THINK WAL-MART CARES ABOUT ITS EMPLOYEES?
MEET DEBBIE SHANK.
Wal-Mart sued this brain-damaged employee for $470,000.
Missouri Wal-Mart employee Debbie Shank used her Wal-Mart health care plan to pay her medical expenses after a tragic accident left her severely brain-damaged. Then, Wal-Mart sued her for almost $500,000. The court ruled against Debbie in 2006, the same year she lost one of her three sons in Iraq. Last week, the Supreme Court refused to hear her case. Debbie lives in a nursing home, requires 24-hour care and now owes Wal-Mart $470,000.
TELL WAL-MART TO LET THE SHANKS KEEP THEIR MONEY.
Jim Shank already works two jobs and doesn’t know how the family will pay Debbie’s future nursing home bills. The Shank family’s tragic story has been covered by the national media including CNN and the Wall Street Journal. This family has suffered enough. The largest company in the world with $11 billion in profits doesn’t need Debbie’s money.
Contact your local Wal-Mart store manager, or write to CEO Lee Scott at:
To learn more about Debbie Shank's case, and Wal-Mart's employee health care policies, visit our website at: http://walmartwatch.com/
WAL-MART WATCH
1730 M St. NW. Suite 601
Washington, DC. 20036
DO YOU KNOW SOMEONE WHO WORKS AT WAL-MART?
Make sure they read the fine print of their health care plan.
(The above is the flyer that Wal-MartWATCH is asking people to distribute.)
Unfortunately, this is typical for any health insurance plan, not just the one Wal-Mart offers. If you are in an accident and your insurance pays for your care, then someone else is found liable for the accident, your insurance carrier (in this case, I guess it's WalMart) is legally owed the money that they spent on your care. The person who was liable for the accident basically is the one responsible for your health care costs.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, it looks like she won a lawsuit, and the award was meant to cover her medical costs. Legally, some of that money belongs to whoever paid for her medical care previously, whatever the bills totaled. It's logical, but doesn't seem very compassionate in some circumstances. I had a fender bender where I was paid some money, a portion of which I paid to my insurance carrier for their costs in providing care for which the other guy was at fault. It made sense to me, as much as I would have liked to keep the full amount, but my case was also very minor, not the catastrophic injuries this lady has. It certainly wouldn't have tugged on anyone's emotions.
WalMart's not the only "bad guy" in these situations, any insurance company would do the same. The real problem, I think, is not WalMart (though I'm not crazy about their business practices either), the real problem is the state of health care in this country.
Of course, Suzer, you are completely right. But as I wrote on a petition to Wal-Mart: Just because something is legally justifiable doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course, on top of everything, it sounds as if that family got really poor legal advice.
And THEN there's so-called "tort reform" that has prevented so many people from getting the compensation they desperately need in cases like this. But that's another discussion altogether.
Yes -- it sounds like this family was taken advantage of by more than one entity, and the details on the site you linked are sketchy and (unfortunately) slanted. Their lawyer should have known about the subrogation clause and gotten them some kind of structured settlement to pay for health care, plus the extra amount to compensate WalMart. Of course, if a jury rendered the award, they may have had not control over that.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, tort reform is needed in some ways, and detrimental in others. It's almost impossible to apply one rule to every case. Working in the legal area that I do (I work on some med mal cases), it is clear that there are many cases that are totally frivolous and should never see a courtroom, let alone get any money. Other cases are so egregious that the plaintiff should get a sizeable sum. But, your're right, it's a whole other post, really. :)
It would be nice if WalMart could make an exception in this case, given this lady's circumstances. It might be worth it on their side to create some good will, and show the public that they do have a heart after all. They won the case, they could decide to forgive the debt. I won't hold my breath, though.
Ha! Me either!
ReplyDelete