Here's an article from the Wall Street Journal about Wal-Mart finally dropping it's claim to the money Debbie Shank won in a suit against the trucking company that hit her car, leaving her permanently brain damaged.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is dropping a controversial effort to collect over $400,000 in health-care reimbursement from a former employee who is confined to a southeast Missouri nursing home since she suffered brain damage in a traffic accident.The world's largest retailer said Tuesday in a letter to the family of Deborah Shank it will not seek to collect money the Shanks won in an injury lawsuit against a trucking company for the accident.
Wal-Mart's top executive for human resources, Pat Curran, wrote that Ms. Shank's extraordinary situation had made the company re-examine its stance. Wal-Mart has been roundly criticized in newspaper editorials, on cable news shows and by its union foes for its claim to the funds, which it made in a lawsuit upheld by a federal appeals court.
Insurance experts say it is increasingly common for health plans to seek reimbursement for the medical expenses they paid for someone's treatment if the person also collects damages in an injury suit. The practice, called "subrogation," has increased since a 2006 Supreme Court ruling that eased it.Wal-Mart's Ms. Curran said the retailer was required by the rules of its plan to seek reimbursement from the Shank's settlement. But she said the case has made Wal-Mart revise those rules to allow for flexibility in individual cases. "Occasionally others help us step back and look at a situation in a different way. This is one of those times," Ms. Curran wrote in the letter.
Ms. Shank, 52, lost much of her memory and ability to communicate or walk in a crash between her minivan and a tractor trailer in May 2000. Her family sued the trucking company and won $700,000. Court records show that after attorney's fees and costs, the remaining $417,477 from the settlement went into a trust to care for Ms. Shank. The fund now has about $270,000, the family said.
Ms. Shanks' health insurance was through Wal-Mart, where she worked nights stocking shelves. After the Shanks won their lawsuit, Wal-Mart sued the Shank family to recover medical costs totaling about $470,000.
Wal-Mart won its case and subsequent appeals by the Shanks that went as far as the Supreme Court, which closed legal avenues this month by declining to hear the case.
The case put a spotlight on the growing use of reimbursement claims by health plans, experts say. Roger Baron, professor of law at the University of South Dakota and a specialist in health-plan law, said health plans have become "very aggressive" about subrogation since the 2006 Supreme Court decision.
"It's free money. They want the free money," Mr. Baron said.
Lynn Dudley, vice president for policy at the American Benefits Council in Washington, D.C., said the negative publicity around the case was beginning to draw the attention of lawmakers who might want legislation to stop or limit subrogation.
Mr. Baron said Wal-Mart's size -- it is the nation's largest nongovernment employer, with over 1.3 million workers -- means that its willingness to compromise in an individual case may have a wider impact on reimbursement practices by other health plans. "I'm so pleased to see an element of reason because so much of this subrogation has been about just blindly going after the money," Mr. Baron said.
Posted by Taylor - April 2, 2008 09:48 AM - Health Care
Let's be really brutally honest about this - the ONLY reason wal-mart backpedaled was because they were getting skewered on EVERY cable network news and Network news reports, in addition to the internet. They would not have done this, otherwise.
Let's also be really honest about another fact - absolutely NO MEMBER of the Walton family (Sam's Kids), stepped up to offer to help this woman and her family. It's really shameful. Collectively they are worth what....over $30 Billion?
Wal Mart, and the Walton family are PATHETIC excuses for corporate citizens, and take no interest in their employee's well being. They can issue are the PR to the contrary, but let's be really honest - their true colors came through in this instance.
Lee Scott, and other senior executives need to have bad things happen in their lives, maybe then it will hit home.
Posted by Steve - April 2, 2008 04:09 PM
Amen to that Steve! If this was an isolated unheard of incident, they would have NEVER given that woman her trust back. When are people going to wake up and stop letting Wal-Mart inundate their neighborhoods and cities with their mega-draining retail stores that are filled with Chinese made products that don't last two uses or washes? They use people and throw them away like trash. Their employees are discriminated against, lied to, kept working long hours with no benefits or time off to be with their families, work in dangerous conditions. They don't give a hoot about anyone but themselves. We all suffer while they prosper. Stop supporting Wal-Mart because they sure as hell don't support their employees or their customers.
Posted by Fee Fee - April 2, 2008 08:09 PM
You should watch Glen Beck's response. Not every cable network, just the Communist News Network. Your right the Waltons are WORTH 30 billion that is not what they have on hand. Why doesn't wakeupwalmart ever tell how much walmart gave to charities last year. Maybe they should keep the money from charities and just give it the employees. Did you know that walmart has beat FEMA in every natural disaster in the USA in the past 5 years?
Posted by pete - April 2, 2008 08:34 PM
Pete, first, it is absurd to call CNN communist. They are supported by and a slave to major corporations just like every other major television network. Just because they don't represent a specifically and stated conservative bias (ala Fox News) does not make them liberal. In fact, it makes them what a news network SHOULD BE, which is unbiased, at least ostensibly. Also, I'd like to point out that Glen Beck is on CNN Headline News...so I suppose now you think Glen Beck is a communist.
But the real point here is that yes, Wal-Mart donates a lot of money, which is all well and good, but they do far more harm than good. Sure they give 10,000 to the local boy scout troop, but does that offset the drop in wages they've cause in the area, the local businesses they've closed down, the hours they forced their employees to work without pay, the poor benefits they give their employees, the discrimination, both sex and race, the systematic cutting of hours and firing to keep payroll low, and the massive environmental degradation the company causes?
Lastly, Wake Up Wal-Mart doesn't need to mention all this great stuff about Wal-Mart because Wal-Mart mentions it for themselves all the time. WUWM is not the company's PR shill, and has no problem with the donations. Why would they mention them when they're trying to change the company?
Posted by BackStageLeftist - April 3, 2008 11:20 AM
BOYCOTT WAL-MART. PERIOD.
Posted by Steve in Boston - April 4, 2008 02:06 PM
After 3 years of being on this site I have realized that WUWM never accomplishes anything. WM continues to grow and so do their sales. 3 years of bad press, your supposed boycotts and this web site doesn't have anything to show for the 10's of millions spent.
UFCW members are the ones that should demand answers for the wasted money
Posted by dabubbawilson - April 5, 2008 11:47 AM
DeBubbaWilson,
First, if you think this campaign is so pointless, why are you here? Why not go away. That's what I would do if I though a campaign was not being effective.
Second, WUWM has never called for a boycott, in fact, they explicitly say they are a campaign of Wal-Mart shoppers who want to change the business.
Third, I think WUWM has done quite a bit. No, their sales haven't gone down, but that's not WUWM's goal. On the other hand, Wal-Mart has started making changes to their health care, they have started to fix some of the problems they have, they even stopped gong after Debbie Shank's money, all because of campaigns like this one.
Posted by BackStageLeftist - April 7, 2008 01:57 PM
BackStageLeftist,
WUWM are a campaign of Walmart shoppers... who happen to be on the UFCW payroll.
WUWM and the UFCW have clearly stated that one of their goals is to reduce Walmart's sales/profits. They once posted a blog in which they celebrated Walmart's declining sales, calling it a sign that the campaign was working. There's an article out there in which a UFCW boss stated that the goal of the UFCW is to "erode" the sales of non-union retailers.
And dabubbawilson is right. The UFCW has spend A LOT of money and have nothing to show for it.
Posted by Ike - May 10, 2008 01:16 AM