How do you feel about the Supreme Court decision on Walmart?

One of Walmart employee’s had health care thur the company, she sued the person that make her mentally disable for life. She got 470k to live out her life for healthcare and her pain and suffering, Walmart had a clause giving the right to sue the policy holer to recover her losses. It lost in every court till it reached the Conservatively Stacked Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court awarded Walmart her suit. They did have a bad quarter only 60 million.

They did the same thing with life insurance….

Post Author: mark

4 thoughts on “How do you feel about the Supreme Court decision on Walmart?

    rickinnocal

    (January 19, 2010 - 6:58 pm)

    First, this is called ‘subrogation’, and exists in every insurance policy – not just health insurance.

    Second, the case never went anywhere near the Supreme Court. The case was open-and-shut and was won by WalMart in the lower court.

    Third, after getting their winning verdict and establishing that they had a legal RIGHT to the money, Walmart announced that they were invoking the ‘discretionary expenditure’ clause in the policy and letting her keep her money anyway.

    What Walmart did NOT want to happen was to allow some hick district court in rural South Carolina to overturn what has been an established legal principal for centuries, so they appealed, and the appeals court upheld the law. Once it was established that the law is still what it’s always been, Walmart dropped the case.

    As an aside….. I wonder why none of the Liberals lambasting Walmart for filing a suit to enforce the terms of the contract that Shanks entered into of her own free will have commented on the fact that when Walmart wrote the policy in the first place, the lawyer on their Board of Directors was….. Hillary Clinton.

    EDIT….. to the second answerer – the court ruled that Walmart was entitled to all the money left in the trust fund, which was about half what they had paid out. That wasn’t a settlement, it was a verdict.

    Once the verdict was entered and filed, Walmart dropped the case, allowing her to keep the trust fund.

    Richard
    References :
    Wal-Mart drops injured worker claim: http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2008/04/01/afx4841559.html

    malter

    (January 19, 2010 - 7:38 pm)

    Within all health insurance agreements/contracts there are clauses that permit the company to seek reimbursement for their costs IF there is an independent civil suit and subsequent award.

    Wally World was just doing what hundreds of other companies, large and small have done over the years. In this particular case WalMart settled for something around 50% of their cost.

    May not seem right…but it is fair.

    Richard…didn’t hear that they were going to let her keep the money….actually heard that they settled for the remainder of the trust fund…which was around 50% of their cost.
    References :

    Call Me Bwana

    (January 19, 2010 - 8:14 pm)

    The law is the law, and the health insurance contract had this clause. Their insurer, as any insurer would, was likely the party which insisted they sue to recover the money.

    Regardless of how you might wish to paint it, it’s not only legal, it’s a matter of ethically standing by the contract you sign.

    It doesn’t make Wal-mart the bad guy. Or the Supreme Court.
    References :

    Coyote

    (January 19, 2010 - 8:43 pm)

    They did the same thing with life insurance….
    References :

Leave a Reply