Brain-damaged woman at center of Wal-Mart suit

--snip--

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. Watch this couple's story »

"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 circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan."

--snip--

[More at link in title]

Just an absolutely sad case all the way around.

__________________

A sad case all the way around, but nothing unique to Wal-Mart.

Just about every state allows an insurer to subrogate a claim against the responsible party for costs they have paid due to another's negligence.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Isn't health insurance supposed to pay to save a persons life or to improve their condition no matter the cause?

__________________

And it did. But the terms of the LEGAL CONTRACT between Walmart and its employee was such that if Walmart had bear a financial burden, that burden is to be offset by any compensatory damages awarded to a person.

In effect this is what happened:
Person A received an injury and incurred medical costs as a result. Walmart then paid money that Person A would never have received otherwise to pay for those medical costs.

Person A then sues the person responsible for their injury, in part for their medical costs (which they themselves did not pay, but rather were paid by Walmart).

Person A wins the lawsuite, gets money in part to cover medical costs they didn't pay, so those compensatory damages go to the person who actually DID pay pursuant to the legal agreement underwhich they paid in the first place.

So what is the problem with Person A not being refunded money they never spent in the first place?

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

And they did.

But where the injury is caused by the negligence of another, the insurer has a right to recover the costs of their expenses from any settlement.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Along with "Might is Right" another axiom that is a self-evident truth in America is that "Money is more important than People." There are quite a few of these unspoken but acknowledged truths that under-gird our system.

__________________
The apocalypse is coming... we're gonna need more ammo.

Say your friend, who has no insurance, gets mugged, and suffers a broken tooth.

You know your friend is is pain, so you give him the money to go to the dentist.

A few months later, the person who hurt your friend is caught, and your friend sues him for the medical bills.

Shouldn't your friend repay you for the money you lent him?

This situation, although undeniably sad, is very similar.

Her health insurance paid put out a lot of money for injuries that were caused by someone else. Why should they be expected to take the loss?

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Who says it's a loss? Wal-Mart pays diddly squat to their employees and the insurance coverage should be considered part of employee compensation.

Comparing Wal-Mart to a friend is a really lousy analogy.

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

A court found that the truck driver was responsible for her injuries.

Her health insurance isn't responsible for paying for the truck driver's negligence, nor should they be.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

It is tragic that this woman suffered a debilitating injury. However, it is SOP that insurance recoups any funds collected in a suit concerning medical costs.

But, because it's WalMart, this SOP is oh-so wrong.

[edit]I suppose I could go to the press and complain that a certain retail chain's negligence led to my left eye needing to be rebuilt by a very talented surgeon (thankfully no vision was effected) years ago, but I read the suit and the conditions (as did my husband at the time) . My attorney also informed me of this particular point and we grossed up for a fair, quick, and easy settlement.[/edit]

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

So if the plaintiff sued for inconvenience and mental trauma etc etc rather than medical costs would walmart still be able to recoup their losses ?

__________________
England has no eternal friends and no eternal enemies, only eternal interests - Palmerston

Probably.

It seems to me that the family's attorney failed to properly account for her medical expenses, and "assumed" that her health insurance was not going to subrogate the claim for their costs.

It is also worthy of note that nearly 60% of the award went to legal fees.

That also plays a role in why the family is left high and dry here....

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Is it any wounder that Wal mart has done this?
The Federal gov can and has done the same thing.

Last year the mother inlaw dies because of doc and hospital screw up, if we take them to court and win , any money that we would get after the leaches would go to pay back Medi-care that she was on that was paying the Hospital for their screw up.

The Federal government leads the way in this.

__________________
Fear the Government

Most (by a large majority) private insurers have subrogation clauses in their policies.

Health insurers are not in the business of insuring others for the costs of their negligence (like the trucker in the story above).

If they were, premiums would be much higher than the already-too-high premiums we already pay.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Exactly, there is absolutely no reason for WalMart to be getting so much heat over this. After all WalMart isn't a charity, its a business.