Wal-mart really is evil.

[AAAhmed46]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ-vHqx-V-A

See for yourselves what they are doing.

Disgusting.


Wal-mart sues disabled woman.

[AAAhmed46]

On the devil's advocate position, it's actually pretty standard practice to recoup medical expenses from a settlement. I didn't watch the whole vid but I would lean towards saying that her lawyer was at fault more than Walmart for not outlining that to them and allowing for it in the settlement claim.

[Gene DeMambro]

I was thinking the same thing. Imagine a lawyer, in his closing argument:

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, as you deliberate the compensation due to my client, an innocent victim, please also know that her employer and her insuracne company, who have paid my clients medical bills and provided her care, as also entitled to recoup their costs. You have seen the medical records, and you will have with you in the jury room the medical bills they have paid. Please consider that whatever figure you arrive at, my client's insurance company will be entitled for reimbursement out of your award"

I don't know if it would fly in court, but maybe, if the jury had known Wal-Mart was entitled to their reimbursement, the jury would have taken that into consideration.

Cheers,
Gene

[Bill Glasheen]

Amazing that Gene and I agree on this one...

This has been standard practice for generations. What's the big deal? Oh yea... CNN gets to beat up on a big, bad corporation. What a surprise! (NOT!)

It should be mentioned that Wal-Mart had an "ASO" health plan. That's insurance parlance for "Administrative Services Only" account. Wal-Mart puts their own money aside to cover the health care risk, and an insurance company does all the handling of claims, doctor and hospital networks in the plan, keeping track of plan membership and billing, etc. If this had been a fully-insured health plan (usually the case for smaller companies without the cash reserves to take the risk), then the health insurance company would have had the rights to those damages.

This woman's lawyer should have known. But no... He won the case and I'm betting he got his cut. He knew this woman might not get a dime of that award. The lawyer knows the law better than his client. So who is the bad guy here? Is CNN bashing that party? Of course not. Wal-Mart's got $50 Billion, and we need to redistribute that wealth! Can't you see the justice in that??

Wal-Mart must execute on the contract. Not to do so creates a precident that can be used against them later. It's the same as if someone violates your patent. If you don't defend it in a reasonable period of time, then you can't go after other parties violating that patent.

You could change the law on this, but I really don't think that would be for the public good.

This family could have had long-term care insurance which could have handled some of the rest of those bills, as well as some other types of insurance which would pay a percentage of her salary for the rest of her productive years. But they chose to fly without. Now the smartest thing they can do is what they are doing - divorce and let Medicaid handle the rest. You don't plan for a rainy day, so throw yourself at the mercy of the state. It's not pretty, but she'll at least get a minimum level of care.

That's what you get when you are insured at a minimum level. If this scares you - and it should - then talk with your insurance agent.

Also... check your employer's benefit choices each year. You can get some pretty generous options paid for with pre-tax dollars. Uncle Sam wants you to put money aside for a rainy day. I am wondering if this woman had options FROM WAL-MART to get long-term care insurance and salary compensation in case of an accident, and chose not to pay for that.

- Bill

[TSDguy]

That's absurd. Find any random person with AIDS or cancer and go demand money from some random corporation. Businesses with thousands of employees have plenty of money for everyone, and sick people need money.

[Gene DeMambro]

I wonder how often Wal-Mart and other employers using ASO plans do this? And I'm not bashing Wal-Mart, as it were - they just did what they are entitled to do. But I wonder if this could have been handled differently.

No evidence, Bill, that her lawyer did anything wrong in this case.

Cheers,
Gene

[Bill Glasheen]

I wonder how often Wal-Mart and other employers using ASO plans do this? And I'm not bashing Wal-Mart, as it were - they just did what they are entitled to do. But I wonder if this could have been handled differently.

I remember as a child being told by my father that this was common practice. He told me it was a good reason not to bother to sue if an insurance company was footing your medical care. Unless you can get punitive damages that are an order of magnitude more than the medical damages, then forget about it.

No evidence, Bill, that her lawyer did anything wrong in this case.

Who would be better at doing something that was unethical, but perfectly legal?

- Bill

[JimHawkins]

Who would be better at doing something that was unethical, but perfectly legal?

- Bill

I don't know all the numbers but ditto for Wall-Mart and their attorneys..............

The right thing to do is clear in this case <help the victim> in my book and a smart company will factor in the PR cost/benefit of such actions if not the human cost/benefit.

[Bill Glasheen]

The right thing to do is clear in this case <help the victim> in my book and a smart company will factor in the PR cost/benefit of such actions if not the human cost/benefit.

I know I won't convince you otherwise, Jim, which is fine. People have their opinions.

Personally I think what happened is a good idea. Why? It discourages the petty lawsuits. If the case was that strong, there would have been more damages awarded. But that didn't happen, did it? So in the end, the only winners are the lawyers and the party that had to pay for the medical expenses.

I have no problem with people choosing not to save for the future or buy insurance of various types to protect themsevles in case of a rainy day. But we live with the consequences of our choices. And that's not a bad idea.

- Bill

[JimHawkins]

If the case was that strong, there would have been more damages awarded. But that didn't happen, did it?

Do we need to look at a number to inform us of the magnitude of 'damage' done to a family?

Are we so immersed in a capitalist's view of corporate rights that compassion for a victim of a horrific accident is seen as poor taste?

IMO doing the 'right thing' publicly now and again can also be a plus for a company, even in terms apathetic bean counters can understand.

[Bill Glasheen]

Do we need to look at a number to inform us of the magnitude of 'damage' done to a family?

It isn't a matter of damage done to the family. It's a matter of the degree of negligence of the other party.

Sometimes schit happens. Why is it so necessary to sue somebody - particularly when the medical expenses were already covered?

IMO doing the 'right thing' publicly now and again can also be a plus for a company, even in terms apathetic bean counters can understand.

It isn't Wal-Mart's money; it's the shareholder's money. They invested in the company, and they are entitled to a return on their investment. That money doesn't belong to someone else just because they want it. That money is in the portfolio of a lot of average peoples' retirement accounts.

Public relations certainly is a reasonable approach to consider. But don't count on it with Wal-Mart. They are in a very bloody battle with their competitors in the retail sector. The margins in this business are quite slim, and lately there are more losers than winners. Ask K-Mart. Ask any mom & pop store.

- Bill

[IJ]

This is a false choice:

1) Steal the money from Wilma's retirement plan after she worked for Walmart all her life
2) Take the money from the brain injured woman's winnings so her kid can't go to school and has more time to sit around thinking about his dead 18 year old brother.

Because all of the WalMart execs make a trillion dollars and they can just put the 470k or whatever back in the retirement fund just by collecting the 0.00000000001% of their piles of money that evaporates every hour. I'm not talking about their interest on their money for an hour, she doesn't need that much. I'm just saying: give her the money vapor. They could put a little vaccum collection hood over the pile and use some solar panels to drive the reconstitution process and then the injured woman would have plenty of money left over and WalMart would get a PR victory instead of a loss AND the executives won't even miss it because they have more money than they or their children can ever dream of spending.

They might feel compelled to do so because WalMart has such a high fraction of part time workers. This isn't a random event. The more fulltime you have the more bennies you pay out, and WalMart is able to reduce costs by buying in bulk from China AND by minimizing their healthcare payments, effectively shifting them to you and me, because we pay taxes and those uninsured workers get care somewhere.

Also the executives' kids don't have to go get killed in Iraq.

Just a suggestion.

[Bill Glasheen]

In the end, isn't this just a convenient rant? Politics by anecdote?

Maybe we should do science that way! Like... THAT never happens!

Sorry, Ian, but I'm not feeling the love here. I know how it works. I remember example after example where - while working for a BCBS plan - we had sob stories make it on the news. We knew the truth because we had all the medical information. But by HIPAA laws (and out of common decency) we had to keep our mouths shut to protect the person's PHI. Meanwhile, we were put on trial in the media with half the truth (and a few mis-truths) being told.

We were so fortunate though, because there's never any bias in the media.

Oh blah dee, oh blah, dah, life goes oooon RAH!

- Bill

[IJ]

If the family was willing to sign a contract with a lawyer who took half the winnings, and disseminate the stories of their child's death in Iraq and the wife's emotional outbursts and mental disability on the news, I am 100% sure that the family would have gladly accepted the offer of a cash payment from a wealthy executive in return for appearing thankful in a 30 second ad. Barring that, it would have been money reasonably spent on AVOIDING the wrong publicity.

Walmart, or a hospital in error, is only paralyzed by this PHI and confidentiality stuff when they have a bad relationship with the family. I've heard too many stories about well-handled errors to believe the doom and gloom model. In one example from a recent conference on medical risk:

1) A doctor taking call overnight prescribes a topical antibiotic for a serious eye infection (inadequately rested and supervised and didn't get a good history)

2) The woman comes back worse with body-wide infection and severe local infection and has to be rushed to surgery for removal of the eye

3) The hospital contacts the family immediately and tells them the bad news, that they are investigating fully and will be transparent with them, gives them a plan to contact them daily and whenever the family wants via a 24-7 pager to the execs--and apologizes.

4) They do their investigation, they find errors, they relay them to the family. They come up with corrective action, name the program after the patient, and handle all the expenses of the family.

5) The event hits the news with the family recommending the medical center for their commitment to excellence and improvement, and honesty.

Now Walmart didn't make a mistake or do anything illegal here. But they had an opportunity to make this family their biggest advocates. The guy isn't that bitter even after this mess--think about how appreciative he'd have been if Walmart had helped them out? Heck, they might have even pointed the clause out to the family mid-case and helped them with the verdict (insufficient info to say).

Bill, how does the existance of protected health information prevent Walmart from helping this family out? It takes 10 seconds to ask for a waiver to release the info to the press.

[Bill Glasheen]

This whole thing is an interesting scenario before the media and the lawyers got involved. Once that happens, forget about it. I feel badly for these people. They'll find out the hard way that their approach will bring them nothing but heartache.

Walmart didn't make a mistake or do anything illegal here.

I'll go a step further, Ian. They are living up to the fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. Multiply this case by every item on the health care benefit contract which is designed to deliver affordable health care to their associates.

And I might add that health care financing has been in a crisis mode in the past 2 decades. People don't want the direct responsibility to manage their own expenses. Government doesn't seem to want to give the pre-tax dollars benefit to individuals. Our society has made a conscious effort to throw all the administration (and blame) of health care financing to a third party whom they can bash whenever they want. They want it all, and they want it now. BUT... they want it affordable. Since it's obvious that people can't manage that on their own, they give it to an insurance company or a self-funded health program who can play the bad guy role. Then they don't understand when the third party plays bad guy as they asked. Go figure...

Bill, how does the existance of protected health information prevent Walmart from helping this family out?

I don't know, Ian. You tell me.

If the family was willing to sign a contract with a lawyer who took half the winnings

Scccreeeeeccchhhh!!!!!!!!

Stop right there, Ian.

Many companies have a zero settlement policy when it comes to litigation. It's very similar to the philosophy of the US vs. terrorists. We don't ever negotiate with terrorist kidnappers. Why? Because the second you do, every American walking this earth is going to be vulnerable to kidnapping.

Bell Helmets is a classic business example. They make motorcycle helmets. They don't call them "donorcycles" for nothing. You ride because you want to, and not because you're avoiding risk. The helmet will mitigate some of that risk, but you're still going to get injured or killed in a bad accident. If Bell didn't fight every single lawsuit - no matter what the nature - they'd never be able to stay in business.

I believe Disney has a similar policy.

The second this family went to a lawyer, the die were cast. Wal-Mart needed to exercise the letter of their contract with the associate. The issue of benevolence on their part is totally over now with the added attempt at media extortion. Wal-Mart understands that they may suffer a rash of such "bad PR" lawsuits if they settle any one of them. Furthermore, THEY ARE IN THE RIGHT. Shutting this thing down as easily as they can in full view of the public will make future attempts to take them on seem less palatable. What seems unconscionable to others is a no-brainer to them.

The lawyer is the bad guy here. He knew the law, and misled the family. And the longer he strings this thing out, the more money he stands to make. He's operating under the radar now while everyone else takes a hit. I'm glad he can sleep at night. I couldn't.

Perspective is an amazing thing, isn't it?

the executives' kids don't have to go get killed in Iraq.

Man... This is not just uninformed, and I'm being gentle with that characterization. This is incredibly insensitive to ALL Americans whose kids are serving in the armed forces.

I'm still chuckling about this Iraq angle. Did Wal-Mart executives know that Saddam didn't have WMDs?

- Bill