No, she just made bad decisions.. partied it up instead of saving money..![]()
I have been somewhat ambivalent about the big WM until this. Walmart will never see another dime of ol' RG's money.
![]()
Debbie Shank, 52, has severe brain damage after a traffic accident in May 2000.
But hey, everybody who uses medicare is just sponging off the system and too lazy to work, right?JACKSON, Missouri (CNN) -- Debbie Shank breaks down in tears every time she's told that her 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq.
The 52-year-old mother of three attended her son's funeral, but she continues to ask how he's doing. When her family reminds her that he's dead, she weeps as if hearing the news for the first time.
Shank suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident nearly eight years ago that robbed her of much of her short-term memory and left her in a wheelchair and living in a nursing home.
It was the beginning of a series of battles -- both personal and legal -- that loomed for Shank and her family. One of their biggest was with Wal-Mart's health plan.
Eight years ago, Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart's health and benefits plan.
Two years after the accident, Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank's long-term care.
Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank's medical expenses and later sued for the same amount. However, the court ruled it can only recoup what is left in the family's trust.
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.
The family's attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money.
"We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to," Graham said.
The Shanks lost their suit to Wal-Mart. Last summer, the couple appealed the ruling -- but also lost it. One week later, their son was killed in Iraq.
"They are quite within their rights. But I just wonder if they need it that bad," Jim Shank said.
In 2007, the retail giant reported net sales in the third quarter of $90 billion.
Legal or not, CNN asked Wal-Mart why the company pursued the money.
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 cir stances 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.
The family's attorney agrees.
"The recovery that Debbie Shank made was recovery for future lost earnings, for her pain and suffering," Graham said.
"She'll never be able to work again. Never have a relationship with her husband or children again. The damage she recovered was for much more than just medical expenses."
Graham said he believes Wal-Mart should be en led to only about $100,000. Right now, about $277,000 remains in the trust -- far short of the $470,000 Wal-Mart wants back.
Refusing to give up the fight, the Shanks appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But just last week, the high court said it would not hear the case.
Graham said the Shanks have exhausted all their resources and there's nothing more they can do but go on with their lives.
Jim Shank said he's disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case -- not for the sake of his family -- but for those who might face similar cir stances.
For now, he said the family will figure out a way to get by and "do the best we can for Debbie."
"Luckily, she's oblivious to everything," he said. "We don't tell her
what's going on because it will just upset her."
This woman needs to get off her butt and find a job that pays her healthcare and everything will be peachy, right? I mean, in a capitalist system if a person is so poor that he/she needs to be on Medicare there is something morally wrong with him/her right?
No, she just made bad decisions.. partied it up instead of saving money..![]()
Man, I hate it when people who get hit by semi-tractor trailors drive up the cost of health care for the rest of us...
Well, I agree Wal-Mart should make an exception in cases that are extrodinary. Who knows, maybe they would have and maybe the family just pissed them off? Remember, we seldom hear the whole story. Keep an open mind. We all complain about the prices of health care and insurance, then nobody wants to do things to keep the prices in check. How much would Wal-Marts insurance costs go up if they made such changes?
Life can be brutal. This does really sucks.
And...
The lawyer is a liar, incompetent, or both. He knew, or should have known this would happen. They should have gone for more money stating they would have to repay Wal-Mart and fees and still needed long term health care expenses. Look at any insurance policy this is a standard practice to collect the money back if someone else pays for the costs.
Here's a possibility. Sue the lawyer for incompetence? Anyone know if that can be done? They effective got no money. Only the lawyer and Wal-Mart were made whole, at least partially.
Poll the associates and see how many believe it's fair.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 cir stances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan."
Anyways, I'm sure Wal-Mart could find a way to resolve this without pursuing the claim. And one would have to think that the negative publicity over this will end up costing the company more than $470K.
What part of the story would make it better for Wal-Mart? That she took 18 minute breaks instead of 15 minute ones when on the job? That her dead son liked to look at porn on the internets? She's a Democrat?
The Jimmy Carter defense? Come on.Life can be brutal. This does really sucks.
Why can't it be that one of the planet's largest private enterprises is acting a bit unethical?And...
The lawyer is a liar, incompetent, or both. He knew, or should have known this would happen. They should have gone for more money stating they would have to repay Wal-Mart and fees and still needed long term health care expenses. Look at any insurance policy this is a standard practice to collect the money back if someone else pays for the costs.
Here's a possibility. Sue the lawyer for incompetence? Anyone know if that can be done? They effective got no money. Only the lawyer and Wal-Mart were made whole, at least partially.
It's called subrogation, and it's SOP. The lawyer screwed up in several ways. First, he should have known it was going to happen - second, the plan can only recoup money for damages paid specifically FOR medical expenses - essentially she can't get paid twice for the same thing. If she would have been paid for lost wages, pain and suffering, or even inconvenience - there would be now subrogation.
Truly is the lawyers fault - should have been looking out for his clients - he's paid to notice the fine print after all.
Is HE taking his cut out of the subrogation amount? Why is Wal-Mart so much more evil than him. Contracts are contracts, I'm no fan of Wal-Mart, but they have every right to uphold one as much as the next guy.
I guess Jeremy Shank died fighting for the freedom of Wal-Mart to legally hound his brain-damaged mother.
She's the mother of a KIA serviceman. Once upon a time that would mean something in this country.
It means allot. It doesn't make it right to steal from others however. The law is the law, contracts are written for a reason.
I say sue the lawyer!
This is a very good point.
The technical term for this is called "subrogation" (literally "stepping into someone elses shoes") and it is a VERY standard clause in EVERY insurance contract.
Insurers maintian whole legal divisions that LIVE for this kind of stuff to attempt to recoup some of their losses.
The woman's counsel should have worked hand-in-hand with the subrogation people to coordinate and take care of this woman.
As it is, Walmart is now in the position of taking a pass on this. The ultimate face-saving bit would be for one of Walmarts foundations to step in and provide some relief for this.
It is worth noting that the company paid out almost 5 billion dollars to investors last year in both dividends and stock buy-backs.
(see the "cash used in financing activities" total.
Surely they probably could afford to let this one go. I would imagine the bad publicity would cost them more than any potential rise in health care premiums.
Yep, this looks like W-M has a case. WM paid up, then she got compensated by the trucking company, so WM wants its money back.
yes, the lady's lawyer should have seen that double compensation wouldn't fly.
I would agree with WM only if the trucking company payment was not reduced with the knowledge that WM had also paid.
"We all complain about the prices of health care and insurance, then nobody wants to do things to keep the prices in check"
There are 2 insurance companies involved here, trucking company's and WM's. I doubt either one is suffering from this single case.
While I'm absolutely no fan of lawyers, personal injury lawyers don't win every time, so their "insurance" is to cover their lost cases with their won cases.
Capping liability at $250K in TX means that a lot of the victims can't even get into court, because the lawyers say their slice isn't worth their time. So the corps escape their liability and crush the victims, which is how fascist Repug/conservatives prefer society to be run.
Protect/enrich the ins utions, while crushing the citizens. The individual right's as the primary concern of American govt increasingly being crushed to the benefit of (corporatized, corrupted) govt and the corps. ie, the Repugs are taking the USA backwards to royal/church concept of personal right, ie, none. The state/corps are superior and favored in every way vs citizens.
Stealing?
The woman won a judgment based on the fact that she has been left with a permanent brain injury.
This was a good example of how well-intended caps on liabilities can come back to have unintended results.
The real data on liability suits is that caps aren't really needed from what I have seen. The courts are pretty good about winnowing out frivolous suits and the anecdotal things that make for sensationalistic news reports are rare enough not to be much of a factor in the overall US economy.
Even medical malpractice suits don't drive cost increases as much as proponents of caps would have anyone believe. (reference: the PWC "whitepaper" analysis of 2006 cost increases to US medical costs)
I doubt they'll even notice.
![]()
Here is how it works:
I give you health insurance, and the clause in question (subrogation) says that if you get injured and it is someone elses fault, it is my obligation to pay for your health care...
BUT
Just as I am obligated to pay for your health care, you are obligated, if you sue the person at fault, to reimburse me for my payments, because I ultimately have accepted the risk of loss for your health issues.
Insurance is a transfer of risk, from the policyholder to the insurer.
With that transfer comes the right of recapture/subrogation.
The "theft" here is that she was paid by the insurer for her injuries, and then sued the trucking company to recover the costs of her health care, among others.
So, in essence, she got paid twice, once by her (wal-mart's) insurer, once by the trucking company insurer.
It is a sucky thing to do in this case, though. This is where black and white issues get a lot grayer, because this woman's needs must be balanced with the needs of all the other policyholders.
Eh, I understand the legal and insurance concepts. Apparently the ethical one is lost on a few here.
I doubt they will either. But when me and a million other people start shopping at their compe ors...
I will do my part to let people know about this.
The best case outcome is for someone with a sense of compassion to pay off Wal-marts insurance company, and maybe help the woman with her bills.
I would contribute some of my money to that fund. As much as a poor grad student with 2 kids can afford...
Further rofl...
I like to think, despite what many on the left like to believe, that executives are human too. Hopefully someone at Wally-World will come to their senses and work to get this resolved.
I think our country at least owes the woman as much.
Wal Mart has to beware setting a precedent in a case like this; tricky ground in group insurance policies. You must treat ALL as you treat one. They really can't make an "exception".
That said, I already don't shop at Wal Mart. I stopped when they tried to move into Helotes several years back.
Old Jim Shank should just start shopping for all of his groceries at WM, go through self checkout, and pay for about 1/10th of the merch. Everyone else already does.
Executives are human; corporations are not (even though they are legally regarded as possessing the same rights as actually human citizens).
I think this is an extremely important distinction that goes to the heart of why real life capitalism is as equally likely to be destructive and dystopic, as opposed to the creative nirvana Republicans always promise.
Indeed. Wal-Mart owes a little bit to those willing to put their lives on the line in defense of the nation in which it has prospered. One would think that when a family member has been a faithful employee and has experienced such a loss that it wouldn't be that much of an issue to forgive and forget what is for it a trifling sum.
Frankly I am a bit surprised that there isn't a bit more of outrage thusfar in the thread. Instead we see some ever willing to justify Wal-Mart's obvious ambivalence as a mere legal right.
Wal-Mart likes to trade on its support for the troops and their families, as well as the care of its employees, but apparently that only goes so far.
What is legal is not necessarily moral and ethical. When common sense and justice is subjugated to what is merely legal then we have lost our soul as a nation.
Sparky is on the dime here, what is legal isn't always what's right and just. If Wal-Mart was a human being and not a soul-less corporation, there would be no problem here unless that human being was a real jerk. Fact is, it's a lot easier to be unethical as a corporation than as a person because some of your guilt is diluted.
The obvious non-partisan solution is to make corporations more liable but ethics are hard to code into law. What's most likely to happen I imagine is that some kind-hearted people raise enough money to step in for Wal-Mart's lack of morals.
Surely the bad pr from this case, will cost Wal Mart a lot more than $400+k. Later im off to pick up some cheap groceries. At Wal Mart.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)