Don't blame the corporation, as someone who has read plenty or tort lawsuits that is common insurance plan to prevent the insured from receiving double benefit. When she won the lawsuit that money was to go to the insurance company. I would bet 9 out of 10 people with insurance have that same clause in your insurance.

If her lawyer is so concerned the why not sign over some of his 500k+ fee?

 

In fact assuming he was paid on contigincy, shouldn't his fee be adjusted downward because of this?

 

I agree with you. I feel that the attorney is part to blame.

If you want to look at the world with black and white goggles on I guess you are right. How about the simple fact that they have put thousands of mom & pop business who have families out of business over the past 25 yrs. That is enough for me brother.

 

Walmart didn't put thousands of mom and pop shops out of business, the American buyer did. We built this monster and now have to deal with it. 90 percent of consumers are always going to try to find a deal. Walmart has those deals so thats where they shop. It's really simple.

 

I personally don't shop at Walmart (mostly because of the crowds). They offer a wide variety of products at a decent price. With low paying jobs, gas at 3.25 a gallon and millions of people struggling to make it, why would you blame people for trying to save a buck by shopping there ?

If you want to look at the world with black and white goggles on I guess you are right. How about the simple fact that they have put thousands of mom & pop business who have families out of business over the past 25 yrs. That is enough for me brother.

 

Also, like I said earlier, if it werent Walmart, it would have been some other mom and pop shop expanding and growing out of control.

 

It's simply the American way when it comes to business. Make as much money as you can as quickly as you can. Expand when you have the opportunity.

 

I think a lot of people often forget that Walmart was once a mom and pop shop.

If her lawyer is so concerned the why not sign over some of his 500k+ fee?

 

In fact assuming he was paid on contigincy, shouldn't his fee be adjusted downward because of this?

 

 

Absolutely. :thumb:

 

Isn't the standard fee generaly around 33.3%? Regardless, that's a major chunk and I see no way the law firm recieves more than half of the settlement.

I need the following explained to me

Eight years ago, Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart's health and benefits plan. Two years after the accident, Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank's long-term care.

1,000,000 - legal fees= 417,000 ...legal fees = 583,000

Of all of this, this is the most disturbing aspect to me. Something has to be done about our legal system that allows this to happen. Plaintiff loses, defendant loses, and lawyer wins.

Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank's medical expenses and later sued for the same amount. However, the court ruled it can only recoup what is left in the family's trust.

The Shanks didn't notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart's health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit.

So the lawyer, who racked up 500,000+ in fees, failed to notice this when fighting for his suit. Could the Shanks sue the lawyer for neglecting this?

 

Let me say about Wal-mart. They defiantly are looking to cut cost. No question about it. And this looks bad from a public relations standpoint. But the other hand of the situation says that by recouping this money, that should have been accounted for in the lawyers law suit, they are helping to control the health insurance cost of ALL THEIR OTHER EMPLOYEES. I don't have a problem with this because it helps the group at large.

Sorry, but I don't see what Walmart did that was so wrong. Subrogation is a fact of life with insurance.

 

The family's attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money.

"We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to," Graham said.

 

"We assumed"......Maurice Graham is the one brain damaged....he is an idiot.

No complaining was being done while Wal-Mart was paying the bills! 400,000 plus it looks like. How many years at Wal-mart was she and how much did she pay in Ins? I agree about the legal fee's, if he's so concerned then do this case pro-bona. Its spelled out in Black and White and most Ins, that this will happen. These dollars are what "large companies" base their rates on. If they didn't do this then the cost will be picked up by the workers next year and the next and the next. It's not Wal-Mart falt it is the Ins. company they have.

I agree with you. I feel that the attorney is part to blame.

 

In fact, wouldn't it be "legal malpractice"? Shouldn't the attorney have been sharp enough to have read and noticed that clause?

In fact, wouldn't it be "legal malpractice"? Shouldn't the attorney have been sharp enough to have read and noticed that clause?

Exactly. If the damages sued and settled for were not enough to cover her care, she should have sued for more. And I'm totally disgusted if the attorney received more than the plantiff did. That's just plain wrong and greedy.

The family's attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money.

"We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to," Graham said.

 

"We assumed"......Maurice Graham is the one brain damaged....he is an idiot.

You know wht they say about "assume".

 

In fact, wouldn't it be "legal malpractice"? Shouldn't the attorney have been sharp enough to have read and noticed that clause?

:thumb: very possibly could be.

Exactly. If the damages sued and settled for were not enough to cover her care, she should have sued for more. And I'm totally disgusted if the attorney received more than the plantiff did. That's just plain wrong and greedy.

:thumb:

After reading the article over again and some of these post I tend to agree that the lawyer was a culprit here as well. I can certainly see what you mean.:thumb: There is plenty of blame to go around and Wal Mart certainly does not have "halo" around their head but the lawyer seems to be a snake and the insurance company bad as well.

I hate to say this and I know it's a horrible situation but why they shouldn't they have to pay back the money? They signed the health insurance policy, and it stated if they recieved court compensation then they had to pay back what the insurance paid. What's so wrong with that. YES, it's a horrible situation but it's not Wal-mart's fault. They are doing their job and the insurance company is just doing theirs. I feel for the family and what they are going through but if those insurance agencies gave sympathy for every family and everyone then they would have no money and their would be no health agencies. They are only doing their job, no reason to hate them over that.

I hate to say this and I know it's a horrible situation but why they shouldn't they have to pay back the money? They signed the health insurance policy, and it stated if they recieved court compensation then they had to pay back what the insurance paid. What's so wrong with that. YES, it's a horrible situation but it's not Wal-mart's fault. They are doing their job and the insurance company is just doing theirs. I feel for the family and what they are going through but if those insurance agencies gave sympathy for every family and everyone then they would have no money and their would be no health agencies. They are only doing their job, no reason to hate them over that.

 

Agreed policies like that keep insurance rates cheaper. It allows them to recoup costs when someone else negligently causes your injury, but they also protect you if the person that hurts you can't pay the bills. Had the person had no money to pay in a court ruling the insurance still would have covered the bill.

This is a good example of why everyone should read the contracts they sign. I'm guilty of not doing it myself, I scan, but often do not read it close enough.

 

As far as Walmart putting others out of business, check out the history of business.

Examples: Cars put wagon and carriage makers out of busines

Sears over 100 years ago put local businesses out of business

VCRs/DVDs put drive-ins out of business

The attorney may have been a tool but he wasn't the sharpest tool.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And on this note; I'm off to spring break.