Wal-Mart ‘moved’ by fierce public backlash

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The Wall Street Journal ran an item in November that was so stunning, it didn't even seem possible. The story was about a woman named Deborah Shank.

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.

Two years ago, the retail giant's health plan sued the Shanks for the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care. A federal judge ruled last year in Wal-Mart's favor, backed by an appeals-court decision in August. Now, her family has to rely on Medicaid and Mrs. Shank's social-security payments to keep up her round-the-clock care.

"I don't understand why they need to do this," says Mr. Shank on a recent visit to the nursing home.

The company's motivations notwithstanding, how Wal-Mart went about doing this was just as incredible — Shank was part of the company's healthcare plan, which included a clause that said Wal-Mart "reserves the right to recoup the medical expenses it paid for someone's treatment if the person also collects damages in an injury suit."

As a result, the trust Shank's family needed for her care belonged to Wal-Mart, which wanted it all. As if the story couldn't possibly get worse, six days before a court ruled in Wal-Mart's favor, Shank's 18-year-old son was killed in Iraq. Adding insult to injury, Shank's husband felt compelled to divorce his brain-damaged wife because a healthcare administrator told him she might be eligible for some kind of public aid if she were a single woman. (As hilzoy recently noted, we actually live in a country in which someone has to divorce their ailing spouse in order to get them care.)

Fortunately, Wal-Mart, which has been known to have more than a few public-relations problems, is not immune to public outrage.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/

[GaryC 7]

The Wall Street Journal ran an item in November that was so stunning, it didn't even seem possible. The story was about a woman named Deborah Shank.

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.

Two years ago, the retail giant's health plan sued the Shanks for the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care. A federal judge ruled last year in Wal-Mart's favor, backed by an appeals-court decision in August. Now, her family has to rely on Medicaid and Mrs. Shank's social-security payments to keep up her round-the-clock care.

"I don't understand why they need to do this," says Mr. Shank on a recent visit to the nursing home.

The company's motivations notwithstanding, how Wal-Mart went about doing this was just as incredible — Shank was part of the company's healthcare plan, which included a clause that said Wal-Mart "reserves the right to recoup the medical expenses it paid for someone's treatment if the person also collects damages in an injury suit."

As a result, the trust Shank's family needed for her care belonged to Wal-Mart, which wanted it all. As if the story couldn't possibly get worse, six days before a court ruled in Wal-Mart's favor, Shank's 18-year-old son was killed in Iraq. Adding insult to injury, Shank's husband felt compelled to divorce his brain-damaged wife because a healthcare administrator told him she might be eligible for some kind of public aid if she were a single woman. (As hilzoy recently noted, we actually live in a country in which someone has to divorce their ailing spouse in order to get them care.)

Fortunately, Wal-Mart, which has been known to have more than a few public-relations problems, is not immune to public outrage.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/

There is the point we all need to keep in mind. Walmart had a stated policy and stuck to it. What the woman went through is very sad but it isn't Walmarts fault. Everything else is just more irrational Walmart bashing. Jeez.

[Sister Fracas 5]

Poor misunderstood Walmart....

[Alex+R 0]

The Wall Street Journal ran an item in November that was so stunning, it didn't even seem possible. The story was about a woman named Deborah Shank.

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.

Two years ago, the retail giant's health plan sued the Shanks for the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care. A federal judge ruled last year in Wal-Mart's favor, backed by an appeals-court decision in August. Now, her family has to rely on Medicaid and Mrs. Shank's social-security payments to keep up her round-the-clock care.

"I don't understand why they need to do this," says Mr. Shank on a recent visit to the nursing home.

The company's motivations notwithstanding, how Wal-Mart went about doing this was just as incredible — Shank was part of the company's healthcare plan, which included a clause that said Wal-Mart "reserves the right to recoup the medical expenses it paid for someone's treatment if the person also collects damages in an injury suit."

As a result, the trust Shank's family needed for her care belonged to Wal-Mart, which wanted it all. As if the story couldn't possibly get worse, six days before a court ruled in Wal-Mart's favor, Shank's 18-year-old son was killed in Iraq. Adding insult to injury, Shank's husband felt compelled to divorce his brain-damaged wife because a healthcare administrator told him she might be eligible for some kind of public aid if she were a single woman. (As hilzoy recently noted, we actually live in a country in which someone has to divorce their ailing spouse in order to get them care.)

Fortunately, Wal-Mart, which has been known to have more than a few public-relations problems, is not immune to public outrage.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/

There is the point we all need to keep in mind. Walmart had a stated policy and stuck to it. What the woman went through is very sad but it isn't Walmarts fault. Everything else is just more irrational Walmart bashing. Jeez.

WalMart reserved the right (all questions of the ethics of that policy aside). They didn't say "we will take you for all you're worth most definitely." Why you continue to stick up for gigantic corporations that would crush you in a second continues to stump me.

[nane1104 146]

Well, I guess legally they were in the right, and when it comes to morale, well, that's another, whole different story.

I feel very sorry for that woman though, life just isn't fair..

[Gaby&Talbert 1]

I live in Wal-Marts home town so don't think for a minute if they can get money they will. Wal-Mart is self insured and their insurance is only good for MAJOR medical probems. I can believe they have this clause in their insurance. Wal-Mart is the cheapest on most products for a reason, they are cheap with every aspect of their business. Can you believe the largest, richest company in the world has all their offices in cheap metal buildings like a barn is built. You see big companies around the world with big, fancy HQ but Wal-Mart. When Sam was alive people used to get fired if they drove too fancy of a car or too big of a house. After he died they are not too strick about this but the employees that have been around for the Sam years still have a simple car to drive to work even if they have a hugh salary and a Mercedes at home.

[nane1104 146]

I work as a vendor for another company in a almart...cheap, cheap, cheap, I think they should invest a little more money in training their personal, specially the managers...absolutley ridiculous what I see there every day, I wonder, how they actually exist.

People must really only go there for the "low prices"....

[Heracles 417]

I live in Wal-Marts home town so don't think for a minute if they can get money they will. Wal-Mart is self insured and their insurance is only good for MAJOR medical probems. I can believe they have this clause in their insurance. Wal-Mart is the cheapest on most products for a reason, they are cheap with every aspect of their business. Can you believe the largest, richest company in the world has all their offices in cheap metal buildings like a barn is built. You see big companies around the world with big, fancy HQ but Wal-Mart. When Sam was alive people used to get fired if they drove too fancy of a car or too big of a house. After he died they are not too strick about this but the employees that have been around for the Sam years still have a simple car to drive to work even if they have a hugh salary and a Mercedes at home.

They are a tightass company. I am just amazed that nobody has been able to beat them. Then again they are a monopoly that nobody seems to want to touch. The US congress is more than happy to chase Microsoft but turns a blind eye on Walmart. I am all for bringing value to the customers of lower social economic areas but that has to be balanced with their social obligations to the citizens of that nation. I know ALDI who is also a discounter in Aus pays extremely well. Close to $16 per hour...

I now shop at the Target SuperCentres here. Not only are they much much nicer, but I am happy to know that I am dealing with a company who respects their workers. A company who at least tries to source their products from America. Every low price comes at a cost. As we know you don't get something for nothing. Walmart does so by ###### others down the line.

I remember looking at a documentary on them and first thought here we go. Another liberal, pro-union Walmart bashing mockumentary. Until I watched it. By the end I thought what a bunch of #### suckers Walmart is. They are about as pro American as Osama Bin Laden is..

Edited April 2, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[simple_male 1]

The Wall Street Journal ran an item in November that was so stunning, it didn't even seem possible. The story was about a woman named Deborah Shank.

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.

Two years ago, the retail giant's health plan sued the Shanks for the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care. A federal judge ruled last year in Wal-Mart's favor, backed by an appeals-court decision in August. Now, her family has to rely on Medicaid and Mrs. Shank's social-security payments to keep up her round-the-clock care.

"I don't understand why they need to do this," says Mr. Shank on a recent visit to the nursing home.

The company's motivations notwithstanding, how Wal-Mart went about doing this was just as incredible — Shank was part of the company's healthcare plan, which included a clause that said Wal-Mart "reserves the right to recoup the medical expenses it paid for someone's treatment if the person also collects damages in an injury suit."

As a result, the trust Shank's family needed for her care belonged to Wal-Mart, which wanted it all. As if the story couldn't possibly get worse, six days before a court ruled in Wal-Mart's favor, Shank's 18-year-old son was killed in Iraq. Adding insult to injury, Shank's husband felt compelled to divorce his brain-damaged wife because a healthcare administrator told him she might be eligible for some kind of public aid if she were a single woman. (As hilzoy recently noted, we actually live in a country in which someone has to divorce their ailing spouse in order to get them care.)

Fortunately, Wal-Mart, which has been known to have more than a few public-relations problems, is not immune to public outrage.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/

There is the point we all need to keep in mind. Walmart had a stated policy and stuck to it. What the woman went through is very sad but it isn't Walmarts fault. Everything else is just more irrational Walmart bashing. Jeez.

WalMart reserved the right (all questions of the ethics of that policy aside). They didn't say "we will take you for all you're worth most definitely." Why you continue to stick up for gigantic corporations that would crush you in a second continues to stump me.

If Walmart is so right, why is Walmart reversing its position what they should have done at the first place?

[Peikko 1,575]

No one wants people to profit from an accident, that much is clear. However, what is shown here seems to be an example of how to bancrupt someone because they had the audacity to seek restitution i.e provision for care for a permanant incapacity.

While in strict legal terms, the contract of the employee must have allowed for the medical expenses to be recouped, it is shameful that any company would persue this in a case where the invalided person is litterally left with nothing, less than nothing if Walmart were seriously going to recoup the full costs of $470,000 out of a settlement that left the injured party with $417,000 (where they going to try to extract 'blood from a stone' for the remaining $53,000?).

If this is the kind of laissez faire economy that Gary advocates then I personally don't want anything to do with it.

The real problem for me is that making money is not something that of itself achieves anything remotely useful to human existance. Profit for its own sake has no moral perspective. This means that, if you allow business to function purely for profit with no restriction the needs and interests of humans inexorably give way to the needs of the company and the requirement to make ever more profit.

The idea that human's can modify the voriciforous nature of companies by the laws of supply and demand is clearly suspect at best and deeply flawed at worst. While some people are very good at discerning what is essential to their life and what is a need that is generated by the corporations for the persuit of profit this is by no means the norm. Most people find it very difficult to make these distinctions, which isn't really surprising when there is a huge industry that is relentlessly shoving marketing propoganda down their throats.

That is not to say that business is inherently evil - I would argue no such case. The fact is that business is neither good nor bad in and of itself. However, clearly the free market can result in some appalling catrastrophes for mere humans because the purpose of business is not the health and welfare of human beings.

This case neatly illustrates this point. There was nothing illegal about the company's behaviour but the fact remains that what happened to this woman is appalling and can in no way be attributed to a lack of personal responsibilty shown on her part. I am sure someone will suggest that she should have read the small print of her insurance policy long before this came about, but I would suggest that very few people either read the policy in it's entirety but much more significantly can understand the meaning and implications of all the 'contract' speak that these documents are written in.

Luckily, this case got the newspaper coverage that it deserved and it would appear as if she will not end her days in poverty and destitution. Would this were true of everyone placed in a similar position.

Edited April 2, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Heracles 417]

If this is the kind of laissez faire economy that Gary advocates then I personally don't want anything to do with it.

I would not say there is anything wrong with a free market. Far from it actually. Some of the best countries and economies live by it. In reality all of the other models are the ones which have failed miserably.

I think the US market has simply gone to the extreme and the system is now being abused. Monopolies, Duopolies, Oligopolies go against the free market principle. Yet there are quite a few of these in the US. The US governments / fed etc should not be worried about bailing out Wall Street, aka investors, but should be concerned with ensuring the free market principal works. Ensuring American jobs are protected rather than the pockets of shareholders. This principle seems to work well in Canada and Australia. Last time I checked their free market economies are kicking ###. The government spends billions of dollars bailing out investors while it spends bread crumbs, in comparison, to ensure the free market works. To ensure Americans have jobs. Shame on you American politicians I say..

I have many examples of the failure to execute the free market. I only have one broadband provider available in my area comcast crapcast. This is clearly a monopoly and I am forced to use them. Therefore they can do and charge as they see fit. Whereas back in Melbourne, Aus we had over 20 providers. Same goes with the power company here. I am stuck with one whereas back in Melbourne, Aus you have at least 5 to choose from.

[HannahP 119]

What's sad is that, at least around here, Wal-Mart offers some of the highest wages amongst the McJob opportunities. With five years of experience, my starting wage as a cashier was $8.75.

/made it 9 months

//turnover rate for cashiers is something like 115% every six months

[GaryC 7]

What is being lost here is something obvious. Walmart isn't the bad guy here. The ladies lawyer is! He should have known that the insurance company would want their money back. When they sued the person that caused the injuries the lawyer should have taken that into account. I would say she has a good case for legal malpractice.

[Peikko 1,575]

Law suits of the type illustrated are meant to make you 'whole' again. If she already was 'whole' (the insurance company company were going to cover the ongoing medical costs to give her a reasonable quality of life) then she wouldn't have won against the truck company.

One is therefore left with the logical conclusion that the suit against the truck company was to fill in the gap that the insurance company were not going to cover.

[GaryC 7]

Law suits of the type illustrated are meant to make you 'whole' again. If she already was 'whole' (the insurance company company were going to cover the ongoing medical costs to give her a reasonable quality of life) then she wouldn't have won against the truck company.

One is therefore left with the logical conclusion that the suit against the truck company was to fill in the gap that the insurance company were not going to cover.

Not true at all. A good lawyer would sue for medical costs, ongoing medical costs, loss of wages and in the case of someone who is disabled, cost of future care. On top of that there should be "pain and suffering" compensation. Her lawyer didn't take into account the insurance company was going to want it's money back and that was his fault.