should have to pay the money back. The concept of insurance is to make one whole, not a profit.

Personally, I have no use for WalMarts, but it has nothing to do with this issue. That would be another thread, if WalMart is good for this country or not.

The bottom line is if this country wants WalMarts to go away, then stop shopping at them. They have no power without customers.

 

Please elaborate.

 

1. Your logic breaks down quickly here. Wal-mart is not a person, it is a corporation, and governed by rules, by-laws and policies. It's not like a corporation can just wake up one morning and decide, "I'm feeling really generous today. I think I'll just forgive that $200,000 debt."

2. This woman did not sin against Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart did not sin against this woman. There is no forgiveness to be given or received by either party. Not sure what this has to do with anything. And again, Wal-Mart is not capable of sinning, not sinning, forgiving or not forgiving. It's a thing, not a person.

3. So you really equate having to pay back a legitimate debt as being unfairly judged and "jumped on"? Is your mortgage company judging you when they require you to make your house payment? Will the government be judging you come April 15th?

I'm not sure what Wal-Mart stock is doing today, but I'll bet all those millionaires in NW Arkansas (and there are a mess of them) will be glad to know that they're really poor because they own Wal-Mart stock.