[Kitty]

Does this seem wrong to anyone else?

************************************************** ******

Wal-Mart Sues Disabled Ex-Employee
CNN
Posted: 2008-03-29 09:54:15
Filed Under: Nation News, Law News
JACKSON, Missouri (March 29) - 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.
CNN
"Who Needs
The Money More?"
1 of 7
Debbie Shank, 52, suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident in 2000. The Wal-Mart employee received about $470,000 from the retailer's health plan for medical expenses, but the company has sued to get the payout back.

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 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.

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."

[SandyC]

This is a sad situation. Walmart doesn't need the money, yet it is within their rights to ask for it back. The question I have; is Walmart exclusively asking for the money or is it an insurance company that is wanting the money back and Walmart has to pay it? I know in my years of working, when you take out insurance it is through an independant company, not necessarily the company you work for. Again, here lies the question, is it worth the bad publicity and should Walmart just pay the money and let it go? Either way, the family loses.

Thanks for posting this Kitty. I'll say a prayer for the family. Greed is the seed of evil.

[weegot5kiz]

true sandy what is Also sad is how much the original amount that they received out of a million that is disgraceful, that is just shameful, I sure hope wally world rethinks this move, I for one dont think that amount would make that much of a difference on the stock holders dividends

[AfterMyNap]

Sounds about right —for Wal*Mart—.

[braingonebad]

I'm sorry for the Shanks. It's a horrible situation.

but that's the way it goes. Stinks to be Wal Mart - they look like bad guys, but you know it would be the same no matter who was in their shoes. This is how insurance works.


Every time I go for tests I am asked - I get a letter from my ins within days - if there is somebody I am in the process of sueing over my injury. If I can get worker's comp or can sue anyone else, my ins wants to be reimbursed.

It is not just Wal Mart.

No insurance company is going to pay for anything that somebidy else is already paying for, and this is the case for the Shanks.

[Jodylee]

Originally Posted by braingonebad

I'm sorry for the Shanks. It's a horrible situation.

but that's the way it goes. Stinks to be Wal Mart - they look like bad guys, but you know it would be the same no matter who was in their shoes. This is how insurance works.


Every time I go for tests I am asked - I get a letter from my ins within days - if there is somebody I am in the process of sueing over my injury. If I can get worker's comp or can sue anyone else, my ins wants to be reimbursed.

It is not just Wal Mart.

No insurance company is going to pay for anything that somebidy else is already paying for, and this is the case for the Shanks.

Sorry Brain, but I have to respectfully disagree. It doesn't stink to be Walmart and they don't just look like the bad guys, they are the bad guys. Just one more item to add to my list of reasons why I don't like to shop at Walmart.

I received a settlement about 10 years ago for a car accident. My health insurance never asked for their money back for any treatment I had received due to the accident.

The settlement, according to the article, was for her continuing care, to cover her future lost earnings etc. Why couldn't Walmart make a generous donation of, oh say $500,000 to the family (anonymously) for her continuing care? That will never happen of course.

Walmart could easily afford to offer better healthcare coverage for their employees. A plan that doesn't include this type of "small print".

This is a very sorry state of affairs. People will continue to shop at Walmart regardless of how they treat their employees. So many people just don't understand that until the general population takes a stand and stops spending money at places like Walmart nothing will change.

I know how much cheaper it is to shop there, but we all pay some sort of price in the end just to save a few bucks in the short term.

[shiney sue]

One of his Kids built a Baskeball Stadium right here,in Columbia Mo..They wanted to name it after their Daughter.Well people put there foot down.
And they didn't like it but backed down,the stadium was for MU enough
rich alumni well after all..I just can't imagine how they have the nerve
to do this to a women who lost her son in Iraq,her husband works 2 jobs
as well,helps take care of her,they were working to put there other son
through college but that's out 2,She did what alot of us might do just
didn't read the small print. That's not enough money to take from her.

Ton's of people have been protesting this,it's so sad,her husband looked so
wore out she has short term menory lost and in a will chair,so he lost her and his son,who was protecting our familys..It's legal but it doesn't have to be done,that just wrong..Sue

[sherylp]

This is the nature of any business and insurance plans. The more claims that are paid out on will increase the cost of insurance for all people that Walmart employs.

Since she has received a settlement from the company involved in her accident, I don't believe Walmart should have to cover her costs.

If I was to get into an auto accident today and the other driver was at fault. I would not expect my employer's policy to pay for those expenses. I would not have even given my insurance information out. That should have been charged to the person-at-faults insurance company. After all that's why we are required to have auto insurance. Her lawyer should have taken that into consideration when settling this case.

[Jodylee]

Originally Posted by sherylp

This is the nature of any business and insurance plans. The more claims that are paid out on will increase the cost of insurance for all people that Walmart employs.

Since she has received a settlement from the company involved in her accident, I don't believe Walmart should have to cover her costs.

If I was to get into an auto accident today and the other driver was at fault. I would not expect my employer's policy to pay for those expenses. I would not have even given my insurance information out. That should have been charged to the person-at-faults insurance company. After all that's why we are required to have auto insurance. Her lawyer should have taken that into consideration when settling this case.

Walmart employees wouldn't have to suffer higher premiums if the company itself absorbed the costs.

If you were to have an auto accident your car insurance pays the costs regardless of who is at fault. I've been through this. Your insurance company is not reimbursed by the at-fault driver or by their insurance company.

Originally Posted by braingonebad

Just because that company has the money does not mean they owe it to this family. They are not legally bound to allow them to keep it. It does not make them evil.

The woman's claim against the person repsonsible for the injury paid her - why should she get paid twice?
Just because she's had a rough life? Why is that her employer's fault?

Just because the company has the legal right to subrogation does not mean they have to pursue it.

We expect people to have a moral code but apparently we don't expect the same of corporations. The lack of compassion and morality is what makes them evil. To think that Walmart had the gall to also sue the Shank's for reimbursement of THEIR legal fees incurred for this suit makes me physically ill.

This woman paid for her health insurance policy thinking that it would take care of her medical expenses. What's next? When we die will our loved ones have to pay the insurers for past medical care out of our life insurance policies?

No amount of bad pr seems to have any effect on Walmart. If a human being behaved in this manner we would be outraged at their lack of compassion.

[weegot5kiz]

I agree with sheryl if joe blow hits my car I am going to joe blows insurance company, not mine. I feel somehow this person had an attorney that didnt do best by her, something didnt work out right the settlement should of had punitive (sp/) for long term care along with cost for legal and medical on top of the policy, this is what bothers me the policy is in itself a sepperate issues isnt it? the original suit was for the medical and lawyers and if it wasnt then why wasnt it done so, this is what is bothering me her best interest were not looked after and i am not saying wally world i am saying lawyers something this serious should of been well covered.