Debbie Shank suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident 8 years ago that robbed her of much of her memory. She cries every time she's told that her son was killed in Iraq, as if hearing the news for the first time.
After winning the lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the accident, her husband put the money in a trust to pay for Debbie's long-term care.
And now, retail giant Wal-Mart wants that money:
Eight years ago, Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart's health and benefits plan. [...]
Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank's medical expenses, but in 2005, Wal-Mart's health plan sued the Shanks for the same amount.
The Shanks didn't notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart's health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit.
In fact, they want the money so badly that the sued the family (and won):
Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, who called Debbie Shank's case "unbelievably sad," replied in a statement: "Wal-Mart's plan is bound by very specific rules. ... We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank's case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan."
Jim Shank said he believes Wal-Mart should make an exception.
"My idea of a win-win is -- you keep the paperwork that says you won and let us keep the money so I can take care of my wife," he said.
The family's situation is so dire that last year Jim Shank divorced Debbie, so she could receive more money from Medicaid.
Jim Shank, 54, is recovering from prostate cancer, works two jobs and struggles to pay the bills. He's afraid he won't be able to send their youngest son to college and pay for his and Debbie's care.
"Who needs the money more? A disabled lady in a wheelchair with no future, whatsoever, or does Wal-Mart need $90 billion, plus $200,000?" he asked.
Legally, Wal-Mart is in the right. But morally, I don't think so. There's a Wal-Mar near where I work, and I shop there quite often. But after reading this, perhaps it's time to go to Target, which is a just little farther away.
See here: http://www.wsu.edu/%7Ebrians/errors/farther.html
That doesn't make any sense. The law is based on common morality. Those people won money in a lawsuit that was intended to cover her care. Then, they greedily had her employer pay for her medical bills, which should have been paid using the money from the suit. This is insurance fraud.
Also - how many more things like this have to happen or people have to be screwed by Wal-Mart for people to actually stop shopping there, or give a crap that it's happening? I dunno, I guess those low, low prices are too much to resist? ;)
And Target is not owned by Wal-Mart...
It seems like any additional money Ms. Shank wins herself from the trucking company for negligence, pain and suffering, and stuff beyond the scope of what the insurance covers should be hers to keep.
Seems like some details are missing from this popular press article...
That doesn’t make any sense. The law is based on common morality. Those people won money in a lawsuit that was intended to cover her care. Then, they greedily had her employer pay for her medical bills, which should have been paid using the money from the suit. This is insurance fraud.
Law and morality don't always go hand in hand. What is legal is not always morally right, and what is illegal isn't always wrong.
True. But I think we can all agree that someone trying to get paid twice for the same wrong is not OK.
Suppose you buy a table from Wal-Mart and it falls apart into such a pile of dust that it can't be returned. You go to Wal-Mart with the receipt and tell them what happened, and they give you your money back, even though they didn't make the defective table.
Then you go to the manufacturer of the table, who really was responsible for the defect, and THEY refund your money too. Shouldn't you have to return the money Wal-Mart gave you?
Don't get me wrong; Wal-Mart sucks and they have some truly evil lawyers (I'm a lawyer myself, and I've read the cases). But that doesn't make it OK to try to screw them; by doing so, one just lowers oneself to the same level. Wal-Mart is in the right here.
Usually in insurance policies, the language regarding subrogation says that the company is entitled to subrogation if the insured makes a recovery in a personal injury lawsuit. The insurance company doesn't sue the liability carrier- they are just entitled to be reimbursed if the insured gets a settlement, since that settlement is what should be used to pay their medical bills. It's kind of a shitty system because the insured is the person who gets screwed, as in this case, rather than the person who caused the accident.
WakeupWalMart.com
Mandatory Sentencing, Death Penalty, Abortion, Affirmative Action, Seperation of Church and State, the War in Iraq...
Only a few issues that are supported by law that many Americans would be on opposit sides of the moral fence.
Rather than saving 30 cent on dish soap so that Mr.Wal-Mart can crap in a dimond encrusted toilet, why not support mom and pop?
Is it the same thing? From what I understand the award money was all put into a trust for the long term care of the woman. Wal-Mart wants to recoup the money it has spent on medical expenses that has already happened. But it's as if the woman's medical expenses will just stop.
No question that Wal-Mart is acting within their legal rights. But it is seeking money that will determine the survival of the family. That's where I think morally it's not right.
Rent/tape/buy the movie Walmart: The high cost of low price. If that doesn't make you angry I don't know what will.
I went from a sometime shopper to vowing never to go there again. It's been six months, I haven't set foot in one and don't plan to. If you act like it doesn't exist, you think of other ways to find deals and do your shopping. It's well worth it, and your local businesses and local economy will be better for it.
Ok, I'm stepping off my soapbox now.
What's interesting is where it says her husband divorced her so she could scam more money out of Medicaid. They're flagrantly abusing the system.
Now they're not sure if they can afford to send their son to college. If the kid wants to go to college, maybe he'll have to work a little first, then go a little later. Get a scholarship, maybe. Others have had to.
That's all.
if 'doudle dipping' was allowed, the system would crumble. and then you'd need tax money to 'save' people.
(FYI to the person who said to sue the trucking company for more- it's possible 1) that's all that was available (an insurance company is not obligated to pay more than the limit purchased) or 2) a jury awarded that amount. This woman's lawyers should have been negotiating WalMart's lien long before now.)
I'm surprised Walmart didn't sue the company themselves but then it's Walmart so I assume they just let the victims pay for the legal team to get that settlement while waiting behind the scenes for the payout knowing they'd just turn around and sue the family for the money since it's easier than going after a company. Walmart could have handled this better..legally they may get in trouble in the future if they just let this one slide so I don't expect them to change their minds. Also, the PR benefits for letting it slide won't do much good in this case..everybody who hates Walmart hates Walmart permanently.
I hate that company.
The stores are filthy, the product is cheap
yet crappy, and now they are going after mentally disabled. Wal-Mart has enough money. Boycott!!!
Sure Walmart could eat the cost and just pay their insurance company the 45k. But why should they. If Walmart does it for this one then the next time this happens that person has a set precedence to go to court and get them to do it for them too.
Walmart is in a no win situation here. They look bad if they don't forget about the 45k but if they do forgive the $ they stand to lose even more latter.
Wal-Mart may have some shifty business practices but this is not one of them.
Regards.
While the woman may claim to NEED the money, what she did was illegal according to the documents she signed. While I feel sorry for her condition, we should also take responsibilities for our own actions.
Besides that, her settlement should have payed all her bills. And the insurance agreement she signed said if she got any settlement that she would pay back said money.
All Wal-Mart is doing is asking her to keep her promise she made.
There are other things far worse Wal-Mart does. Choose your battles.
WTF? I did no damage by saying that Walmart was in the right in this instance to humanity or decency. Save the crocodile tears, seriously.
And yes one day we will. Remember that the next time you go throwing stones.
But if you do that, you'll be contributing more to Global Warming! I think you're in a Catch 22 here...
Besides, Target is just as "evil." But Target gets away with it because it's smaller than Wal-Mart, drawing less attention. Oh, and it has pretentious commercials that appeal to hipsters.
That doesn't mean greed or capitalism benefits everyone. Were these people not working for the benefit of their own lives? If the husband has to work two jobs (and divorce his disabled wife) just to financially keep his head above water, it doesn't sound like this "robust economic structure" is such a good thing for them. But I guess it is for those who are already rich. Like Wal-Mart.
And they must have gotten a really crappy settlement.
And now, retail giant Wal-Mart wants that money:"
Well, *technically*, they don't want the lawsuit money, they want the long-term health car money they paid out, back. (albiet, them recieving the lawsuit money made them 'legally' be able to try to get money back).
To those who are saying that Wal-Mart is just following a common policy, I want to point out that Wal-Mart funds their own health care plan so this is just another case of them not wanting to put more money into covering the health care of their workers.
I don't shop at Wal-Mart, but I'm acquainted with the way their corporate system operates, unlike the "WALMART IZ EVIL!!!111" morons out there who don't even understand the basic principles of capitalism.
Seriously, can anyone here admit that they'd willingly pay $7 for something that they could get at Wal-Mart (the exact same item/brand) for $3? No? Well, that's why Wal-Mart has been so successful. That's supply and demand in action.
Furthermore, many people haven't any other options as to where to shop. Some rural Americans live far from a centralised town, and so a Wal-Mart is often their only store for food, clothing, etc.
Wal-Mart spends millions settling fraudulent and questionable lawsuits from scam artists. Unlike most other retailers (who almost universally have crap healthcare and benefits - it's the nature of the industry), Wal-Mart has no cap on their health insurance pay-outs in almost all cases. They also have the largest cash-giving charitable non-profit arm in the country, but you don't hear much about that. It's all EVIL, EVIL, EVIL!!
What?
You arrogant fool!
I wonder if you were in a similar situation, how fast you would leap from that high horse you are sitting on.
This is clearly an extremely extenuating circumstance. If you were a multi-billion dollar corporation, would you sue this family if you could? I know I sure wouldn't. Its not like if they let this slide, a multitude of people just like this family will emerge and bankrupt Wal-Mart.
And wow, haven't read the comments at Neatorama in a while. Used to be a pretty progressive attitude here. Now its like reading a Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter blog...people suggesting its good our society is based on greed, that separation of church and state is immoral...amazing.
Whats funny is that most of the people typing those sendiments are just another cog in the pseudo-fascist corporate regime of america, the unwitting useful idiots who consistently vote against their own interests like a good GOYIM.
However, I'm sure the Walton family could easily afford to make a goodwill gesture of, oh, say the amount of money of the suit (or more).
Now however, the family won't be able to pay for certain aspects of her care (eg. private room). Therefore, Walmart is not simply asking for their money back, they are directly impacting the level of care this woman receives.
I don't understand how anyone could argue from that perspective that Walmart is acting morally.
Likewise, Walmart wouldn't have been able to cover the initial healthcare expenses without some way to recoup their money whenever possible -- in this case from the employee, but it could be a direct suit of the infringing company too. Sure, they could afford to let this one slide, but then how do they explain to the next person why they don't also get to keep the lawsuit money?
That's not to say Walmart couldn't offer some sort of alternative assistance -- perhaps paying for some new lawyers to sue the old ones who didn't ask for enough money to cover the full expense of the injuries.
WALMART IS SELF INSURED ON THEIR MEDICAL PLANS, WHICH MEAN THEY PAY FOR ANY LOSSES. THE INSURANCE COMPANY ONLY ADMINISTERS CLAIMS ON THE COMPANY'S BEHALF. MRS. SHANK HAD CONTRIBUTED TO THIS HEALTH FUND (PREMIUMS PAID). A SELF INSURED PLAN STATES THAT IT IS UP TO THE COMPANY (PLOLICY HOLDER)IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO OFFSET BY THIRD PARTY SETTLEMENTS. IT WAS ENTIRELY UP TO THEM, NOT THE INSURANCE COMPANY.
Furthermore, most large corporations are set up this way. Mainly, companies over 2000 lives. I can tell you that most major corporations would have never asked for their money back. It is bullshit that the spokemen for Walmart said that have to be fair to all associates. That is a lie! They didn't have to tell anyone. In all fairness, other employees at all companies pay for other peoples bad health, excess us of doctors etc..This is the same situation. The premium paid would have increased for all employees. WalMart makes so much money that they wouldn't have had to do this either. I plan many of the benefits for large corporations. I can asure you that no other company would have done this to this poor woman. I sent out numerous emails and called Walmart several times. I sent an email to their corporate office. I'm going to do my part to make sure people do not shop there. You shouldn't either!
You would have done the same. I think people should be more worried about other people who abuse the system. For example, why is it acceptable to have three kids, when you can't afford them? Isn't that fraudulent? Or, all this welfare rats who refuse to get a job. These are two working individuals who paid taxes and worked their entire life. The system failed them!
They are self insured, not fully insured. It has nothing to do with the insurance company. They are under administrative service only (ASO Agreement). Keep cost down? Didn't their former CEO hold a $500,000 dollar birthday party? Or is it their current one?
You have no idea what you're talking about. Walmart sucks, but you're just making things up. You say that no other major corporation would have sued? That's just wrong-- it happens all the time. The only reason this case is making such big news is because it's Walmart and this woman has such extenuating circumstances. Walmart *should* make a donation (that's right, a donation, because they are entitled to that money), but these people should also be calling attorneys who specialize in legal malpractice. Had her attorneys been at all competent this would have been handled years ago. Jesus, I'm a paralegal and I know when people tell me they have a health plan through their employer to make sure it's not an ERISA plan before I distribute their funds. You can get mad and bash Walmart all you want, but you are angry at the wrong person. If you don't like ERISA plans, get mad at the government. Or boycott every company that uses one (and you'll be boycotting a lot). If you think the woman deserved more money, go after her attorneys. Maybe $1 million was the most their insurance company would pay but I find it hard to believe a jury wouldn't have made the company pay more.
(one of many) trial.
Incidentally, the costs of taking cases like this through the court system are a lot higher than most people appreciate. Physicians often charge anywhere from $400 to $1200 an hour for their testimony and for performing medical evaluations for accident victims. Transcripts are hundreds of pages long and will usually cost three to five dollars a page. Expert witnesses not only charge hundreds of dollars an hour for their services, but have to be paid for travel expenses and accommodations. The law firm will also likely have hundreds of hours of time tied up in the case -- hours for which they won't be paid at all unless they win the case.
Wal-Mart, meanwhile, needs to understand that while they may have the right to recover this money, that doesn't mean that doing so is a good idea. I can only imagine how their employees feel when they read about this case -- "If they did it to her, they'll do it to me..." Between decreased employee morale and the loss of customers from the publicity, it's certain to cost them far more than they recovered in the lawsuit. And Sam Walton certainly wouldn't have approved.
Yes the Shanks need the money more (so do lots of other families).
But, Wal-mart is simply not responsible for the Shanks misfortune.
For those that call for boycotting Wal-Mart I suggest instead that you continue to shop there and donate the money you save to the Shanks. Collectively that would could generate millions, that is if you all "put your money where your mouth is".
"There are other things far worse Wal-Mart does. Choose your battles."
Well said, Sir. Well said.