Daniel Penny found NOT Guilty of criminal negligent homicide.

Indeed, the homeless guy harmed far less people than the CEO

 

If his family wants "justice" and someone will do it for a reasonable fee - lawyers will take up high profile cases I assume.

 

I suppose... in John Grisham movies anyway.

 

Good luck with that.

 

If this case advances, it will most likely be done on a contingency basis as it does not look like the family is in a position to afford the legal bills associated with a case like this. I'm just not sure this case is going to be "high profile" enough for any lawyers to make a name for themselves with it since they will not likely get paid enough to cover their costs.

 

Or, the CEO helped millions of people and the homeless guy has been terrorizing the subway for years.

You've spun a disgusting comparison into a pathetc spin.

 

Saying a health insurance CEO helped anyone, let alone millions is the most pathetic thing someone has written here lol

 

Apparently local police in PA have detained a suspect in the shooting of the UnitedHealthcare CEO.

 

Good questions. Obviously speculation the chances are that Daniel Penny probably doesn't have sufficient assets to justify civil litigation. If Penny is sued the attorney representing Neely's father would be doing so primarily for the publicity not for a big payday.

 

This was procedurally very odd, I've never seen this happen before.

Penny was indicted on two counts: 1:Manslaughter in the Second Degree. 2: Criminally Negligent Homicide, with the first count being the more serious of the two.

The jury was apparently instructed they had to reach a verdict as to count 1 before they could move onto count 2. That is not how it works in Florida, each count can be considered independently. Florida juries ARE instructed when dealing with lessor included offenses to consider the most serious offense first before considering the lessors. That is not what happened in NY.

Penny's jury came back a few times indicating they were hung as to count 1, the only count they were considering. Penny's attorney asked for a mistrial which, if it had been granted, would have allowed for a second trial on that count. Instead, the PROSECUTOR asked the judge to dismiss the first count, so the jury could move on to deliberate count 2. The judge granted that request. Since the dismissal was done at the request of the state after jeopardy attached (jury panel sworn), a second prosecution on count 1 would be barred.

The prosecutor obviously had some change of heart. Had he agreed with defense counsel's mistrial motion, count 1 could have been retried. I don't know if he simply wanted it over with, or after all the evidence was in felt the evidence didn't support the count 1 charge or thought if they were split as to count 1, he had him on count 2. I doubt if we'll ever know that thought process.


https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Indictment.pdf

 

If the lawyers are doing it primary for the publicity, do you think they would have to win the case to achieve the benefit of the publicity?

 

Do you purchase or use health insurance?

 

Why? Do you think paying a claim is ‘helping people’ ? And it’s not like the ceo is personally involved in that either.

 

Per above:

Why? Because if you use the type of product his company offers then you’re acknowledging there is value in what he offers. Do you think paying a claim is ‘helping people’ ? Paying a claim is simply fulfilling an insurance company’s obligation in the contract. And it’s not like the ceo is personally involved in that either. If you believe this then the evil you associate with the CEO goes out the window.

 

I recall when the incident happened but I haven’t heard a lot of subsequent details. Was there greater detail revealed on how threatening the guy was before Penny put him in a choke hold?

I have mixed feelings on this. Penny didn’t ask to be put in this position and the victim clearly had a history of violent and extreme behavior. On the flip side, I could see my autistic son, who is not small, getting angry and yelling at someone when in fact he is no real danger.

The tragedy is this guy was still out roaming around in public in spite of his violent history and his mental illness and drug use.

 

This guys company was apparantly the absolute worst in terms of rejecting claims. So I think it’s safe to say your take is more accurate.

I’m sure some degree of claims are appropriate to be denied, but if an insurance company is denying way more claims than average they are inevitably messing around denying a bunch of valid claims. That means actively causing suffering, unnecessary stress, and even deaths of patients. If we want to say a health insurance CEO is “saving lives”, then at least “be average” in this area, or improve and take the company out of "last place" FFS.

 

The CEO isn’t personally denying claims, but he sets the baselines and goals of the company and could definitely make those changes if he wanted to. Albeit there might be blowback from their board and investors. Classic conflict of interest between capitalism and “good healthcare”, the goals don’t always line up. Insurance margins can always be boosted by denying more claims, as I said above some degree of claims are probably reasonable to deny in *any* system, but an insurer blowing away the rest at claim denials is probably screwing over a bunch of legitimate people and bullying them in litigation.

Your point may be valid if UNH was already “the worst” at denying claims before this guy got there and will continue to be so under the next MBA bot that is installed. So it may just be their corporate culture of being more aggressive at denying claims as opposed to anything the murder victim did to steer them that way (frankly it would be interesting to see a 10 year comparison on this of all the different insurers claims rejection rates, if one exists). But regardless of whether he pushed this, I wouldn’t say he had “nothing to do with it” as the CEO is the most visible cog in the machine at any company.

 

Apparently UHC denies so many claims they literally outsource their denials to another company who gets paid on the denials. How filthy is that?

TikTok - Make Your Day

And the company they outsource to sounds like a movie bad guy entity...

Homepage | EviCore by Evernorth

 

Comparing Neely to the healthcare CEO is hilarious. Not shocked by the usual suspects on this thread.

 

I think my original take on this was the guy went too far and charges were definitely warranted. This case seemed to fall out of the news after charges were brought.

It wasn’t as obviously depraved as the George Floyd killing , but similarly weren’t bystanders also telling him he was killing the guy as he continued choking him? I don’t think the issue was that the guy intervened, but that he had opportunity to stop short of kiling the person and failed to do so. Not sure what mitigating circumstances the jury decided on.