Comments on: Corporate Greed At It’s Worst….Health Insurance Scams and the Little Guy http://www.zifflaw.com/NYInjuryLawBlog/corporate-greed-at-its-worsthealth-insurance-scams-and-the-little-guy Legal Answers from Lawyers Who Know New York & Pennsylvania Law Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:58:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: AdamGee http://www.zifflaw.com/NYInjuryLawBlog/corporate-greed-at-its-worsthealth-insurance-scams-and-the-little-guy/comment-page-1#comment-754 AdamGee Tue, 01 Apr 2008 19:56:54 +0000 http://www.zifflaw.com/blog/corporate-greed-at-its-worsthealth-insurance-scams-and-the-little-guy#comment-754 Mr. Schepp - you raise interesting points, but let me try to explain the unfairness a little differently. It is likely safe to assume that there was only one million in coverage for this poor woman's damages. It is also clear that her damages greatly exceed the coverage. This is the rare case that could support a verdict in the five, six, or seven million dollar range or more. If this poor woman actually recovered that amount, if every last dime of her past and future medical expenses, every penny of her pain and suffering were paid for there is no question that Wal-Mart would be reimbursed for the medical care it paid for. To do otherwise would result in a double recovery for the Plaintiff. What happened here, though, is different. Plaintiff was only able to collect one million dollars. Let's conservatively estimate that as 20% of the value of her case. Reasonable people might argue that since the Plaintiff only collected 20% of her damages, Wal-Mart should only be reimbursed 20% of the benefits it paid out. There is case law in New York supporting this approach. In this case, though, greedy, multi-billion dollar Wal-Mart wants to recoupe 100% of the benefits it paid out even though Plaintiff only recovered 20% of her damages. Its this kind of over reaching that gets people up in arms and gives the heartless corporation the black eye they most often richly deserve. Your comment about Wal-Mart reducing its request in recognition of the Plaintiff's attorney's efforts in achieving the award is a valid one. Lienholders in personal injury cases are very often amenable to reducing their lien in recognition of the efforts and expense Plaintiff's counsel endured in prosecuting the case. Wal-Mart, the greedy, multi-billion dollar corporation that it is, couldn't see the merit in this idea. Can't say that I am surprised. Mr. Schepp – you raise interesting points, but let me try to explain the unfairness a little differently. It is likely safe to assume that there was only one million in coverage for this poor woman’s damages. It is also clear that her damages greatly exceed the coverage. This is the rare case that could support a verdict in the five, six, or seven million dollar range or more. If this poor woman actually recovered that amount, if every last dime of her past and future medical expenses, every penny of her pain and suffering were paid for there is no question that Wal-Mart would be reimbursed for the medical care it paid for. To do otherwise would result in a double recovery for the Plaintiff. What happened here, though, is different. Plaintiff was only able to collect one million dollars. Let’s conservatively estimate that as 20% of the value of her case. Reasonable people might argue that since the Plaintiff only collected 20% of her damages, Wal-Mart should only be reimbursed 20% of the benefits it paid out. There is case law in New York supporting this approach. In this case, though, greedy, multi-billion dollar Wal-Mart wants to recoupe 100% of the benefits it paid out even though Plaintiff only recovered 20% of her damages. Its this kind of over reaching that gets people up in arms and gives the heartless corporation the black eye they most often richly deserve.

Your comment about Wal-Mart reducing its request in recognition of the Plaintiff’s attorney’s efforts in achieving the award is a valid one. Lienholders in personal injury cases are very often amenable to reducing their lien in recognition of the efforts and expense Plaintiff’s counsel endured in prosecuting the case. Wal-Mart, the greedy, multi-billion dollar corporation that it is, couldn’t see the merit in this idea. Can’t say that I am surprised.

]]> By: JimReed http://www.zifflaw.com/NYInjuryLawBlog/corporate-greed-at-its-worsthealth-insurance-scams-and-the-little-guy/comment-page-1#comment-749 JimReed Tue, 01 Apr 2008 16:33:38 +0000 http://www.zifflaw.com/blog/corporate-greed-at-its-worsthealth-insurance-scams-and-the-little-guy#comment-749 Mr. Schepp: Unfortunately I do not have enough information to determine why Ms. Shank "only" got $1,000,000. My best guess would be that $1,000,000 probably represents the full insurance policy limits for the truck that injured Ms. Shank. Many times cases are worth MUCH more but the old adage "you can't get blood from a stone" applies-- in other words, you can only recover up to the amount of the insurance coverage. Sadly, in NY, the law only requires drivers to carry $25,000 in liability limits so even if that driver causes a $10,000,000 injury, the most you can recover from that driver is $25,000 unless that driver happens to be independently wealth (NOT likely for someone driving around with minimum coverage). As to the amount of $ that Ms. Shank's attorney received, it is also impossible to know that amount without knowing more information. Most injury cases are done on a 1/3rd contingency fee basis meaning the attorney gets 1/3rd of the amount recovered after the costs of the lawsuit are deducted off the top (that's how it works in NY). We have no way of knowing what the costs of the lawsuit were from the information provided. As always, your comments are appreciated even if we do not necessarily agree with one another.... Jim Reed NY & PA Injury & Malpractice Lawyer jreed@zifflaw.com Mr. Schepp:

Unfortunately I do not have enough information to determine why Ms. Shank “only” got $1,000,000. My best guess would be that $1,000,000 probably represents the full insurance policy limits for the truck that injured Ms. Shank. Many times cases are worth MUCH more but the old adage “you can’t get blood from a stone” applies– in other words, you can only recover up to the amount of the insurance coverage. Sadly, in NY, the law only requires drivers to carry $25,000 in liability limits so even if that driver causes a $10,000,000 injury, the most you can recover from that driver is $25,000 unless that driver happens to be independently wealth (NOT likely for someone driving around with minimum coverage).

As to the amount of $ that Ms. Shank’s attorney received, it is also impossible to know that amount without knowing more information. Most injury cases are done on a 1/3rd contingency fee basis meaning the attorney gets 1/3rd of the amount recovered after the costs of the lawsuit are deducted off the top (that’s how it works in NY). We have no way of knowing what the costs of the lawsuit were from the information provided.

As always, your comments are appreciated even if we do not necessarily agree with one another….

Jim Reed
NY & PA Injury & Malpractice Lawyer
jreed@zifflaw.com

]]> By: Louis Schepp http://www.zifflaw.com/NYInjuryLawBlog/corporate-greed-at-its-worsthealth-insurance-scams-and-the-little-guy/comment-page-1#comment-741 Louis Schepp Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:01:56 +0000 http://www.zifflaw.com/blog/corporate-greed-at-its-worsthealth-insurance-scams-and-the-little-guy#comment-741 If Ms. Shank had recovered nothing, than Wal-Mart would not be recovering anything. And to the extent that Ms. Shank in her award/settlement was given money for past medical expenses, were she to keep that, isn't that a case of a double recovery if Wal-Mart does not recover that from her. My question, when I have read about this case, is why the recovery is so small in light of her injuries? It appears to me that the her lawyer got $500,000 ["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."] and no one seems to mind that. "The family’s attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement" [Was it a settlement or an "award" as mentioned earlier in the article] "and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money." [Why does he think that - see next] “We assumed" [Always a big mistake] "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." [Shouldn't he have checked that out first before agreeing to the award/settlement?] Yes this is a sad case, but sad cases make bad law but good press. What should be discussed in these stories is that maybe Wal-Mart should be sharing in the cost [Paying some of the attorney's fee] of obtaining the fund that was made available for them to assert a lien upon. That would be a better argument and would not make bad law. If Ms. Shank had recovered nothing, than Wal-Mart would not be recovering anything. And to the extent that Ms. Shank in her award/settlement was given money for past medical expenses, were she to keep that, isn’t that a case of a double recovery if Wal-Mart does not recover that from her.

My question, when I have read about this case, is why the recovery is so small in light of her injuries?

It appears to me that the her lawyer got $500,000 ["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."] and no one seems to mind that.

“The family’s attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement” [Was it a settlement or an "award" as mentioned earlier in the article] “and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money.” [Why does he think that - see next] “We assumed” [Always a big mistake] “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.” [Shouldn't he have checked that out first before agreeing to the award/settlement?]

Yes this is a sad case, but sad cases make bad law but good press. What should be discussed in these stories is that maybe Wal-Mart should be sharing in the cost [Paying some of the attorney's fee] of obtaining the fund that was made available for them to assert a lien upon. That would be a better argument and would not make bad law.

]]>