Just one of the many ways Wal-Mart cheats the world and passes the savings on to you.

[Dion]

Wal-Mart Paid Bills For Mrs. Shank, Then Sued for Money Back

JACKSON, Mo. -- A collision with a semi-trailer truck seven years ago left 52-year-old Deborah Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a wheelchair. Her husband, Jim, and three sons found a small source of solace: a $700,000 accident settlement from the trucking company involved. After legal fees and other expenses, the remaining $417,000 was put in a special trust. It was to be used for Mrs. Shank's care.
Instead, all of it is now slated to go to Mrs. Shank's former employer, Wal - Mart stores inc.

Two years ago, the retail giant's health plan sued the Shanks for the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care. A federal judge ruled last year in Wal-Mart's favor, backed by an appeals-court decision in August. Now, her family has to rely on Medicaid and Mrs. Shank's social-security payments to keep up her round-the-clock care.

Few such cases have attracted as much attention in legal circles as the Shanks'. Mrs. Shank took a job in 1999 stocking shelves at a Wal-Mart store in Cape Girardieu, Mo. She jumped at the shift from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. so that she could spend days at home with her three sons, Mr. Shank says. After a probation period, she qualified for benefits under the Wal-Mart health plan in February 2000.

One day about three months later, as she and a girlfriend were touring local yard sales, a semi-trailer truck plowed into the driver's side of her minivan. Her friend's injuries were minor, but Mrs. Shank suffered major brain trauma and spent the next several weeks in intensive care. She drifted in and out of a coma, and the hospital, for months.

Mrs. Shank struggled a year rotating in and out of the hospital and rehabilitation programs. She could no longer use her right arm or three fingers on her left hand because of neurological damage. She couldn't feed or dress herself and conversations with her family were limited to all but simple questions. Eventually, her husband moved her to a nursing home for around-the-clock care. Medicare and Medicaid pay for the nursing home. Mr. Shank used some of the trust's proceeds to continue paying a private aide to care for her there.

The reason is a clause in Wal-Mart's health plan that Mrs. Shank didn't notice when she started stocking shelves at a nearby store eight years ago. Like most company health plans, Wal-Mart's reserves the right to recoup the medical expenses it paid for someone's treatment if the person also collects damages in an injury suit.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1195...hpp_us_pageone

[MelBridgeman]

a clause in Wal-Mart's health plan that Mrs. Shank didn't notice

Like most company health plans

Like it states this is common practice..and is it Wal-Mart suing or the insurance company that provides the health insurance...

[Dion]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Like it states this is common practice..and is it Wal-Mart suing or the insurance company that provides the health insurance...

That's a good question - one I can't seem to find an answer for.

For sure it's common practice- doesn't make it moraly right though.

The money was going to pay for her care - money the family didn't have. Now the husband divorces his wife so she can qualify for public aid as a single woman.

What happened to compassion in this world?

Family would have been better off not suing the trucking company.

Sad way to treat a person

[Dion]

Wal-mart's lawsuit: legal, but wrong

Doing what the law allows isn't the same as doing the right thing, however. The company made itself whole at the expense of a helpless former employee who will never be whole again. Instead of having some resources to improve her care, Shank will receive only the basic services afforded her by Medicaid and Social Security. Nor will the trust fund be in a position to reimburse Medicaid (i.e., taxpayers), which stood to collect any unspent money upon Shank's death.

Wal-Mart argues that it's just trying to be fair to those still paying into the company's healthcare plan. Big payouts to insured workers can drive up the plan's premiums. The half-million dollars it spent on Shank's care, however, translates into less than 40 cents per Wal-Mart employee. In its most recent quarter, its stores generated that much in operating income every eight minutes.

Wal-Mart has spent the last few years working hard to rebut healthcare reformers, labor unions, anti-globalization groups and other critics who've argued that it puts profits ahead of humanity. While its advertising campaigns try to put a friendlier spin on the company, its behavior toward Shank tells a different story. If Wal-Mart can't restrain itself, perhaps Congress should prevent health plans from draining settlements won by injured workers with more bills to pay.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...inion-leftrail

[J pold]

Wal-mart can go to hell, I hate that store with a passion on every level

[llama64]

Don't like Walmart? Don't shop there. There's something to be said about spending a little more money for quality.

My life quality has risen since I stopped spending money in that cesspool. Plus, damage done to my car went down.

[Ozy_Flame]

Well I'm not a fan of "el Conquista-store," but if I have to go to get a quart of milk, and it's between Wal-mart and Safeway, I'm going to Wal-Mart. Their prices are significantly lower than most places, and for the average person who just needs to get some milk, this is a no-brainer.

Of course, that said, if I was living in a small town, I'd be more inclined to help the local grocer than support the corporate gargantuan. However, living in the city, I think it just makes more sense.

[Got Miikka?]

Wal-Mart just needs a slogan for it... "Bank Account Rollback" - sounds appealing, no?

[Phanuthier]

Sadly, this kind of stuff doesn't hurt them in the sales, so they have nothing to lose. Why bother though? One of the richest corps in the world, and you need a few pennies from the disabled?

I'm more concerned about the judge that ruled in Wal-Mart's favour. What a frickin joke.

[Kjesse]

It sounds to me like her lawyer screwed up. If the health plan has a claim for recovery of medical expenses it paid if you settle or get judgment against whomever caused your loss, it is important to make sure you add that claim to your own claim. So her settlement should have been $700K plus whatever medical expenses were paid by Wal-mart's health plan.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

I'm more concerned about the judge that ruled in Wal-Mart's favour. What a frickin joke.

did you read the article?

[foofighter15]

Originally Posted by Delgar

It sounds to me like her lawyer screwed up. If the health plan has a claim for recovery of medical expenses it paid if you settle or get judgment against whomever caused your loss, it is important to make sure you add that claim to your own claim. So her settlement should have been $700K plus whatever medical expenses were paid by Wal-mart's health plan.

So now she can sue the lawyer?

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Sadly, this kind of stuff doesn't hurt them in the sales, so they have nothing to lose. Why bother though? One of the richest corps in the world, and you need a few pennies from the disabled?

I'm more concerned about the judge that ruled in Wal-Mart's favour. What a frickin joke.

Business is business, regardless of how much money they make. That $470,000 could have been used to treat people that work for Wal-Mart who didn't get $700,000 settlements for their injuries.

How is the judge a joke? Not only did the judge agree with Wal-Mart but an appeals court also did.

A federal judge ruled last year in Wal-Mart's favor, backed by an appeals-court decision in August.

Maybe this lady should have read her medical plan and she would have never got into this mess.

Not to mention that this lady is really double dipping. She collected a settlement of $700,000 when she got injured, but then expensed her medical/treatment expenses to Wal-Mart. The settlement money is suppose to be used for her treatments, Wal-Mart should NOT look like the bad guy in this.

No one is to blame but herself and her lawyer.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Delgar

It sounds to me like her lawyer screwed up. If the health plan has a claim for recovery of medical expenses it paid if you settle or get judgment against whomever caused your loss, it is important to make sure you add that claim to your own claim. So her settlement should have been $700K plus whatever medical expenses were paid by Wal-mart's health plan.

That's what it sounds like to me. It's probably a good idea to read through your health plan before you complain about it. It's not Wal-Mart's fault that her lawyer is incompetent and didn't get a suitable settlement.

It's a crappy situation, but if Wal-Mart lets her $470 000 slide then they have to do the same for everyone. They're still a business.

[BlackArcher101]

Fully agree with HOOT. She was already reimbursed for her expenses through Wal-Mart's plan and then on top of it received settlement money. Wal-Mart sees it as her pocketing the money (which she did through a trust fund) for later personal use. What she should have done was sued for expenses PLUS future lost income/care costs.

[MarchHare]

I hate Wal-Mart as much as the next guy and I choose not to spend a penny there (even if it means paying slightly higher prices for the same products sold by other companies I deem more ethical), but they're not in the wrong here.

As was previously pointed out, the woman double-dipped. She billed her medical expenses to the company health plan, and then she accepted a $700k settlement from the truck driver. She can't have it both ways. Sadly, I think this is more of a case of lawsuit-happy America than it is an evil act by Wal-Mart.

[psicodude]

I will never understand the hate for these big companies. Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Sony, etc. can't ever win.

In this case, if Wal-Mart backs off they set a precidence, and pretty soon they will have hundreds of cases like this every year totalling in the millions.

[JayP]

It's just a sob story with no wrong-doing by Wal-Mart. This is proven by this:

"This girl needs the money more than they do"

They know that Wal-Mart is doing nothing wrong, but they still want them to bend the rules for them.

I'm sure I could walk into any Wal-Mart in Calgary and find employees who need Wal-Mart's profits more than the executives. It doesn't mean they should get it.

[mykalberta]

So a likely unskilled employee gets a night job stocking shelves. This person gets injured in a non work-related injury, Walmart pays for this persons medical bills. This person sues and gets a settlement that in part is meant to pay for medical bills so Walmart's health division tries to re-coup the costs.

What again is the problem. The chick should be lucky that Walmart paid for the medical expenses to begin with. Its not WalMart's fault she didnt sue for more or have legal expenses paid on top of settlement.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

What again is the problem. The chick should be lucky that Walmart paid for the medical expenses to begin with. Its not WalMart's fault she didnt sue for more or have legal expenses paid on top of settlement.

I was just coming back to this topic to edit my post and add this. Its a great point because not everyone has that option.

Originally Posted by psicodude

I will never understand the hate for these big companies. Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Sony, etc. can't ever win.

Its because people are jealous of success that is not their own. If these people that hate Wal-Marrt so much owned one and saw the profits, I don't think they would hate them so much. People have a choice to not buy from there or buy big company products but they do it anyways and still complain.

Working with the public for so long I have now realized people just need something to whine and b***h about. It's almost like the world has too much time on their hands.