ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Washington DC and The Holy Land (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   Misc Dying Man Denied Health Coverage Over Missing 26 Cents (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=275296)

Brock 08-14-2013 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar Chief (Post 9884575)
What is it about ADP you donít like?
The company I work for switched to ADP a couple of years ago.
What little I have to do with it is as an online time/labor record keeping program.

Mostly paycheck errors.

Amnorix 08-16-2013 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief (Post 9882149)
btw... you care to weigh in on the thread itself? You agree with dickless that the actions of a 3rd party benefits management company are legitimate cause to indict the health care or health insurance industries?

Sorry, didn't circle back on this thread until now.

I don't think the actions of this particular entity are an indictment of the system. I think the system has been wildly dysfunctional for many years for a variety of reasons. This particular situation is basically just a thimbleful of water added to the Pacific.

As to this particular party's actions, I would argue that their accepting and cashing the check, without the $.26, constituted acceptance and obligated them to provide the COBRA coverage at issue. No idea if that would hold up at the end of the day, but if I were their lawyer, I'd also ask them if they REALLY want to go before a jury and have to explain why they let a patient die over $0.26....

That's not a case anybody would want to defend.

Amnorix 08-16-2013 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan (Post 9883572)
Terminal stuff ends up in death. Obammycare will decide who and when we get care. Its just how it is.


Thanks for this post, regardless of the fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with anything actually being discussed in this thread.

Saul Good 08-16-2013 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix (Post 9889597)
Sorry, didn't circle back on this thread until now.

I don't think the actions of this particular entity are an indictment of the system. I think the system has been wildly dysfunctional for many years for a variety of reasons. This particular situation is basically just a thimbleful of water added to the Pacific.

As to this particular party's actions, I would argue that their accepting and cashing the check, without the $.26, constituted acceptance and obligated them to provide the COBRA coverage at issue. No idea if that would hold up at the end of the day, but if I were their lawyer, I'd also ask them if they REALLY want to go before a jury and have to explain why they let a patient die over $0.26....

That's not a case anybody would want to defend.

Cashing a check very rarely constitutes acceptance. I do agree with the rest of your point, though.

Amnorix 08-16-2013 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saul Good (Post 9889606)
Cashing a check very rarely constitutes acceptance. I do agree with the rest of your point, though.


I understand. Obviously the amount may not have been in dispute, and they didn't write "full and final payment" or anything on the back of the check.

But the $.26 being nominal, and the check being cashed with, apparently, no notice back to the former employee, I think you've at least got an argument that it constituted acceptance.

Saul Good 08-16-2013 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix (Post 9889616)
I understand. Obviously the amount may not have been in dispute, and they didn't write "full and final payment" or anything on the back of the check.

But the $.26 being nominal, and the check being cashed with, apparently, no notice back to the former employee, I think you've at least got an argument that it constituted acceptance.

Writing "full and final payment" really doesn't mean much, either. However, I believe that there are protections in place for the consumer when the discrepancy is a nominal amount.

Amnorix 08-16-2013 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saul Good (Post 9889753)
Writing "full and final payment" really doesn't mean much, either. However, I believe that there are protections in place for the consumer when the discrepancy is a nominal amount.


Agreed, though such things, or "accord and satisfaction" and such, can work in some relatively limited circumstances. But yes, usually they aren't very helpful.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.