Say Anything Blog

I think that’s for the best for Walmart.  They get enough bad press without working to make it worse.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Well duh-uh…

This is what happens when someone in middle management talks to accounting, who talks to legal, but doesn’t pass it higher up to that part of management that handles Business Good Will and PR.

The VP-in-Charge-of-F*cking-up should have his or her a$$ handed to them, or at least be given a blue WalMart vest and assigned to midnight shelf restocking.

This has given Wally-world a black eye in the eyes of the public. 

Folks will get over it, of course, but the nagging little memory will be there whenever they get asked whether they think WalMart is a good local citizen or just a greedy mega-corporation.

...for great justice

Will Walmart give up its legal right to collect in cases like this and extend it to all employees?

I doubt it.

I agree with The Whistler.  I think WalMart made a wise decision in this case.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

WalMart Did the Right thing

It is only considered “the right thing” because Wal Mart is a HUGE company. Wal Mart paid for this woman’s care, but she sued the Trucking company and got a huge settlement over the accident that left her paralyzed. Her attorney knew that the appropriate course of action under Wal-Mart’s policy was to reimburse them out of the settlement.

If this had been a small employer, we’d sympathize with them for trying to get back massive amounts of money they’d spent. After all, part of the settlement she got was over medical bills that WALMART PAID FOR HER.

Only because it’s the big, evil, faceless Walmart are we pretending that this is some massive injustice. While it’s easy to sympathize with the family, reading about this...it’s clear that the attorney for this family succeeded in defrauding Wal-Mart of 400,000 dollars. The nice thing to do would be to force HIM to pay back every penny to Wal-Mart. Hopefully they go after the dishonest scum.

Exactly what was their justification for taking money from this woman? She was injured by a trucking company employee, how was WalMart in line to et the money from that settlement? Something is off center here.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

It’s fairly simple, Walmart paid for this lady’s medical bills.  She sued the trucking company for said medical bills.  According to the insurance contract she was required to reimburse Walmart for what she recovers.

The greedy party here was the lawyer who took a huge chunk of money.

Walmart is out, what several hundred thousand dollars.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Oh, put the government in charge of health care and see if they just write the debt off.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

WalMart’s health insurance arm had the legal right to collect the money from this unfortunate womans lawsuit.
WalMart’s 100 million customers look at the outcome and wonder how heartless are these bastards?
Walmart ‘s 1.3 million employees look at this and wonder is this what I am paying for with my heath insurance dollars?

Will my health insurance confiscate whatever settlement I get from a catastrophic accident and leave me like this women brain damaged , unable to speak, walk and penniless? What am I paying for?

It may be totally legal.
The public sees it as morally, reprehensibly, wrong.

It may be totally legal.
The public sees it as morally, reprehensibly, wrong.

Walmart backed off, are you going to demonize the lawyer now?

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

WalMart’s 100 million customers look at the outcome and wonder how heartless are these bastards?

WOOF,

So now you are the self-appointed spokesman for WalMart’s 100 million (?) customers?  That’s pretty presumptuous… even for you!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Happy to demonize the lawyer if he did not tell his client that whatever money she was awarded for medical care would would go back into Walmart’s pockets minus his fees. What was her other choices?

Did the atty do his job well?
He won the case.

Could he have done better?
Don’t know.
Courts have strange rules.

Is $700K- fees a lot of money when you are totally and permanently disabled?
No.

Bat
You can stand on the Ramparts in Bentonville and try and defend the legality of Walmart taking the money.

Walmart’s executives are already down the hill selling pitchforks to the mob.

Yeah WOOF, about 50 million of them stood on their TV trays and shouted “Damn that woman and her dead soldier son, Wal-Mart deserves to keep the money!”

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Let me get this straight. She was injured, her employer’s insurance covered her medical bills, her family sued the trucking company for 100 of thousands of $ for her medical bills, and are now refusing to pay her medical bills. That about cover it?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Yeah WOOF, about 50 million of them stood on their TV trays and shouted “Damn that woman and her dead soldier son, Wal-Mart deserves to keep the money!”

Wal-Mart hating nutters crack me up!

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Let me get this straight. She was injured, her employer’s insurance covered her medical bills, her family sued the trucking company for 100 of thousands of $ for her medical bills, and are now refusing to pay her medical bills. That about cover it?

If you like to make stuff up, sure.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

2h9: not quite.  The settlement was supposed to be for ongoing care needed by the plaintiff, and Wal-Mart sued for more money than the plaintiff actually received--an amount which basically would bankrupt a family that was genuinely in need through no fault of their own.

In other words, the world’s largest retailer has just told the world that they’ll sue one of their own employees into bankruptcy--even one who is completely disabled--if they can find a suitable legal pretext.

Wal-Mart hasn’t done right yet.  They need to fire everyone involved in suing this poor family, pay the Shank family’s legal bills, and issue a heartfelt apology.  It also wouldn’t hurt if they helped file disbarment papers against the attorneys who helped them.

Yes, I’m serious here.  Just because you CAN do something legally doesn’t mean it’s the RIGHT thing to do, and any attorney worth his salt--or anyone in a cubicle or office anywhere processing the forms--ought to know that it is fundamentally morally WRONG to bankrupt innocent, helpless people.  Heads need to roll here.

No.

That about cover it?

Walmart insurance paid her medical bills.
Walmart sued to be reimbursed from her settlement with the trucking company involved in the accident.

Legally Walmart is entitled to the $$$.
Morally , it was a PR disaster for WalMart, so they folded.

Oh, and by the way; the new article states that the award was actually $700,000, of which $417,000 went to the injured party.  So the plaintiff’s lawyer took only about 40%, and when you consider you need to hire expert witnesses and such, that’s very typical.

I agree with BB.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

There’s a new Super Wal-Mart just a couple miles from my office. I went there for the first time a couple of days ago, and I saved a lot of money!
rbb and WOOF have convinced me! I need to go there more often!

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

So, companies are now required to take massive losses because people don’t like how it looks if they seek reimbursement? Really?

Sorry to twinkle on your wheaties, insurance companies do this to people every single day. And they use the 1000s of lawyers clamoring to do it for them. At a substantial profit to said lawyers and insurance companies.

Take WalMart off the story and everyone would have a totally different opinion. They would still feel bad for the woman. Hell, she is getting the sh t end of the stick. How is that WalMart’s fault. It appears to be the fault of the trucking company and its employee. WalMart did the right thing in the first place, and now they are getting screwed. She was not even at work when this happened. Again, how is this WalMart’s fault?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Thank you for supporting American manufactures, poof.

A Billon Chinese say, hi.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Imagine the free good pub the Wal Mart folks pissed away by not doing the right thing by this poor woman who lost her son in Iraq. Ya know her brain injury has caused her to lose short term memory? She asked about her son every day and every day he dies again.

Good job Wal Mart.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Ok, boob. Name for us a national retailer who sells all American made products. Lets hear it.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

And more emotional coercion. That is so American.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2H9, I’d be picking on ANY corporate entity that tried to sue an innocent and disabled former employee into the poorhouse.  It just happens that one of the chief victimizers happens to be Wal-Mart.

So yes, I’d agree; prosperous entities are NOT entitled to take their pound of flesh out of the hides of the poor, especially when the poor haven’t done anything to deserve it.

Is that such a difficult moral analysis?

I went there for the first time a couple of days ago, and I saved a lot of money!
rbb and WOOF have convinced me! I need to go there more often!

Exactly Proof.  That’s why I go to WalMart.  It saves me money.  They are demonized by the liberal media which I think is kinda stupid.  If you don’t like how their employees, then don’t shop or work there and quit bitching.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

BB:

So the plaintiff’s lawyer took only about 40%, and when you consider you need to hire expert witnesses and such, that’s very typical.

So is seeking reimbursement from lawsuits.  Walmart provided hundreds of thousands of dollars of help.  The lawyer is out of pocket maybe 30K. 

You can’t demonize the one without demonizing the other.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Oh the difference is that Walmart thought better of what they were doing for whatever reasons.  I hope you guys go after the greedy lawyer now that you’ve won over Walmart.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Ahhhh So if I understand this correctly, WalMart paid her medical bills.  So she gets some money from them.

Second, her attorney sues a truck company.  Gets money from THEM.

I suppose the law says it is wrong to collect twice for the same injury?

If that is the case, WalMart wanted what it paid back, since the injured made that much—and more we presume—in the truck company settlement.

Further, that there is an employee benefits provision in the contract of employment that says they can recoup their losses if you win a settlement?

The lawyer made how much?

Daaayy-yyum.  I’m in the wrong line of work.

WalmartWatch? A Handshake with Sam?

Sheesh...a web site dedicated to the oversight of one company.

Unbiased, I’m sure.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

Whistler, certainly you can point a finger here at one and not the other.  The lawyer received a well earned paycheck for helping his client get the funds she needed to live a 10% normal life after a brutal accident.  Wal-Mart’s lawyers used a small clause in the fine print of the insurance contract to try to take that away from her.

There is no moral equivalence whatsoever.  One is providing to the poor what they would not have had otherwise, the other is taking from the poor what they would have had otherwise.  Disbar the Wal-Mart lawyers who did this.  If you wanted to prove that lawyers are out to screw people, you could do little better than this.

Just because you CAN get someone to sign a contract with a clause like this doesn’t mean it’s RIGHT to enforce that clause and send someone to the poorhouse.

BB,

The lawyer received a well earned paycheck for helping his client get the funds she needed to live a 10% normal life after a brutal accident.

The lawyer, neglecting to his research thoroughly, should have informed his client that this all to common practice of subrogation was in play. Hardly “well earned”.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

There is no moral equivalence whatsoever. 

Right, Walmart pays out hundreds of thousands of dollars to the lady and the Lawyer takes hundreds of thousands of dollars FROM the lady.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Sally: please.  Do you want to live in a world where every tort action needs to take into account every bit of small print on everything the client has been forced to sign?  Or, put differently, do you want to see a world where billion dollar judgments are issued without the victim seeing one red cent?  That is, more or less, what would happen.

Whistler; Wal-Mart’s “contribution” here is only what they had agreed to (in the large print, not the small print) a priori, and had there been no fault found with the semi company, they would never have had any cause for action.

I would have had no problem if Wal-Mart had sued the trucking company for damages, or joined in the suit with their employee and split the proceeds.  I do object to them siccing their legal department on the “little guy,” though, especially in that the little guy didn’t do anything wrong.

Again, there are things that at least appear to be legal, but are so immoral, those who engage in them should be removed from the legal profession posthaste.  This is one of them.

BB,

Walmart was bullied into this settlement by a group of people intent on disseminating information to the detriment of corporations everywhere.

Little has been published about the Shanks and the exact nature of the terrible accident, but to single-out Walmart or their insurance underwriter is intrinsically unfair. They made the initial settlement apparently without delay or quarrel.

The Shanks would not have been left bankrupt regardless; they receive somewhere in the order of $400K from the insurance and an additional $400K from the suit. The judge ruled that Walmart could recuperate only what was left of the original settlement.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

She collected fees from the trucking company for medical expenses.

Walmart PAID the medical expenses.

In this case Walmart was wise to back off, but in other cases you’d have the person able to double collect for medical bills.

Suppose she had made a full recovery and gotten paid for her medical bills.  Should she keep the money as a reward.  No it should go to the person who actually paid for the care.

do you want to see a world where billion dollar judgments are issued without the victim seeing one red cent?

If that’s a concern to you you should be after limiting contingency fees lawyers charge to the most vulnerable among us.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Again, there are things that at least appear to be legal, but are so immoral, those who engage in them should be removed from the legal profession posthaste.  This is one of them.

You’re talking about her blood-sucking lawyer as well as Walmart’s bloodsucking lawyers?

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Sally: please.  Do you want to live in a world where every tort action needs to take into account every bit of small print on everything the client has been forced to sign?

Forced to sign!!

No, I prefer to live in a world where I shake the hand of the banker who issues me a loan and I promise to pay him back. Unfortunately that world doesn’t exist anywhere I’m aware of; contracts are part of the universe that the less-than-reliable have placed us.

… do you want to see a world where billion dollar judgments are issued without the victim seeing one red cent?

Now that’s a world I and I’m sure you are familiar with; thanks to John Edwards and his ilk.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

Suppose I get in an accident and the family truckster is totaled.  I turn it over to my insurance company and they pay me what it’s worth.

In a separate action I sue the other guy who was at fault.  I get a settlement from him including the damage he inflicted to the truckster.

I’m not entitled to keep that money, it belongs to the insurance company. 

Now this lady’s situation is much much tougher, but the legal principle is the same.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Let’s go back to reality a bit here:

1.  The settlement was for medical expenses going forward.

2.  Wal-Mart tried to recover more than the family received in the settlement--it was the judge, not anyone at Wal-Mart, that told them they could only recover what had actually been awarded.

3.  The victim would have had no access to the courts without contingency, and 40% is a standard amount.  To argue that the lawyer isn’t entitled to his pay is to argue that the woman shouldn’t have received ANY money after her injuries.

4.  Again, the settlement was for future medical costs, and Wal-Mart sued to recover past medical costs.

In other words, Wal-Mart was trying to sue this woman’s entire family into the poorhouse, and at a time when they can do little to take care of themselves.  That’s vile. 

The Scriptures speak of the rich perverting justice, giving little doubt that a special place in Hell is reserved for those who abuse the poor this way.  Wal-Mart deserves every bit of the vitriol that’s been coming their way, and they need to hand out some pink slips to those of their managers who were involved.

I would think Walmart would have a claim against her because she neglected to sue for past costs as well.  She has a duty in the contract to support their subrogation rights. 

I suppose it’s the family’s lawyer that didn’t think of it, or perhaps thought suing for future medical bills was a good idea. 

Perhaps the family can sue the lawyer for malpractice and recover some of his ill-gotten gains.

In other words, Wal-Mart was trying to sue this woman’s entire family into the poorhouse,

They wouldn’t have been in as bad a shape if their lawyer wouldn’t have hosed them.

You say 40% is standard, well so is subrogation.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

The Scriptures speak of the rich perverting justice,…

I believe they also speak of not bearing false witness.

Where did you get the idea that Walmart was trying to get back more that what was originally awarded?  Simply not true.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

The Scriptures speak of the rich perverting justice, giving little doubt that a special place in Hell is reserved for those who abuse the poor this way.

You really do hate that greedy lawyer that negotiated an outrageous settlement just because “everyone does it.”

Here these people were hurt and confused and he took advantage of them.

On the other hand Walmart had their contract in their hands when they were happy and healthy and had plenty of time to look it over.  If they didn’t like the coverage they could have shopped around at anytime.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

This…

Let’s go back to reality a bit here:

...is condescending.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

2H9, I’d be picking on ANY corporate entity that tried to sue an innocent and disabled former employee into the poorhouse.  It just happens that one of the chief victimizers happens to be Wal-Mart.

They’re not VICTIMIZING anyone. This woman was not at work. Walmart paid the bills for an employee that was badly injured. Later the family sued the trucking company for medical bills, which did indeed include past care.

The family was awarded a million dollars. After legal fees were paid they had 417k left. That’s more than 50% in legal fees, which is NOT standard. Walmart was more than generous, and they deserve their money back.

So yes, I’d agree; prosperous entities are NOT entitled to take their pound of flesh out of the hides of the poor, especially when the poor haven’t done anything to deserve it.
Is that such a difficult moral analysis?

Which is why in my original analysis, and in Whistler’s subsequent ones, we offered the solution that the fees should be recouped from the lawyer, who admitted to knowing that the provision was in effect, but figured “after 3 years Walmart was going to let them keep it.”

This is Walmart trying to recoup a massive amount of money that they paid out, that the victim got in a settlement. This is not “a pound of flesh from innocent people” anymore than it is usury when a loan made in good faith needs to be paid back by “poor innocent people”. God, her story sucks. It’s terribly sad, and it is extraordinary. And it’s hard to listen to without an emotional reaction. But to demonize Wal-Mart is beyond silly...it’s unethical.

The “they can take the loss” is not a righteous argument in any way, shape, or form.

You’re arguing that a paralyzed woman who can’t remember what she had for lunch yesterday is guilty for not including all the fine print in all the legal contracts to which she was subject, Whistler?  Say what? 

Or maybe that everyone should have a full list of absurd subornment clauses so that we can increase the complexity of every tort action by a few orders of magnitude and thus increase the standard % for the lawyer from 30-40% to about 90%?

Maybe that way we can ensure that victims don’t get squat, even when the court awards a couple of billion dollars to them? 

Now Sally, you might do well to actually READ the article.  It clearly indicates that Wal-Mart was trying to get more than the family had.  Boldface is mine to make the job easier.

Shank, 52, lost much of her memory and ability to communicate or walk in a crash between her minivan and a tractor trailer in May 2000. Her family sued the trucking company and won $700,000. Court records show that after attorney’s fees and costs, the remaining $417,477 from the settlement went into a trust to care for Shank.

The fund now has about $270,000, the family said.

Shanks’ health insurance was through Wal-Mart, where she worked nights stocking shelves. After the Shanks won their lawsuit, Wal-Mart sued the Shank family to recover medical costs totaling about $470,000.

In other words, Wal-Mart was trying to sue for $200,000 more than the family had from the settlement--more when you count the legal costs that the family had incurred fighting this absurd, immoral act.

Sally, it’s only condescending because you apparently didn’t bother to read the article and read the facts of the case.  Thus, you needed to be brought back to reality.

Kenny, exactly why are you arguing that demanding over $200k more than a family had is somehow a moral act?  So failing to get an award to account for every line of the fine print is somehow an excuse to take away this family’s home now?  Say what?

Let’s try this; if Wal-Mart wants to recoup their losses, they can sue the actual guilty party instead of bankrupting their employees.  They can work with their employees who are victims of negligence to get adequate resources to both pay medical bills.

If they decide to try and steal the home of disabled former workers, they lose my business, and hopefully that of millions of others.  Just because someone is an easy target, legally speaking, doesn’t excuse this abuse of the courts.

Kenny wrote

Walmart was more than generous, and they deserve their money back.

BullSht , the women paid for her insurance.
Walmart was obligated to pay, that’s not generosity.
Walmart had a right to get money back, it did not have an obligation to do so.

Now Sally, you might do well to actually READ the article.  It clearly indicates that Wal-Mart was trying to get more than the family had.  Boldface is mine to make the job easier.

Sally, it’s only condescending because you apparently didn’t bother to read the article and read the facts of the case.  Thus, you needed to be brought back to reality.

I’m trying hard not to resort to my proclivity to ad hominem attacks, you sexist twit.

Try READING your own post. Then sign up for a class in LOGIC.

Walmart, as aI pointed out and you illustrated sued to get back there original settlement…no more , no less.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

BB

You’re arguing that a paralyzed woman who can’t remember what she had for lunch yesterday is guilty for not including all the fine print in all the legal contracts to which she was subject, Whistler?

No I was saying at the time she went to work and joined Walmart’s health plan she was capable of reading the contract.

On the other hand the contract with HER lawyer was much more unfair as she did NOT have the capacity to read and understand the contract.

Of course Walmart has no relinquished their legal right to the proceeds of this money.  The greedy lawyer is (apparently) keeping what he got out of the poor lady.

How about you start calling on HER lawyer to help her out?

Wal-Mart was trying to sue for $200,000 more than the family had from the settlement--more when you count the legal costs that the family had incurred fighting this absurd, immoral act.

I thought she was awarded 700K.  OH yeah, her greedly lawyer took $330,000 of the money she needed for “future medical bills.”

And the guy didn’t even protect her from her other legal obligations. 

Maybe that way we can ensure that victims don’t get squat, even when the court awards a couple of billion dollars to them?

I think you’re more concerned the plaintiff’s lawyer gets the squat.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Well, Sally, I dare not call you a sexist twit.

Now try the math again; Wal-Mart sued for $470,000, while the family received only $417,477 three years ago, and has only $270,000 now.

Now, unless my math fails me, that means that Wal-Mart was demanding about $200k more than the woman had in her trust account, and about $60k more than she ever had. 

In other words, they were demanding not only the settlement, but also this couple’s house and everything else they owned.  And you guys are trying to tell me that this is somehow just?  Hello?

It’s truly amazing how someone with obvious intellect can read through an article and then make up their own facts.

Try to read and understand this:

The Shanks would not have been left bankrupt regardless; they receive somewhere in the order of $400K from the insurance and an additional $400K from the suit. The judge ruled that Walmart could recuperate only what was left of the original settlement.

That was a quote from two hours ago, does it appear to you the writer didn’t read the article?

Maybe you didn’t bother to look at where the passage came from; a web site devoted to the mischaracterization of Walmart policies. Their mandate is an amusing “A handshake with Sam”.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

I wonder if this lady had owed the US Governemnt $400,000.  Anyone think they would have just let it be?

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

If you wind up in a nursing home on medicare/medicaid and

owed the US Governemnt $400,000.

for your care.

The gov’t will take your house.

Now try the math again; Wal-Mart sued for $470,000, while the family received only $417,477 three years ago, and has only $270,000 now.

Good Start, Mr.Fibonacci.

Now add in the money she received from the suit with the trucking company. I think you’ll find, even with your limited computational skills, that the family will not lose everything they own.

Buy the way, your figure of $417K was not what she was originally awarded through Walmarts’ insurance plan; it was left from her suit with the trucking company.

Reading comprehension anyone?

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

The gov’t will take your house.

That’s my point.  For whatever reason Walmart decided to gift this lady several hundred thousand dollars.

For that it’s demonized, in fact certain participants here think they should go to a special place in hell.

The fact is they acted far better than any other parties in this matter, specifically their lawyer who seems not to have done a good job.  $700,000 for a permanent injury of that magnitude?

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Kenny, exactly why are you arguing that demanding over $200k more than a family had is somehow a moral act?  So failing to get an award to account for every line of the fine print is somehow an excuse to take away this family’s home now?  Say what?

You really suck at reading comprehension. And there’s little to your argument other than raw emotion.

The family got a large (almost 1 million dollar) settlement. They were supposed to pay Wal-Mart back out of that. The lawyers admits he knew it...but figured “since it had been three years, they’d let them keep the money”. Meanwhile, he took at least 50% from a family that was in dire straights.

My solution was simple:
Make the lawyer pay back Wal-Mart. He still comes out of the deal ahead. And since he was clearly trying to do wrong...HE, not the family, should be penalized for it. Unfortunately, there is no legal precident for that.

Let’s try this; if Wal-Mart wants to recoup their losses, they can sue the actual guilty party instead of bankrupting their employees.  They can work with their employees who are victims of negligence to get adequate resources to both pay medical bills.

Appeal to emotion. The “guilty party” under the law is the family. They didn’t repay the insurance company, as they were required to. The trucking company paid for what they did. Telling everyone to go after them is ridiculous. Why shouldn’t the nursing home go after the trucking company after the family can’t pay anymore? Maybe if the family doesn’t pay their rent, their landlord should go after the trucking company. I mean, after all, the family are just victims, and even if they don’t live up to their obligations...the landlord should go after teh REAL guilty party.

If they decide to try and steal the home of disabled former workers, they lose my business, and hopefully that of millions of others.  Just because someone is an easy target, legally speaking, doesn’t excuse this abuse of the courts.

It’s not abuse of the courts to go after money that is legally owed. There is no “stealing”, because the money is owed to Wal-Mart.

Replace Wal-Mart with the generic name of a family business and the entire story changes. A small business puts 400k out to help an employee. The employee then wins a near million dollar settlement. They refuse to pay back the family business because “life is hard”. That could bankrupt a small business. Or at the very least, cause severe financial problems.

So why is it acceptable to screw Wal-Mart? Because they’re BIG damnit. They can take the loss! Faceless corporate evil fascist Amerika! Take that!

What is there to either your argument, or the story, besides “These poor people have it rough! Wal-Mart wants their money (mumble mumble that the family actually owes mumble mumble)...HOW HEARTLESS! And anyone who disagrees just wants to see this poor family put out on the streets....WHY DO YOU HATE THE POOR DAMNIT? WHY DO YOU WANT THIS FAMILY TO DIE?!?

I think I’ll go buy something from Wal-Mart that I would’ve otherwize bought elsewhere.

BullSht , the women paid for her insurance.
Walmart was obligated to pay, that’s not generosity.
Walmart had a right to get money back, it did not have an obligation to do so.

Almost all insurance companies have a clause that exempts them from paying for your condition if someone else is as fault who is legally required to pay. In the same way that your car insurance won’t pay if the other person is at fault, if you are in a law suit with someone who wronged you...most insurance companies will just make you wait to win. Wal-Mart paid her expenses, and they would have accepted the loss if she hadn’t sued.

Pointing out they don’t HAVE to collect their money is downright moronic. Mortgage companies don’t HAVE to collect their monthly payments. They could just let it go. It would be stupid to do so, and they’d quickly go out of business. But they COULD.

Hell, for that matter, the shanks had the legal RIGHT to see the trucking company...but they didn’t have an OBLIGATION to do so.

Man, when you put it that way....it sounds REALLY stupid.

No it’s the law.

Pointing out they don’t HAVE to collect their money is downright moronic

Pointing out they don’t HAVE to collect their money is downright moronic

Yeah! And pointing out moronic things is WOOF’s job! Careful! Or he’ll call the shop steward on you!

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Yea! Don’t mess with his rice bowl, he’ll go all “Ted Turner” cannibal on ya.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Guys, this is appalling.  Let’s get some things straight;

1.  If lawyers couldn’t take cases based on a percentage of the proceeds, the poor and middle class would never be able to recover damages in court.  Again, do you want to live in a world where big companies and government knew they could have their way because they couldn’t be sued?  Not me.

2.  Lawyers’ fees are not, generally speaking, legally recoverable.  It is the man’s pay.  Do we want to set a precedent that we can confiscate a man’s pay because we think it’s too much? 

Consider what, say, some people working at Wal-Mart might do with that principle and YOUR pay, say if Obama or Hillebeast get elected.  You want that principle enshrined into law?  Not me.

3.  Hence, the proper number to speak of is not $700,000, but the $417,000 actually received by the family--and the $270,000 left today.  The court reminded Wal-mart, and would remind you all if you would only listen, that this was the recoverable amount.

Again, legal fees paid are NOT recoverable.  Deal with it.

4.  Wal-Mart’s insurance plan paid the doctors, not the family, Lying Sally.  It’s not like the family has 400 grand in the bank from this.

5.  Hence, Wal-Mart has known for a while that they are trying to recover more money than this family actually has. 

Now for those of you in Rio Linda, that means that they were knowingly trying to bankrupt a disabled former employee and her family.  For this, they deserve every bit of Hell that they get and more.

(if they want to recover damages, they can sue the trucking company that was responsible for the accident, not the victim)

And yes, so does government when they pull the same kind of stunt, though it’s worth pointing out that tax obligations aren’t exactly hidden in the small print like subornation clauses.

You’re making the case that the lawyers fee’s are legally his.  I’m saying Walmart is just as entitled to a recovery of the money they put out.

Once again everyone but Walmart is entitled to subrogation I guess.

So who profited on this accident?

Certainly not the lady or her family.

Certainly not the trucking company and their insurance company who had to pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars for one of their employee’s negligence. 

Certainly not Walmart who’s out hundreds of thousands of dollars they should be reimbursed for.

So who made out like a bandit?

The lawyer who profited SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.

Who are you portraying as greedy?

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Whistler, get it through your head; without their lawyer’s work, the family has nothing.  This is money well earned, and the courts are right to enforce the man’s right to his own money.

And I have no problem if Wal-Mart chooses to recover damages against the actual guilty party.  I just have a problem when they try to recover damages from the victim.

Is that so complicated?  The solutions y’all would choose would eviscerate the right of the poor and the middle class to defend their rights in court.  Do you want the guys in the big building down the road thinking they can have their way with you because you can’t afford the legal bills needed to stop them?

Lawyers deserve to be paid what they are worth, not all they can steal. The only people being immoral, greedy, and duplicitous in this are the lawyers, on all three sides, sucking up money like the blood from a dying baby. And you proudly defend them.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

4.  Wal-Mart’s insurance plan paid the doctors, not the family, Lying Sally.  It’s not like the family has 400 grand in the bank from this.

This is a futile argument on my part. If BB can’t read or more precisely comprehend what he’s reading, then I’m was