Wal-mart followed the terms of the policy that Ms. Shank and family contracted into. Specifically, she was in an auto accident and had her medicals paid through a policy she held with Wal-mart. I would assume that a portion of her meds were paid through her own auto coverage (which probably held insufficient limits on the first party medical coverage, or she was uninsured in that regard). The insurance carrier for the adverse vehicle involved in the accident settled the claim with the Shank family, and Wal-mart, quite properly was owed reimbursement for any payments if the claimant (Ms. Shank) recovered from the adverse carrier. It's called "subrogation", and the attorney for Ms. Shank would have had Wal-mart's Notice of lien confirming that any third party settlement must satisfy the lien. In fact, I would wager that there was language in the notice of lien that would require the attorney for the Shanks to obtain Wal-mart's permission to accept the settlement.

What did Wal-mart do that was wrong? Nothing. Why did they decide to turn rightful money owed to them into a charity case? Because the ignorant whined and complained and labeled the company unfeeling and uncaring quite improperly. Why was this case brought to the media despite the fact that this occurs daily on thousands of policies...(that's right...this is common...every day proper handling)?

Because, it was Wal-mart...and there are those who just don't understand that the entire basis of the "hate Wal-mart" campaign is fueled, financed and twisted by the Unions who would secure an immediate $300 Million windfall of fees should the employees unionize tomorrow.

Cheers
JR

Dear Wal-Mart apologist, JR:

Frankly, I find it disturbing that people like you even exist. That said, you might be irked to know that comments like yours just fuel the people's hatred of Wal-Mart. If morally vacuous sociopaths like you are the heralds of Wal-Mart, the company won't be winning many allies.

If by "wrong" you mean "illegal", then yes, Wal-Mart did nothing "wrong". You seem smart enough to know that the law is arbitrary to morality. So, keep lying to yourself.

I hope your lack of a moral compass is leading you to a lucrative career in Wal-Mart's middle management.

Cheers
SOS

Wow, SOS! What venom!!!

I'm no fan of Wal-mart, but if you think calling people names is going to win arguments, or more importantly hearts and minds, you are sadly mistaken.

JR expressed his opinion based on the facts of the case. You, in turn, responded not with debate of facts, but with insults and emotional taunts and jibs.

As such, I find your screen name ironic, to state it mildly.

SK

Sickinthehead, I mean sickofspin, you're back spitting the same crap ehh?

1. WM did nothing illegal. Every court backed them up.

2. WM had nothing to do with the accident.

3. WM paid all bills as outlined in the plan. The Shanks never complained once about late or unpaid claims.

4. The Waltons have nothing to do with this.

5. The insurance plan clearly stipulates they get reimbursed if she gets a legal settlement. Read your auto insurance, it says the same thing. Also, most union insurance plans say the same thing since they are self funded.

Go back to school with your lame argument about morality. Our laws and court system are goverened by laws dictated by our morality and they all agreed with the insurance contract.

Sounds like SOS is jealous of walmart middle management makes. Maybe you should start with walmart as a $5 an hour hourly and make over 6 figures like a lot of their management(75% to be exact has done)

Dear SOS:

If you want to blame someone...blame the plaintiff attorney who settled the third party liability claim without considering the policy language of the Wal-Mart health insurance and assuring that the settlement value far out weighted the amount owed via contractual language signed by the Shanks.

Blame the Shank family for saving a little cash and not getting sufficient first party med pay/ no fault limits on their own auto coverage.

Blame a public (yourself included) who thinks that we can disregard legal contracts and the case law precedents when things such as "feelings" tell us to. Here's a news flash...everyone's feelings on any issue are different and cannot be determined concretely. Legal contracts and the law are only assured if justice is blind and the emotional baggage is not part of the decision.

As I said before...this kind of issue happens every day thousands of times across the country. YET...THIS IS THE ONE THAT THE MEDIA AND YOU MISGUIDED FOLKS PICK UP ON.... why is that do you suppose?
Cheers,
JR

Alright, first, while SOS's comments may have been a bit harsh, he is none the less right. There is a big distinction between illegal and wrong. No one, not even the Shank family is claiming that Wal-Mart is doing something illegal. They are, however, doing something WRONG. Nearly every legal expert I've read has said that while Wal-Mart has the right to sue for this money, they also have the option to not sue. Additionally, from what I understand, they sued for as much as they could possibly get instead of the smaller amount that the Shank's lawyer says they have a right to.

All that said, Wal-Mart was still wrong. It was wrong to try and take someone's money that has been set aside for longterm care, especially when that is their only lifeline. It was especially wrong because Wal-Mart talks about being a 'family' and 'taking care of their own' and thus violated their own morals, or supposed morals.

Lastly, it was bad PR to go after the Shank's money.

All those defending Wal-Mart, this isn't about legality, it's about morality, and it's about what Wal-Mart claims to stand for (being a family and taking care of each other) and what they actually do.

It wasn't the Shank's money!! It was money that they won for her MEDICAL cost, which wal-mart already paid. Typical liberal attitude thought. OH NO SOMETHING BAD HAPPEND WAH WAH. LETS MAKE SOMEONE PAY FOR IT INSTEAD OF JUST SUCKING IT UP OURSELVES. Hey I had 6000 in medical bills last year for some surgery's maybe someone should pay for me. Maybe I can sue someone!! Why does BSL talk about morality and he is obviously a liberal. How many babies have died from the democratic judges saying that is ok. And you want to talk about morality?

Wow, look, someone else with personal attacks and no argument.

First, Pete, yes, I am a liberal and quite proud of it. I think Government should have a role in major national problems because they have the potential to fix things unlike businesses, etc. But this isn't about being liberal or not.

You say it wasn't the Shank's money, but what they won from the trucking company for health costs. Sure, but some of that was stipulated for initial bills (which Wal-Mart has a right to) and some of it was stipulated for long term care, since Debbie Shank will need full time care FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE. Wal-Mart should not have a legal claim to that. Subrogation is meant to prevent someone from unfairly getting money for health costs the insurance company already paid, in this case, the trucking company was providing for longterm care, which the insurance company hadn't paid for.

And if you are suggesting that a typical liberal attitude is COMPASSION, then yes, you are right. I can sympathize with Debbie Shank. How do you suggest she 'suck it up'? She can't work. Her husband is already working 3 jobs, one of their sons was killed in Iraq, another may not get to go to College. What do you want them to do? Be homeless? All because a company that claims to take care of their employees like a family exercised the option to sue the family for more than they had?

Lastly, yes, I will talk about morals. Abortion has nothing to do with this case. The fact that you think conservatives have a monopoly on morality is offensive. Don't tell me I can't talk about morals as if i have none!

Dry legal analysis and vitriol aside, the fact remains that Wal-Mart was clearly in the wrong. If Wal-Mart was footing the bill for a lifetime supply of medical care, then yes, they would be entitled to the Shanks' settlement.

That's not the case. The Shanks are left with substantial medical expenses above and beyond the payment Wal-Mart made. The expenses are the direct result of another's actions. Why shouldn't the Shanks have the right to pursue recompense?

Guys, law is not justice. Law is process. Most reasonable people agree that the case against the shanks was obviously unjust.. the time seems ripe for subrogation reform.

Come on, people.
While Wal-Mart may have been within its rights legally, we should remember that just because something is legal doesn't always mean it's right.


50 years ago, it was legal to ban interracial couples from getting married.

100 years ago, women weren't legally allowed to vote.

150 years ago, it was legal to own slaves.

Hope that clears it up a little for everyone.