Taking advantage of someone w/ Brain damage... brilliant. NOT! This story was brought to my attention by Countdown. Walmart, shockingly , was the Worst person in the World for Mar 26th, 2008.
Tragic situation for the family, for sure. Here's the reality of it. They sued the trucking company and won $1M, and her lawyers took over $500K of that for their fees. Kill all the lawyers! She'd be able to pay off Wal-Mart, who rightly deserves the money, and still have $600K left if the lawyers took $0. She was sued and she lost. She appealed and lost. I bet the first case was tried in front of a jury, so they agreed with Wal-Mart. What does the jury know that the press isn't reporting? The bottom line is the lawyers should have sued for more than $1M (and accepted no less than enough) to account for their fees. So it's easy to blame Wal-Mart because they have deep pockets. But isn't the trucking company or the truck driver the one who caused the injury?
I'm not blaming Walmart for suing or for having deep pockets. What troubles me is Walmart's Ebeneezer Scrooge like mentality. If the company is worth, I believe, 11 billion then what is another $460,000 and why do they need to get it back? Bottom line; Walmart & the trucking company (Who IMO is ultimately liable) can write off the loss but where does it leave this poor lady?
Some key language from the Court's Opinion: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The written Plan in this case confers benefits on both parties. Shank contributed premium payments, plus a promise to reimburse the Committee for medical expenses in the event she was injured and received a judgment or settlement from third parties. In exchange, she received the certainty that the Committee would pay her medical bills immediately if she was injured. See Varco, 338 F.3d at 692; Cutting v. Jerome Foods, Inc., 993 F.3d 1293, 1298 (7th Cir. 1993). Nothing in the statute suggests Congress intended that section 502(a)(3)’s limitation of the Committee’s recovery to “appropriate equitable relief” would upset these contractually-defined expectations. Indeed, ERISA’s mandate that “[e]very employee benefit plan shall be established and maintained pursuant to a written instrument,” 29 U.S.C. § 1102(a)(1), establishes the primacy of the written plan. Therefore, we reject Shank’s assertion that the make-whole doctrine limits the Committee’s contractual right to recovery. <u>Shank </u>at 8</div> If anything, this sounds like her attorney screwed up and failed to do some math at some point.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (blackadder @ Mar 26 2008, 10:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not blaming Walmart for suing or for having deep pockets. What troubles me is Walmart's Ebeneezer Scrooge like mentality. If the company is worth, I believe, 11 billion then what is another $460,000 and why do they need to get it back? Bottom line; Walmart & the trucking company (Who IMO is ultimately liable) can write off the loss but where does it leave this poor lady?</div> Walmart is probably worth $200B, if not more. Wal-Mart is a business, not a charity, tho businesses do participate in charity type things. Their officers have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to maximize profit. That's how it is. What is important to them is to make the distinction of setting a precedent of blowing off the insurance regulations vs. being nice guys and writing a check they don't have to.
We know her attorney messed up in some fashion, but the bad publicity may have not been worth the trouble of going after this woman. I'd let her slide because of the negative intangibles that can occur.
Something that hasn't been stressed enough is the fact that the judgment in her favor included medical expenses in its sum. Should she be able to recover her medical costs twice?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 28 2008, 01:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Something that hasn't been stressed enough is the fact that the judgment in her favor included medical expenses in its sum. Should she be able to recover her medical costs twice?</div> I still wouldn't want more bad stories like this circulating on CNN if I owned Walmart. What's a couple grand to Randy Moss (allusion to funny quote), let alone Walmart? Heh. A small boycott could easily cancel out money they earned from this decision.
There are also federal laws at issue here, including ERISA. To put it another way, let's say that the court granted her damages that included medical fees - while her medical bills had already been paid. That would mean that a crucial part of the court's computation of damages was missing.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 28 2008, 01:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>There are also federal laws at issue here, including ERISA. To put it another way, let's say that the court granted her damages that included medical fees - while her medical bills had already been paid. That would mean that a crucial part of the court's computation of damages was missing.</div> Fine they win in court, but bad pub will still occur. I wasn't really talking about the legalities of the case, just the consequences of not acting charitable.
It doesn't have anything to do with charity. Why should she get paid for her medical bills twice over? That's the key question.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 28 2008, 08:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It doesn't have anything to do with charity. Why should she get paid for her medical bills twice over? That's the key question.</div> She shouldn't legally, but the media has already slanted this story against Walmart. If they gave out some extra medical coverage, no one would cry about it.
What assurance do we have that the media would bother to report the issue at all if she'd recovered both in court and had Wal-Mart pay her bills? I'd guess that it wouldn't merit even a puff piece.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 28 2008, 08:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What assurance do we have that the media would bother to report the issue at all if she'd recovered both in court and had Wal-Mart pay her bills? I'd guess that it wouldn't merit even a puff piece.</div> It stops the bleeding at least. The positive coverage can still come.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Mar 28 2008, 09:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 28 2008, 01:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>There are also federal laws at issue here, including ERISA. To put it another way, let's say that the court granted her damages that included medical fees - while her medical bills had already been paid. That would mean that a crucial part of the court's computation of damages was missing.</div> Fine they win in court, but bad pub will still occur. I wasn't really talking about the legalities of the case, just the consequences of not acting charitable. </div> And now, let's think out the consequences of being charitable. If you get a rep for being stingy in the first place, people call you names and think you're an asshole, but they stop asking. If you give in to everyone that asks... more people ask. It's pretty similar to the guy from the ghetto who "makes it". Now everyone he knows is popping out of the woodwork and asking for charity. Eventually he gets to the point of saying that if he's going to help out more people, it's going to have to come at the expense of someone else. If the kid that lived down the hall wants to be his driver, what's his cousin, who's already got that job supposed to do? Same thing with Wal-Mart. And of course, Wal-Mart in the big picture, Wal-Mart is already the nation's biggest corporate donor. It seems to me what this boils down to is blackmail. "Give me money or else I'll complain about how mean you are for not giving me money".
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Mar 29 2008, 12:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Mar 28 2008, 09:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 28 2008, 01:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>There are also federal laws at issue here, including ERISA. To put it another way, let's say that the court granted her damages that included medical fees - while her medical bills had already been paid. That would mean that a crucial part of the court's computation of damages was missing.</div> Fine they win in court, but bad pub will still occur. I wasn't really talking about the legalities of the case, just the consequences of not acting charitable. </div> And now, let's think out the consequences of being charitable. If you get a rep for being stingy in the first place, people call you names and think you're an asshole, but they stop asking. If you give in to everyone that asks... more people ask. It's pretty similar to the guy from the ghetto who "makes it". Now everyone he knows is popping out of the woodwork and asking for charity. Eventually he gets to the point of saying that if he's going to help out more people, it's going to have to come at the expense of someone else. If the kid that lived down the hall wants to be his driver, what's his cousin, who's already got that job supposed to do? Same thing with Wal-Mart. And of course, Wal-Mart in the big picture, Wal-Mart is already the nation's biggest corporate donor. It seems to me what this boils down to is blackmail. "Give me money or else I'll complain about how mean you are for not giving me money". </div> Not everyone will be in this poor woman's situation.
I'm more interested in how the lawyers got > 50% of the settlement. Maybe the pressure should be on them to cough up $400K of the $500K+ they kept from the settlement with the trucking company to re-fund the woman's trust fund.
^ The professional ethics rules demand that lawyers obtain informed consent... which can lead to massive paydays like this.
