Well, It's Always Nice to Know One Can Count on Wal-Mart (RO)

[LurkMeister]

@Really Not All That Bright

Wal-Mart isn’t really a party to the suit, though it may be named as such. As subrogor, all they do is send letters to all parties saying something like:

“Wal-Mart hereby asserts its subrogation rights under [insert applicable statute] and requests that you acknowledge its right of lien pursuant to [statute]. Wal-Mart further objects to the distribution of funds resulting from any resolution or judgment in this matter without its prior knowledge and express written consent.”

In other words, their only responsibility is to let everyone know that they believe they have a right to claim a portion of whatever gets paid out on the lawsuit.

That said, I can almost guarantee that WM had some sort of counsel (general liability, I’d guess) representing them in regard to this lawsuit and reminding everyone of their subrogation rights constantly. The claim probably settled at a mediation, and Wal-Mart’s attorney would almost certainly have been present.

Even if they didn’t, the plaintiff’s attorney knew very well that they had a claim to a portion of the settlement. Wal-Mart has exactly zero interest in keeping the medical bills they paid a secret; in fact, refusing to produce a payout ledger (record of everything they paid on this particular claim, basically) a secret might be seen as a waiver of their lien.

From the link in the OP:

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.

Then either Wal-Mart’s attorneys or Graham was incompetent, since it appears that none of the actions in your post were taken.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@LurkMeister

Then either Wal-Mart’s attorneys or Graham was incompetent, since it appears that none of the actions in your post were taken.

Yup. Back where we started- he’s an idiot.

[Contrapuntal]

She gets to keep the money.

[LurkMeister]

@Contrapuntal

She gets to keep the money.

Good for Wal-Mart, even if it is just because of public pressure (I wonder how long it will take them to actually get around to modifying their health-care plan to allow “more discretion” in individual cases).

I would be interested in seeing how her attorney justifies legal fees of 58.3% though, especially considering the quality of his work.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@LurkMeister

I would be interested in seeing how her attorney justifies legal fees of 58.3% though, especially considering the quality of his work.

Probably he just submitted an affidavit and itemized listing of time “billed” on the case. Even in states with limits on attorney’s fees, there is usually a proviso that if an inordinate amount of time was spent on litigation relative to the size of the settlement, a higher attorney’s fee is justifiable. In any case, Missouri has no such limitation. There’s a good chance that a lot of the attorney’s fee was eaten up by costs, anyway. Litigation is expensive, and litigation related to major injuries is really expensive.List of states with attorney’s fee limits, .pdf.

@CNN

Wal-Mart’s health care plan lets the retail giant recoup the cost of its expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit. And Wal-Mart set out to do just that after Shank and her husband, Jim, won $1 million after suing the trucking company involved in the wreck. After legal fees, the couple received $417,000.

[my bolding]

I’m getting sick of the reporting on this case. Every time the media says “their health plan allowed them to do this” it makes (well, made) Wal-Mart look a little bit worse. It wasn’t the damn health plan. It was the law.

I’m happy for the family, but sort of sad in the sense that the company has bowed to pressure from an uninformed public.

Still, the family obviously needs it more.