Wal-Mart Wins Suit Against Brain-Damaged Woman

I think they do have an ERISA plan.

 

Some will question whether or not the health isurance industry in the US is ethical or moral to begin with.

 

It disgusts me that anyone could be so unfeeling and uncaring. Those people need that money for her medical expenses, and a greedy company that already has billions wants their money back when she's entitled to it.

 

I thought they dropped the suit?

Wal-Mart Drops Lawsuit

 

Perhaps I should have included that I understood the current use of the money, which has nothing to do with whether the family received two payments for the same claim. Personally, I believe Walmart can certainly afford to lend a helping hand. I also believe the family needs the money for these ongoing expenses. But I take exception to the claim that it is "moral" and "ethical" to file and recieve two claims for the same set of expenses.

For instance, I cannot file an automotive insurance claim against both my insurance and the insurance of the other vehicle owner. If I file against my insurance, my insurance company will attempt to recoup their losses from the other individual (their insurance or them personally) if they were at fault. I can choose to file against the other person and not involve my insurance at all. However, I am not aware of being able to get claims from both companies. I have always assumed that all other insurance is the same unless the policies specifically allow such claims. Those double claims will usually only pay the differences. In other words, one policy pays the bulk of the claim as primary, the other policy pays the unpaid deductibles, etc. that the first claim missed as secondary.

Now perhaps we are dealing with one health policy and one automotive policy. I don't know how that works and that is the area of my possible misunderstanding. However, a general claim of what is "moral" and "ethical" when it borders on fraud is questionable.

 

The only way Wal-Mart could have won the lawsuit is if the money was awarded for the damage caused in the accident, which Wal-Mart insurance had already paid for. If the money was awarded for future expenses, Wal-Mart couldn't have claimed any part of it. What the family says they are using the money for is not part of the argument, it's what did the judge/jury say the money is being given for. And obviously, it was given for medical expenses the family had already been reimbursed for.

 

What does how much money Wal-Mart has have to do with what's right or wrong? And if it does, where does the line get drawn and who gets to draw it? What if Wal-Mart only has millions instead of billions? Or what if instead of millions it's just a few hundred thousand? Does right and wrong change when you add zeros? What if she worked for a mom and pop store instead of Wal-Mart? Should the small business owners be held to the same standard as Wal-Mart with regards to giving up a couple hundred thousand dollars out of the goodness of their heart to help the woman and her family? Some of you probably have some extra cash laying around. Has anybody here tracked down this family's address and sent them a love offering? Surely someone here has extra just like Wal-Mart, the only difference would be the number of zeros at the end.