Yup. Finest health care system in the world! Now I bet she wishes she’d died in the accident.

Accident Victims Face Grab for Legal Winnings

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.
[…]
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.

Until recently, many employers didn’t vigilantly enforce the provision, and some states and federal courts didn’t think the claim held water. But as the cost of covering workers continues to escalate, employers and health plans are getting more aggressive about going after the money. A Supreme Court ruling last year also has given them a clearer legal map to suing employees and winning.



  1. Mark Derail says:

    Another reason to boycott America’s leading outsourcing retail store.

  2. Cinaedh says:

    North Americans would buy from Satan if Satan charged a few cents less – and they do.

  3. SN says:

    I hate to be the wet blanket realist here, but lawsuits are not about winning prizes. You file a lawsuit to collect damages you’ve suffered. Any penny more than that should not be allowed. If your car is destroyed and it’s worth $10,000, you should only get $10,000. Not a penny more.

    In this instance the woman suffered damages. Wal-Mart’s insurer paid them. Now it wants to get paid back. You claim its unfair for Wal-Mart’s insurer to be paid back. However, what’s really unfair is for the lady to be paid twice for the same damages.

    This happens in nearly all lawsuits involving personal injury. The insurer gets paid first before everyone else, even the lawyers.

    No one should be allowed to double dip, not even former Wal-Mart employees.

    Now if you claim, “Well, she still needs more money because all of her damages were not paid.” If that’s the case, then it’s the jury’s fault for not awarding enough money, not Wal-Mart’s fault. I hate Wal-Mart as much as anyone, but you certainly can’t blame Wal-Mart for too little of an award it had no control over.

    Once again, this is not a news story. This happens thousands of times every single day. The insurer gets paid first. It’s the law.

  4. Ron Larson says:

    SN is right. An insurance company is there to cover your ass. There is a distinction to be made here. She was awarded medical expenses. Not punitive damages. Since her insurance was paying the medical expenses, then they should be the recipient of the award.

    If we had socialized medicine, then it would have the government instead of WalMart.

    Her lawyer failed her by not telling her this, and/or asking the juror for compensation above and beyond what was owned to her insurer. He gambled with her winnings and lost.

  5. Mark Derail says:

    #4 & #5, I totally disagree.

    Before the accident, she was a working mom.

    After the accident, she’s disabled :
    Deborah Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a wheelchair.

    She can no longer work at Wal-Mart. The extra 417k$ is a trust fund for her care until she dies.

    It has nothing to do with past medical expenses, but future expenses.

    Here in Quebec, with Universal Health Care, and one OTHER important thing – S.A.A.Q.

    S.A.A.Q is a state-run insurance policy. To put a car on the road in Quebec, par of the license cost, is also a No-Fault insurance.

    So had they been living in Quebec, they could not have sued the trucking company.

    However the victim would have gotten lifetime disability tax free revenue, depending on the disabilities.

    Wal-Mart and it’s insurance company are being total a$$hole$, a system that has gone too far.

  6. jbenson2 says:

    I’m glad to see several of the comments take a realistic view of the sad situation, as opposed to the sappy comment that the author tried to throw out. “I bet she wishes she’d died in the accident.”

    Wal*Mart is not at fault. If anyone, it is the Shank’s lawyer who settled for such a small amount.

  7. SN says:

    6. “It has nothing to do with pas medical expenses, but future expenses.”

    This case settled before trial as the Plaintiff and the Defendant picked a settlement award. Obviously, they picked too low of a figure as it was not enough to compensate the Plaintiff into the future.

    However, that was NOT Wal-Mart’s fault!

    If you want to cover your future expenses, the first thing you have to do is pay your past and current expenses. No one should get a free ride.

    7. “If anyone, it is the Shank’s lawyer who settled for such a small amount”

    Exactly. She was shanked.

  8. Russ says:

    Wal-mart has set a precedent by not collecting on some of the instances before apparently. So now they should either go back and collect on everyone or put forward a date specifying the change in policy. I also wonder if they are going to charge interest like other loan sharks. Perhaps any interest earned from the trust should go directly to the Walton family since I’m sure they can use the extra money for something better than helping a crippled former employee.
    Maybe Paul Harvey can use this as one of his “Wal-Mart helps” stories also.

  9. Mr. Fusion says:

    #4, SN,

    Now if you claim, “Well, she still needs more money because all of her damages were not paid.” If that’s the case, then it’s the jury’s fault for not awarding enough money, not Wal-Mart’s fault.

    Wal-Mart’s insurer put out $469,000 for her care. Since they have won back most of that, they should now have an obligation to continue with paying for her care. Otherwise the Insurance Company now ends with a windfall.

  10. JimR says:

    Actually you are all at fault. There is something wrong with a society that pays a million dollars for an irresponsible moran spilling a hot cup of coffee on herself while driving, and only pays medical expenses of less than $300,000 for an actual VICTIM with brain damage. Sure there are a few murmurs of disapproval. But it’s quickly back to nervous grazing as usual.

    Stop being sheeple. The American public, through complete apathy, has lost their collective common sense, just as Canadians have here. Organize and object. Demand accountability.

  11. SN says:

    10. “Since they have won back most of that, they should now have an obligation to continue with paying for her care.”

    If the insurer has a legal obligation to pay for her care for the rest of her life, it should. But I’m not sure how that legal duty is created merely because it got paid what it is owed.

    The woman was injured. The insurer paid her bills. She also claims to have future damages, but she failed to obtain them in the settlement. Once again, is that the insurer’s fault? I don’t see how it is.

  12. Bud says:

    There’s nothing like a free market economy

  13. Jennifer Emick says:

    Whether or not Wal*Mart was legally within its rights to recover funds is irrelevant. It’s callous and reprehensible to enforce a clause the employee could not have objected to abd probably didn’t know about. Walmart stands to slightly enhance the bottom line of one of its districts while ruining an actual human being’s quality of life. Thye ar eclearly on the wrong moral side of the issue.

    Had the poor woman died in the accident, they would have received a very nice payout from their insurer, another ‘right’ they allocate themselves without informing employees.

  14. the Three-Headed Cat says:

    I wonder what that warm-hearted, compassionate champion of the underdog – and Wal-Mart board member – H. Clinton has to say about this. I’m sure she let the rest of the board have a piece of her mind for permitting such callous treatment of their workforce to go uncorrected.

    Y’think? 😉

  15. jbenson2 says:

    #14 said: Walmart stands to slightly enhance the bottom line of one of its districts while ruining an actual human being’s quality of life.

    That is just plain wrong.

    The Wal*Mart plan is funded by the employees’ premiums and company contributions. Any money recovered is returned to the health plan, not to Wal*Mart.

  16. Glenn E says:

    I like to recommend that everyone here rent and watch the movie “Sicko”. It may change the opinions of some, and merely reinforce those of others. And probably anger those working for the drug and health insurance industries, in one capacity or another. But just remember, priviledged ones. When you retire, you’re dog meat like the rest of us. Better hope your retirement healthcare plan is thoroughly bullet-proof. Or you never actually need to use it. Or you’ll be whistling for some procedure approval, like the rest of us. And get denied!

  17. The Answer says:

    And People wonder why I don’t shop there. And it isn’t for that loely mix of McDonalds,Manure / Pet Feed, and B.O. smell either

  18. lividluddite says:

    My God, How can these people sleep at night, No really, I get a bad feeling in my stomach whenever I read story’s like this.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5643 access attempts in the last 7 days.