Walmart sues disabled woman
 

Why not?

So what's the problem? They want an exception made in this case and then which one else and that which other one?

The problem is that the woman's family hired a bad lawyer, who was interested in his cut of the suit and not his clients' best interests.

They clearly should not have settled the case for what they did. Certainly, the clients did not understand that they would have an additional liability from winning the suit. From what I read, it appears that they could have settled for a dollar, and still have been liable for the health care bills.

I hope that I'm talking about the right case here; I did not watch the video.

Well that is how it works.

If you are injured at work, file a workmans comp claim, then sue for ?? the workmans comp carrier will file a lien against the lawsuit.

Just like if you are involved in an auto accident, and sue the other driver. Your carrier will pay, then get involved in your settlement.

I bet most insurance policies have this type of clause in them.

Although this is normally done upfront, ie before a settlement.

It has nothing to do with the attorney.

The womans' lawyer should have read the fine print. The lawyer took over half the award, which he will keep. The woman will have to re-imburse Wal Mart all of the money she was awarded. Maybe another ambulance chaser will come along and offer to sue the first lawyer for incompetence.

But they are the first ones we blame though.

In this case it has everthing to do with the lawyer. He plain ef'ed up.

AFAIK, the going rate here seems to be 1/3. I don't think it is going to be half. Now you get billed for misc stuff like if he has to fedex something overnight but pretty much at the 1/3 level not 1/2.

If you hit me and I sue you, I might win some money but I will have to payoff the money the insurance company spent on me. How is this any different?

By doing what? You hired him to sue the person who caused the accident. He did that and got you the settlement. What else do you expect him to do? Get involved with your personal finances?

The lawyer should have understood that WalMart was going to come at them. What are you claiming? That the woman should go through a civil suit to enrich the lawyer? The lawyer should have sued on behalf of the husband.

Well as much as I am not a fan of lawyers. No, his job was to sue for damages from the other party. The issue's with her insurance via Walmart was not his responsibilty. BUT he probably should have known, mentioned it to them ....

One attorney sue another for incompetence, thats a good one :P:P:P.
You believe that I have bridge to sell you, and the land to put it on.

There's no honor amongst thieves. There are lawyers who specialize in suing other lawyers. And they're very busy.

Neither you nor I know of the agreement between the woman and her lawyer. But the lawyer is surely responsible for being aware of all the facts of the suit. And as pointed out by others, such a clause is not unusual in insurance policies. To me it's crass incompetence and greed.

He did and so should the woman and the family. What did they think it was? Free money? Insurance pays but they will want to be reimbursed if you get something.

And he did for 33% plus expenses. Anything else is your problem.