Posted on 12/18/2007 7:06:29 AM PST by Ace of Spades
A collision with a tractor-trailer 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 Deborah Shank's care.
Instead, all of it is now slated to go to Deborah's former employer, Wal-Mart Stores.
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, Deborah's family has to rely on Medicaid and her Social Security payments to keep up her round-the-clock care.
(Excerpt) Read more at articles.moneycentral.msn.com ...
Or let me rephrase and correct: the dark side of man expressed through the medium of capitalism.
Lesson being, when settling one had better make sure that the insurance company is re-embursed for their out of pocket expenses on top of whatever settlement amount that is finally settled on.
The real “Winner” in this saga isn’t Walmart, it’s the trucking companies insurance plan, they shifted payment from themselves to the couple who then had to pay WalMart’s insurance back.
MSN must be really slow, I read this story in the Journal several weeks ago.
not surprised - the settlement was to pay past expenses as well as future. since Wal-mart had already paid thus far, she would be double-dipping, legally.
Not nice, nor popular, but Wall Mart should get their money back.
in CT we had major asbestos lawsuits going on for years. after settlement, the employer went after the judgement and recouped all their expenses. the people ended up with little, if anything.
Yep, “anything for a buck” goes to a whole new level.
I didn’t post this as a Wal-Mart bash, but they’re sure good at putting themselves in a bad light.
SO whats wrong with government care???
I think the aim of this article is to just be another hit at Wal-Mart, as opposed to a legitimate criticism of the health insurance industry as a whole.
Workers' comp insurer/employer cannot recoup medical expenditures until the injured person is "fully compensated" for her injuries.
Oftentimes there's some dispute about what "fully compensated" means, but in this case it's clear that the lady was not fully compensated. Too bad she doesn't live in GA.
The settlement was to cover medical expenses, that is why it was awarded. If they can show that the money went for medical expenses NOT covered by their insurance, they have a strong case for not repaying the insurance company.
However, if they went out and spent it on something else, they have a problem.
SO whats wrong with government care???
They’re just tired of having Hillery! coming over to change
the sheets every day. She cares don’t ya know.
Perhaps they need to find another lawyer to sue their lawyer (on a contingency basis) for malpractice in failing to structure the settlement to include the possibility of subrogation for reimbursement by the Health Care insurer.
Don’t know if it has any merit, but if it does, get it before the right jury and who knows.
I'm not sure if it's even legal to do this. The normal procedure is "subrogation", by which an insured claimant assigns his right to sue the injuring party over to his own insurance company. The insured gets compensated right away, while the insurance company might get a larger amount from the injuring party years later.
I second the Second lawyer..their first one didn’t do a very good job for his client.
We know a young fellow who is truck driving for Walmart..will email this to him. It needs to get around to all Walmart drivers.
If she paid for the policy this isn’t right.
Exactly. This is just like the episode of All in the Family where Archie's pub was being robbed and Meathead gave Archie the $10 dollars he owed him a second before Archie had to give it to the robber.......
Many people believe that their employers simply pay a monthly premium to the insurance company for their coverages. Thats not necessarily so for large companies. If self insured, the insurance company pays all the covered medical bills then each month passes that bill on to the employer as well as an administrative fee for processing each claim. The same applies with whichever drug company the employer contracts with.
Back in 2005 my ex-employer paid over $82 million dollars in healthcare costs and drugs.........
Media Template: WalMart Is Evil.
Think of the great free advertising gained by this gesture, they path they have chosen seems counter productive.
Sure it is. She got her money under the policy. Why should Wal-Mart bear the cost of her injury when it did nothing wrong? Her injury was caused by a tortfeasor, which should bear the cost of the damages it caused.
In this situation, she collects money from Wal-Mart to compensate for her injuries. She sues the trucking company, and wins, so she's recovered double. The result of that is that Wal-Mart winds up bearing part of the cost of the tortfeasor's actions.
That's bad policy. If Wal-Mart is able to recover the costs it paid, then the tortfeasor bears the full cost of its actions, Wal-Mart bears limited costs, and the woman is still compensated (just not doubly compensated). Seems fair to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.