Re: A brief description about the story of the Disabled person sued by Wal-Mart

i see her lawyer is just as much a scammer as walmart!!!

60% is retarded !!!!! 30% is more what i thought they could get when doing
a case like this- possibly one where the client pays nothing untill ''you
settle'' ,, lawyer will easily get folks to sign , when they start with
// - 'you pay nothing till you settle for millions''- most folks sign
away,, thinking its a great deal,,,

wow 60% to the lawyer,, ok,, can she not go back and sue him for
negligence??? or -uselessness,, but then again she would need a new lawyer-
who will work for free untill he takes 80% of her next award.

now if the 400k left is in a trust for her care?? how can walmart sue for
that cash?? or any,, isnt it court awarded as her trust for her long term
care???

is walmart now sueing for court awarded trust? for long term care,,, how can
they access this cash,?? makes no sense,,

i am sure with more publicity, walmart will save money by wiping this case
out,, the bad news reports will affect them maybe???

i NEVER shop at crapmart,,, i learned my lesson when i bought many many
items when i went on my own 3 years ago,, every thing i bought for cheapo
was a piece of ***, and i took ALL of it BACK for refund due to being
garbage workmanship and cheap crud ,, waste of cash,, if you need to buy
cooking pots every week due to the paper thing metal ,, that just burns a
grilled cheese,,,

i went for high end after this sad experience with walmart junk,,

my new pots costs hundreds but are guaranteed for life,,, and they actually
work,,

then walmart clothes,, they say we sell cheap for poor people to afford lots
of stuff, well its cheap and it does not last so poor people will come back
in a month to buy new clothes again cause all the walmart *** wont last a
week, on a kid!!!

then my microwave i got - opened it up and it was broken in box- the dial
to set time was not visible it was turned inside the machine, ??? nice
stuff,,

the can opener- broke first attempt at a can,
- the coffee machine?? 19 dollars, now i know why it was 19 dollars,,
i went with kitchen aid, 150 bucks,but perfect brew stainless steel water
tank, charcoal filter, gold basket, sure costs more, but it works for last
3 years perfectly and will keep working,,,

really they are rippin off poor folks that shop there,, buy cheap *** for
cheap but you need 12 of them to last 1 year,,, so,, it costs the exact same
if you buy quality items, made to last,,,

HOLY!!!! its snowing right now!!!! LOLO
anywho

walmart sucks,,, i will never spend a dollar there,,, ever,, again.

cheers
bobbyD

"Alex" <akfromak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:QMGdnZYgm78Q-nbanZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxx
bobbyD wrote:
seeking this money if within their rights, just explains the REAL issue
with
usa health care,,, costs , who must cover it, -you!!!

in canada the company you work for does pay any bill for hospital - your
medical insurance covers it,, they pay a premium for the entire
companies
insurance policy,, employees pay monthly off their cheques a monthyl
medical insurance premium,, 30 bucks??

so after your out of hospital walmart wont be sueing you for covering
costs, they wont have to ever pay,,

if your hurt at work-- the settlement is paid for by walmarts isurance
provider,, if you sue them,,, never out of walmarts pocket unless they
are
negligently involved with your injury.

cheers
bobbyD


The story is short on the necessary legal details, so I have to make a
few assumptions.

Your explanation of Canada's system is exactly how it works here, too.

However, the right of the insurance provider, to recover their costs in
the event that you recover damages, *is* a very common clause, in almost
all types of insurance, I think, here in the U.S.

I believe it is termed a 'subrogation' clause, which means that the
insurance company has the right to sue the person who caused the harm,
to recover their expenses. The catch is, of course, that they also
typically state that if the insured individual sues, the insurance
company has the right to recover its expenses from any award.

For those in the U.S., at least, take a good look at, not only your
health insurance, but auto & homeowners policies, as well. I'm willing
to bet that you will find that clause in every one of them.

If they were going through a third party insurance provider, Walmart
would have no standing, or legal right, to sue, as the payments would
have been from the insurance provider, not Walmart. Only an entity
suffering a loss has standing.

Would their premiums go up, as a result of the expense of treating this
woman? Probably, but that would not give Walmart, or any other
employer, the standing to sue.

Since it is Walmart doing the suing, I must assume that they are either
self insured, or that they set up their own insurance company, for their
employees. That is the only way, that I can see, that Walmart would be
able to be the one doing the suing.

Now, before I continue, don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting Walmart,
just trying to provide a little more insight, and some credit, where
credit is due, as they say.

Tempered with the thought that we don't know the case history of the
original lawsuit, I think that her lawyer really dropped the ball in the
original case. The fact that restitution for medical expenses paid by
the insurer could or would be required, should have been considered and
included in her lawsuit.

Either the lawyer didn't account for that possibility, or didn't pursue
it well enough in court. But that is his/her job, to look at all the
possibilities. I would think that any lawyer, with any amount of
experience in personal injury type cases, would be aware of the
possibility, and indeed, the probability, of the insurance company
wanting their money back, in the event of a successful lawsuit. As I
said, it *really is* a common clause.

In my opinion, and, granted, hindsight *is* 20/20, but, I think that the
lawyer should have discussed, with Walmart, as the apparent insurer,
whether or not they would seek to recover their costs, *prior* to filing
the lawsuit. At an *absolute* minimum, he should have looked over the
terms of the insurance policy, and taken note of that provision.

Now, I'm not so clear on this part, but, I *think* the reason that they
seek to recover from the insured individual, in a case like this, is
because the claims, against the responsible party, for that cause of
action, in this case, the auto accident, have been resolved.

I don't believe that Walmart *could* file against the trucking company.

Essentially, subrogation involves 'sharing' the right to sue. So that,
if you *do not* sue, then the insurance company can. But, if you do
sue, then the insurance company cannot turn around and sue them again,
over the same accident. They could join you, in your suit, or
vice-versa, but I don't believe they could file a *separate* suit.

If you claim and/or settle for less than the total of the medical
expenses, you, or the insurance company, can't go back and say, "Wait, I
forgot about this part!", and get more money from the responsible party.
Its a done deal, case closed.

Now, you might think that, well, I could sue for just my out-of-pocket
and future medical expenses. The catch is, though, that when you file a
lawsuit, you must bring forward *all* claims against that party, related
to that particular cause of action, or you lose them. You can think of
it as the civil version of the law regarding double jeopardy.

But wait, you say, what about my standing to sue for payments the
insurer made, if they don't join me in the suit? I didn't make those
payments, so how can I sue for them? The answer lies in that clause in
your insurance policy, that says they can recover their expenses from
any award you receive, that gives you the standing to sue for those
expenses.

Its one thing, for you or I to be surprised by something like this, but
its an entirely different matter, when it comes to lawyers. This should
be *no surprise*, to *any* civil lawyer, at all. They are the ones
getting *paid* to look for, and consider the implications of, these kind
of things.

Its not even something that would be specific to personal injury
lawyers, as it is really nothing more than simple contract law. Your
insurance policy is nothing more than a contract, between you and your
insurance company, that spells out the rights and responsibilities of
each party.

Speaking of paying the lawyer, according to this story at CNN.com:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/walmart.insurance.battle/

"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."

So, the award was ~$1 million dollars, but only ~$400K was placed in
trust, after the legal fees were paid? That implies that the lawyer got
somewhere in the neighborhood of *$600K*, or 60% of the award!

Now, I understand the concept of taking a case on contingency, but this
really shows how unbalanced that system really is, to the detriment of
the individual. Yes, they can get legal representation that they might
not otherwise be able to afford. But at what cost?

If we assume a rate of, say, $500/hour, then $600K in legal fees would
amount to 1200 hours of work on the case, if it were billed at an hourly
rate. That is, to say the least, a *very* large amount of time, in
terms of legal cases, from what I've observed. I've *no doubt* that the
lawyer spent *nowhere near* that amount of time on the case. Even
accounting for expert witness fees, etc., it still amounts to a *huge*
windfall for the lawyer.

It just goes to show, in my opinion, who the *real* winners and losers
are, in court, and its *not* the people being represented.

Yes, the lawyer took a risk, I'm assuming, by taking the case on a
contingency basis, but, there is no *requirement* for lawyers to do so.
As I understand the system, you are only guaranteed a lawyer in a
criminal case, and even then, only if *the court* determines that you
cannot afford one. There is no such right in a civil case, as far as I
know.

So, lawyers tend to be picky with contingency cases, they are only going
to take cases that they have a high level of confidence that they will
win, otherwise, they spend all that time for nothing. They just aren't
going to take a case, that they don't think they can win, on a
contingency basis. Perhaps on an hourly fee basis, but not contingency,
I just can't see that happening.

If I were in her shoes, I would be talking to a *different* lawyer,
about a legal malpractice suit against the original lawyer.

He/she either failed to do the necessary research, 'due diligence', or,
if a settlement occurred, settled the case for too little, knowing what
the split between the lawyer and the woman would be. He/she 'knew or
should have known', as the courts put it, that this outcome was a
distinct possibility, and, even probable.

But then, that raises the issue of fairness to the defendant, doesn't
it? In this case, they paid ~$1 million in damages. Should they have
been required to pay *more*, just because the lawyer took the case on
contingency, and will take a large portion of it for himself? I don't
think so.

In class action lawsuits, as well as bankruptcy proceedings, the court
must approve the lawyers' fees. I think that should be required when
any case is taken on a contingency basis, as well.

The claims and awards should be split, so that the injured party gets
the *full* amount of the award for their damages, and *reasonable* legal
costs, as determined by the court, are awarded to the lawyer,
separately. (Hint: 60% is *not* reasonable, in my book.)

Naw, that'd never work, would it? It would be fair to all parties
involved, and we *certainly* can't have that, can we? Nobody gets rich
by being fair, anymore, do they?

Ah, but, I digress.

So, although I think the Walmart action is despicable, given the
particulars of this case, her lawyer deserves a good share of the credit
for this situation, as well, as far I see it.

Just my opinion, though, and, I'm no lawyer, just an armchair law
junkie. ;-)

Alex


.

Quantcast