Your example is depressing. It looks like the Salic law around 500 AD ( hand cut : 100 “sous”, but only 63 if it’s still hanging, 35 for the forefinger, etc…). One would think things would have evolved during the last 1500 years or so…
[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
Unlike doctors, who get paid regardless of the outcomes, lawyers on contingency only get paid if they win. QUOTE]
Not necessarily true. A few physicians will perform major procedures on patients under a “Letter of Protection” when there is no health insurance. An LOP states that if the case is settled successfully, the doctor gets paid out of the settlement.
If not? Well, the doctor will hold the patient personally responsible for that bill but with tens of thousands in medical bills, how often do you think they see a dime of that money?
In other words, the risk works both ways. I personally discourage LOPs when I evaluate a practice from a business standpoint but those darn doctors…so concerned about some crazy oath or something. 
Fascinating. Nevertheless, I think the difference in usual practice helps explains some of the opinions I was rebutting.
[QUOTE=Foxy40]
Most of the Medical Costs were probably not incurred by M.D.'s, anyway; especially the costs that will continue to the end of her life. Long term care involves lots of lower paid health care workers. Plus room costs, drugs, etc.
Not that this latest will turn me against WalMart. I walked into one years ago & walked right out again because it was a depressing dump. Nothing I’ve heard since then has made me want to return. If I want to buy from a bigbox store–there’s a shiny new Target in my neighborhood.
I said apples and pears because they’re similar, yet slightly different. Generally speaking if the Doctor doesn’t get paid, he can’t reinvest in his staff/building/research and lacking that could result in the reduction in the doctors ability to help people and they could die. If the lawyer doesn’t get paid, not much happens except the lawyer doesn’t get paid.
Ding ding ding! Winner.
Actually, the problem here is that the Shanks’ attorney(s) allowed them to settle their case prior to settling Wal-Mart’s lien.
A competent attorney would have ensured that the settlement amount was large enough to fully satisfy WM’s subrogation claim before advising the client to take it.
If they settled against his advice, that’s their (the husband, presumably) fault, not his. Either way, it certainly isn’t WM’s fault.
This is how the legal system works in the case of a compensable injury; third-party suits are always the final payor.
Are you serious? Ok, well, if the lawyer doesn’t get paid, he can’t reinvest in staff/research tools/investigation and lacking that could result in a failure to obtain a temporary injunction against some injurious practice and people could die.
You’re forced to invent some ridiculous scenarios in order to find a distinction. We are talking about the effect of a doctor or lawyer voluntarily giving up their fees. You’re saying that the doctor’s fees are more important because he will do good things with the money. That makes the same absurd assumptions that the original poster made.
They’re both going to take the money and buy a Jaguar.
There is one difference here - doctors are much more likely, in general, to get stiffed on a bill.
Anyway, medical care obtained via litigation is generally done at a substantially reduced rate already.
This is one of those cases that the media loves to cover. You have a sympathetic woman and her husband who are completely blameless for the accident that changed their lives vs. a corporate giant. And while it’s easy to point the finger at big, bad Walmart, no one is the villain here. We should accept part of the blame, however, because we should be putting pressure on our politicians to fix this gaping hole in coverage for EVERYONE.
I have a neighbor whose daughter was born with severe neurological defects. The father had great benefits at General Electric, but those benefits ($1m) maxed out years ago. If he switched jobs, he’d have to find a benefit package that doesn’t involve his original insurance company (e.g. Cigna) now or in the future because that’s a lifetime per person cap, not a lifetime per person at this employer cap. “Who provides health insurance and what is the maximum cap per person?” is a pretty indelicate thing to ask in a job interview.
Their daughter is now on Medicaid because it’s the only way they can afford for her to get decent medical care. In order to qualify for Medicaid, they have to live below the legally mandated max or they will lose coverage for her. That means that unless they find someone who will illegally pay them under the table, they must live below the poverty level. They are two intelligent, able bodied people who are quite willing to work but who are forced to NOT work in order to qualify for the only safety net they have, which is Medicaid. They have no money for vacations, home repairs, dinners out – all the things we take for granted.
In this case, there’s no one to sue. They can’t divorce her in order to get the state to pay for her care. Their only real option is to institutionalize her, which is not an option for them.
We are one of the richest nations in the world, yet we turn our backs on people who have devasting medical conditions. Even for those who smugly say that “Well, if you don’t like the benefits, work for someone else.” don’t realize that the reality of the situation is that even the best insurance programs do not cover instances where a patient has suffered severe, ongoing injuries. I work for a Fortune 25 company and MY benefits include a lifetime cap. I doubt yours is better.
In these limited, special cases, I am a proponent of society (e.g. Social Security) stepping in and picking up the bill for their care. We have a safety net for our elderly citizens (Medicare) and a safety net for our poorest citizens (Medicaid). We need a safety net for middle class people who happened to be smacked in the face by circumstances beyond their control.
As others have already pointed out, their lawyer did a terrible job of getting the settlement for them.
Quite possibly, the trucking company wasn’t properly insured and knew they would take a bloodbath so their insurance company wrote out the check for their $1M limit and walked. I see this happen on a regular basis. Trucking companies are in the top of the worst offenders. Their insurance professional will offer them a higher limit but they don’t want to shell out the premium for it so they take the bare bones. It takes one accident to get them to their $1M limit.
Also, some insurance policies are written with defense costs outside of the limit…some are not. This can also erode their limit.
Subrogating after a settlement is extremely common.
Right, but if you’re the plaintiff/claimant you don’t settle a PIP claim until you get a firm estimate of future medical expenses and you know that your settlement will comfortably cover the subrogating party’s lien amount. As I said above, unless the woman or her husband directed their attorney to accept a lowball offer (happens all the time, especially right before the holidays or if they’re behind on rent/mortgage/whatever), their attorney is definitely the one to blame here.
It would have taken him five minutes to review WalMart/WM’s insurer’s payout ledger and determine that a $1,000,000 settlement wasn’t going to cut it.
Alas, I find this to be completely believable. And then there are the insurance professionals who don’t suggest going for more than the minimum coverage.
Speaking as an insurance professional…my firm ALWAYS offer higher limits. It is a CYA thing on our Errors & Ommissions. Our deductible for an E&O claim is $75K so you can bet your henie I don’t ever want to have one.
For example, right now on my desk I have a company with a large fleet of trucks. They only want a $1M Umbrella limit.
What will be on my proposal is a $1M…a $5M…and a $10M option. Also, there will be a form for them to sign that we did let them know that higher limits were available and they chose to go with the lower limit.
I believe you about wanting to CYA. But…
Well, let’s just say that I’ve got some family experience with an insurance agent failing to mention the costs for higher coverage on a liability policy. (Granted it was a home policy, but for a well-to-do business owner with a good deal of assets to protect.) I’ve never purchased insurance for a business, but when I look at insurance on a personal level, I’ve always, always, always had to ask about what the cost for the next highest level of coverage might be.
Keep in mind that a company with a lot of trucks is almost certain to employ at least one risk management professional. This/these person(s) know what the minimum policy costs and should have a pretty good idea what the next level of coverage costs too.
They also know that doesn’t take much for the cost of settling (and/or litigating) a personal injury claim to go over a million; moreover, an accident that becomes a PIP claim when it involves a car is likely to be a wrongful death claim when it involves a truck.
Yes but if the 1,000,000 was the cap the attorney would probably advise his client to take it as getting more after the insurance company paid their limit is unlikely. The limit of liability amount makes sense to me now as to why the attorney did settle. He couldn’t negotiate for more if it wasn’t there to get.
Still that isn’t Walmart’s fault or problem, however.
What PunditLisa said @69. Every last word of it.
Well, the insured is still liable for the rest of a potential judgment if the case went to trial- but yeah, I see how that could be pretty pointless.
They are only doing what they are legally allowed to do.
Their strength is also their weakness - in an effort to gain EVERY advantage and take every opportunity, they begin looking not only amoral, but immoral.
Fact of the matter is, this looks penny wise and pound foolish - another Wally-world PR blunder.
Then tell the ambulance you want to go your lawyers office.