Wal-Mart Wins Suit Against Brain-Damaged Woman

The family's attorney dropped the very fragile ball. The end. He should have read the fine print, he should not have assumed things (esp. with $400,000!), and he should have included this expense in the original claim.

 

Liberal 'logic.' Accuse those who have the advantage of being horrible people. How about Walmart being a wise steward of what God has allowed them to gain? The family shouldn't be suing everybody anyway, right, Mr Golden Rule?

What does this have to do with the price of yo-yo's in Walmart?

 

Rubato: Your doesn't become you. It doesn't have anything to do with the price of yo-yo's. We limp-wristed liberals (according to guitarpreacher), understand that. We are trying to ask WWJD and believe it or not, we might have a valid point to make. Even if the WM corporation is legally entitled to being reimbursed, the Walton family or foundation could have done something,
anything financially, to help out quietly in the background. Now that would have been A CLASS ACT! As TinyTim said - both sides would have won the PR war. Instead, WM & the Walton family came across as ruthless, arrogant, pennypinching robber barons and got a pile of bad press for its actions. Whether the image is correct or not isn't the issue - perception is everything. Any business owner knows bad PR is a surefire way to kill your business. That's a dumb move for any company to make in this day and age of competition. WM could have risen to the occasion and displayed class, compassion and leadership and if unable to do so, the Walton family should have stepped up instead. Frankly, they would have gone up a few notches IMHO. WM wants to play hardball? Fine. I'll take saturneptune's advice - "the bottom line is....stop shopping at WM's. They have no power without customers."

 

Sorry, but I don't get the political connection! Stereo typical reply maybe? If its not true for all then its a false statement!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

It was a typical democrat statement... Stereotypical irony.

hehehe

 

I'm taking exception to this..... more sensitive to this statement perhaps, than some..... I drove an 18 wheeler solo for about 13 months OTR. Though never involved in a traffic accident, I can tell you that truck drivers are held to a higher standard than anyone else on the highway. The insurance they carry makes them an easy target for suits from accidents. A successful suit doesn't require a driver guilty of a traffic offense or charged as the cause of an accident: All it requires in some (make that many cases) is a 'victim' of an accident which involved a truck, a well argued case, and a sympathetic jury/court.

This latter is not difficult when most people have an angst against big trucks sharing the road.
For example: All it takes is a few log errors on a drivers' log book to slam dunk that he falsified his logs and therefore should not have been where he was and thus the accident was avoidable. (A 'log book' for those of you unfamiliar with trucking is a daily diary which tracks the duty status of a driver all through out the day: Every stop, every start, whether 'on break' or on duty-but not driving: every location of a log change; every fuel stop with the time of refueling.... and in some cases, toll delays. It must be up to the minute...or the last change of duty and is expected to be within narrow parameters of 15 minute changes. Few exceptions such as 'in town series of drops' may be allowed to collectively be recorded due to difficulty logging legibly such a series of stops and starts to load or unload and resume driving.... but it takes a person skilled to know when exceptions apply.... and it is easy to confuse a jury with the particulars of this one detail..... that of the log book.... that a good lawyer can often succeed in getting the driver's testimony discredited based upon uncertainties raised regarding a log book and an error or two uncovered.) ......Regarding 'log' errors.... I've had pick ups and deliveries which were recorded by shippers and receivers on their paperwork in error.... and a log error may be easily assumed without determining if their clocks were fast or slow or correct or in error with Greenwich.

Another point in fact.... a truck driver is judged not only by whether he caused an accident but also by whether it was 'considered' avoidable in the absence of his 'cause'. He seldom has other witnesses to vouch for him.... Most people who see an accident are themselves in a hurry and don't wish delays or to be 'bothered'. Sometimes the driver of the vehicle that caused an accident is not involved and may be totally unaware that a sudden move initiated a series of avoidance measures which didn't pan out to avoid... but rather caused an accident by other vehicles nearby and behind.

I'm not taking this personally and realize you're not 'blaming' the truck driver... neither did you (the poster) assign blame nor did the story detail the accident itself: I just wished to explain to any who may read this that there is more to a truck drivers job and hazards which are legal than most people even realize. And a driver who is involved in a 'preventable' traffic accident may often kiss employment in trucking 'goodbye' and that with no or very short notice... and 'with cause' which makes unemployment bennies difficult to contest.... even a driver not charged nor considered the cause of an accident. (Notice to all, when moving around a big truck on the road.... If you can't see the driver's face in hismirrors... then it is likely he can't see you . If you follow too closely, he doesn't know you're there unless he sees the shadow of your vehicle or the lights of it at night. If you about to miss an exit that you happen to see just as you clear the left front wheel of a big rig.... for your life's sake and the sake of that driver DON'T suddenly take off and move in front to have to slow down suddenly to make the exit..... You'll get creamed if that driver can't slow or stop in time! And if you're sharing the highway with a truck.... and that truck is trying to merge or giving a signal to get near an exit lane.. give him a break and let him in. A professional driver will not signal without intention.
----------
Regarding your 4th point.... I couldn't agree with you more. The whole system stinks when laws and contracts are written so complex that it takes a lawyer or a team of attorneys to clarify: When attorneys get such high percentage: When it takes a high settlement or persons with lots of money to get legal representation: When the structure of our legal system.... though maybe one of the best in the world... requires the poor to get representation by an attorney who is an 'officer of the court' and whose pay comes through the same sources as the judge's and the prosecutor..... but I guess this is immaterial to this OP, lol.

I do think her attorney was lousy in his discovery processes in which he should have known or anticipated recovery of the medical expenses already paid by the insurance company: I think the insurance company should assume some of the cost of litigation for recovery in the original suit. I also think that the state of mental disablity disqualifies any judgement regarding what the WalMart employee understood at the time of signing up for insurance... and the time she and her familly assisting her sought legal representation. And it is bad PR for Wally: There maybe an agenda behind the publicity.... but I see a possible manipulation of the market as a motive for media interest as opposed to political.

 

I would love to, however, since Wal-Mart has shut down all the other stores I would have to drive 70 miles round trip to shop someplace else. With the price of gasoline, that is not an option.

On the insurance payback. I have paid more in insurance premiums than I will ever get back...

 

Windcatcher,

No offfense to truck drivers was intended at all. My future son-in-law drives for Fed-Ex and he is one of the safest drivers I've ever known. And as an industry, in considering how many miles are driven, Truckers do an unbelievable job.

That doesn't change the problem I laid out. When something does go wrong - and drivers do go to sleep, lose their concentration, hit spots of black ice, etc., $1mil often will not begin to cover the damages they cause.

And I wholeheartedly agree regarding the ambulance chasing lawyers. They know that with the cost to defend a lawsuit, regardless of the facts involved, it's cheaper for the insurance company to settle than to fight it in court. I think one of the best things that could happen for America is for people who file personal injury lawsuits and can't prove their case, they should be held responsible for the other party's legal cost in defending the suit.

We have the same problem in Arkansas with personal auto liability insurance. The state only requires that you carry $25,000 bodily injury and $15,000 property damage. In my driveway are 4 cars, and 2 of them are worth more than $15k. So I have to make sure I carry under-insured motorist coverage, because if I get hit there's a good chance the person who hits me won't have enough insurance to cover the cost of my vehicle. And if you know anything about medical cost, an ambulance ride and two asprin and you $25k is pretty much gone.

So again, sorry to offend a trucker, that wasn't the intent.

 

You can always get your gas at Walmart.. (here it is the cheapest) AND THEN drive the 70 miles to another store!!! hehehe:laugh:

 

Fair enough. And if this is a bad PR move, they will pay with $$. It just seems like it was becoming a moral/political issue, rather than a PR issue.

 

AMEN!!!! - Praise God! I just heard the wonderful new 15 minutes ago on CNN. How wonderful to hear Jim Shank give praise to our Lord Jesus and to see God at work in this whole sorry mess. WM has just gone up 3 notches in my estimation. They did the right thing!! And many thanks to the reporter who broke this story in the first place, Randi Kaye, from CNN - a job well done. I will be writing WM to tell them they have my admiration for stepping up to the plate.

:godisgood: :applause:

 

I'm glad to hear this. Considering that most lawsuits of this type are not for the immediate and emergency care.... but are intended for the continued medical care of health complications introduced by the accident which might not have occurred w/o it..... WalMart did the right thing. Considering that health care or attendant care is so high.... I seriously doubt that the amount awarded is much more than a cup to a bucket of need.

May God bless this family and continue to hold it together.... and make provisions.

 

So will the media now turn its attention to the lawyer who confiscated more than half the money awarded for her care, or do they get a free pass?

 

No, they get a free pass. Don't hold your breath for CNN to do a story on him/her.

 

I worked in the subrogation/recovery side of health insurance for about 4 years while i was in seminary and what happened here with Walmart is legal, though unpopular due to the health plan contracts.
This first of all shows how important it is for people to read and try to understand policies and contracts before signing them. Yes, i know they are full of legal mumbo-jumbo, and that is why you need to ask questions. In fact if you have some sort of health plan covering you chances are there will be a right of subrogation or right of recovery spelled out in it.

Next, believe it or not, this actually benefits the members and subscribers of the health plans because with the ever rising costs of health care this does allow the plan to recoop some of what they spend in hopes of keeping the out go a little more even with the income.

Finally, this families lawyer is the most to blame IMHO because they should have let their client know that when they would take 33% for settling or 40% for going to court...they would also have to allow for the health plan's recovery in that also. They contacted the health plan for the bills, and when they did that they should have also also also requested a copy of the health plan contract to make sure there was or was not some sort of subro/recovery clause in their.

I do feel sorry for this family, and by no means sympathize with Walmart...but they are in the right here.

 

I wonder if Wal-Mart is self insured?

I don't believe I ever read about it one way or the other.

 

Yes it is legal. However legal does not necessarily mean it is ethical or moral.

 

I admit I did not read the original story and only purused the thread...but do you mean it is both ethical and moral for someone to be reimbursed twice for the same claim (which, of course has nothing to do with lawyers, lawsuits, court costs, etc.)? That is the gist of what I am getting out of this unless I have misunderstood something.

 

You pretty much have the story correct. The lady was injured in an accident and incurred several thousands of dollars in medical bills, which her insurance company (Wal-Mart) paid her for. Then she sued the trucking company and was paid again for the same medical bills. She now gets to keep both.