Keith Olbermann Continues Feud Against Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart Responds

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

Huffington Post via WWD/Memo Pad   |   April 1, 2008 08:29 AM


Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

Last Wednesday, Keith Olbermann introduced the story of Debbie Shank, a 52-year old former Wal-Mart employee and mother of a soldier killed in Iraq who suffered serious brain damage after getting hit by a truck and was subsequently sued by Wal-Mart to recover $470,000 in medical expenses (Shank had won a substantial settlement from the trucking company and, after legal fees, took home $417,000). Olbermann, in the clip seen below, declared Wal-Mart his "Worst Person in the World" and has subsequently named Wal-Mart to his "Worst Persons" list every night since.


Women's Wear Daily/Memo Pad's Stephanie D. Smith reports today that Wal-Mart's corporate communications director, Daphne Moore, has responded with a statement:

"This is a very sad case and we understand that people will naturally have an emotional and sympathetic reaction. While the Shank case involves a tragic situation, the reality is that the health plan is required to protect its assets so that it can pay the future claims of other associates and their family members. These plans are funded by associate premiums and company contributions. Any money recovered is returned to the health plan, not to the business. This is done out of fairness to everyone who contributes to and benefits from the plan. The Supreme Court recently declined to hear an appeal of the case, which concludes all litigation. While Wal-Mart's benefit plan was entitled to more than the amount that remained in the Shank trust, the plan only recovered the funds remaining in that trust," which according to reports amounted to about $277,000.

 
 

Comments
1193
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (14 pages total)

I can't believe I'm agreeing with Keith, because he is always poking fun of my man Bill O'reilly, but I have to agree (ouch).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:34 PM on 04/04/2008

For anyone out there incliined to agree that Walmart has the right to do this or must do this, or give em a passmy response to you is the DVD Wal-Mart: the High Cost of Low Prices. Actually, everyone needs to view this video. They are the scum of the earth. They have locked employees in the store-round Xmas and made them work. they make employees use WIC and Medicaid as their insurance. These people work and that is their benefits? No overtime. They make managers delete extra hours if someone has reached over time. This DVD made me sick and cry at same time. Especially the conditions in China for their employees. They bought some stores in Germany. But, those people already had benefits. they sold the stores. they are evil personified. God bless Keith.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:02 PM on 04/04/2008

Question..............is Walmart the insurance company, or is ti Blue Cross or something like that? I don't know the answer, but it seems relevant.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:01 PM on 04/04/2008

Wal-mart is self insured, the associate health plan is funded by the associate's premiums(about 1/3) and the company's contribution(about 2/3). If as the end of the calendar year approaches the company sees that the healthplan is going to have a surplus, Walmart refunds money from the health plan in the form of premium "holidays", by either reducing the premiums or even paying fully for the remaining premiums. The surplus occurs because associate's are encouraged to examine medical bills for errors(which they are rewarded with cash if they retrieve money for the plan due to a billing mistake or overcharge). In addition the associates save money for the plan by using urgent care facilities instead of emergency rooms when appropriate, and buying generic medicines. The associates of Wal-Mart are entitled to recover this money as would any other insurance plan. Read the fine print of any insurance policy you have, you will find the language allowing the insurance company to recover money when it applies to an injury that the plan is paying out for.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:53 PM on 04/04/2008

wal-mart, and the walton clan, are satanic...good for olbermann...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:46 PM on 04/04/2008

I'm about sick to death of people who have such low comprehension skills that they fail to grasp the outrageous nature of Wal-Mart's money grab. What part of YOU CAN'T SUE TO RECOVER MEDICAL PAYMENTS MADE BY YOUR HEALTH CARE INSURER don't you understand?!? It is inherently unfair(and IMO, gross negligence on the part of our legislators) to allow health care providers the legal right to seize awards granted to injured persons for pain & suffering and long term care WITHOUT allowing the injured party to sue for those medical payments.
Have you noticed that the law doesn't provide for Wal-Mart to seize any portion of the lawyer's fee?!? Why isn't Wal-Mart allowed to seize monies for medical claims reimbursement BEFORE the lawyer gets his cut??!!??
STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR WAL-MART! They know perfectly well what the legal problems for the injured parties are, and they also know that now that the financial award received by the Shanks has been seized, Deborah Shanks is a ward of the state. SHAME ON WAL-MART and SHAME ON OUR STATE LEGISLATORS FOR ALLOWING THIS TRAVESTY!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:12 PM on 04/04/2008

Kraft Foods did this to me. Personal injury attorneys and corporations will not tell a severely injured victim that their lawyer will split the settlement money with their boss.
Congress created the Employees Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) in l974 to protect employees from unscrupulous employers. Well, these unscrupulous employers and their lobbyists managed to sneak in two clauses a couple of weeks before the act was signed. Congress did not discuss these clauses before passing the act. The clauses turned out to invalidate the ERISA act and gave the employers complete immunity from all state laws, including insurance laws! Walmart is a member of a new lobby, the National Coalition on Benefits, which includes representatives from most large corporations. Right now, they are lobbying Congress to deny any insurance reforms that the candidates may introduce because they are afraid it might effect the protections they receive from ERISA. (proof that ERISA has backfired and is protecting the wrong people) ERISA is what gives Walmart and others the ability to do what they did to the Shanks. Walmart gave back their money because they don"t want to ruin any progress their lobbyists have made. 72% of Americans work for companies like this. 72% don"t know that the auto insurance benefits they buy are for their boss. The victim pays their own medical bills, regardless of what the no-fault laws are in your state. 72% of us will not be experiencing any of the health reforms the candidates promise.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:59 AM on 04/08/2008

I agree, shame on WalMart. The money was for the long-term care of Mrs. Shanks. Why didn't WalMart simply sue the truck company to recover its medical expenses?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:38 PM on 04/04/2008

Hmmmmmmmm. I am afraid (legally) you are wrong, Farmerette. And so is Olbermann (but what else is new)). According to the law, Walmart HAS to be reimbursed. It's really that simple. It seems the company, for public relations reasons I would assume, has dug into its own (albeit) deep pockets to help these unfortunate people. I agree that perhaps petitioning our legislators to clarify this is a wise thing. To scream "Walmart! Travesty! Injustice! Bock! Bock! Bock!" seems a tad shrill, reactive and just not educated.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:54 PM on 04/04/2008

I am sorry. I read above where someone answered my question as to whether or not Walmart was self-insured. My bad.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:23 PM on 04/05/2008

jackiekahane,
There is NO law that Walmart HAS to reimbursed. The law allows them to be reimbursed. They set up their policy so that they WILL be reimbursed. It's NOT illegal, we know that, but as Keith said, and I agree, not because you are legally right, makes it morally right. There are exceptions, and this begs that. I could understand rule for the vast amount of bogus claims made by employees, but this woman, is legitimately and irreparably harmed. Walmart should make exceptions like these a policy. They as a corporation making billions off the everyday man and should be more compassionate to someone like Debbie Shanks. There are exceptions to every rule.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:33 PM on 04/04/2008

I am afraid there is (and is it really even WalMart or a Blue Cross who are owed the money? Legit question. I don't know the answer). Otherwise, the Shanks wouldn't have to pay it. In the end, Walmart did the right thing - maybe even if it did take someone to embarrass them into doing it. Isn't this really the issue? My problem was that Olbermann screamed AFTER Walmart had dug into their own pockets and paid NOT because he was shining a light on an unfortunate family who needed a little help, but because he knows crying "Walmart!" would get a visceral reaction from his lock and goose stepping audience. That's all.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:21 PM on 04/05/2008

I never said that what Wal-Mart did was illegal. THAT'S THE POINT. It is far from shrill and "not educated" to alert people that with Wal-Mart leading the way (enforcing this provision of our health care plans), more and more companies are going to follow suit. It's not a matter that "perhaps our legislators need to clarify this". Anyone who understands that insurance companies are in the top 5 of big-time lobbyists, knows that our legislators MUST protect consumers by allowing them to sue on behalf of their health care provider for reimbursement. That way, the health care provider gets reimbursed and the consumer is adequately compensated for pain & suffering and/or long term care.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:55 PM on 04/04/2008

Farmerette Are you a moron or do you just like to type yourself into carpel tunnel. Wal-Mart has already announced they are letting the family keep the money and they are revisiting the policy on the insurance. That is number 1. And number 2, assuming you are not a cradle to grave entitlement seeker and have a job, if you look at you health policy it quite possibly has a similar clause if not the same one. Most policies have that in them. And if you stop and think for a moment, assuming you have that ability and not just listen to 2 of the dumbest men on the planet Olbermann and Obama, you will realize the policy is so those looking to scam the insurance companies by collecting twice for the same injury. It is it logical? Of course it is. But what about feeling? Feeling aren't facts. That is nonsense started by the dope smoking, Birkenstock Granola eating non bathing crowd in the sixties

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:23 PM on 04/04/2008

Please read what Michelle Andrews of U.S. News and World Report had to say:
"....Wal-Mart was indeed on solid legal ground. Buried in the fine print of many health plan contracts is language that permits a health plan or self-insured company to reimburse itself if a pot of money becomes available because of an accident settlement. ........
Particularly in catastrophic cases like the Shank's, there's often not enough insurance money to cover what the patient will need for future medical care and such. The trucking company involved in the Shank accident reportedly carried only $1 million in liability insurance. In this story, Deborah Shank's lawyer said her lifetime financial requirements could easily top $2 million. You could argue that Shank needs that money a whole lot more than Wal-Mart does. In fact, some states have laws that prohibit health plans from collecting any of the settlement money until the victims get their full share. I haven't investigated these laws lately, but last I checked, about half the states had them on the books.

There's a larger issue that's worth thinking about as well. If a health plan or a company can take your settlement money to repay itself for what it spent on your care, then what exactly are you getting for that premium check that you write every month? You could make the argument that your healthcare coverage isn't really insurance but more like a loan that you may have to pay back."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:18 PM on 04/04/2008

You're an idiot because you didn't address the subject that I discussed and went off on a stupid tirade. The issue is not about preventing sick and injured people from collecting twice for the same injury, moron. The issue is taking legitimate court awards for pain & suffering and/or long term care to reimburse the health care provider. Are you so stupid as to not understand that if an injured person COULD sue to collect money paid in claims by their health care provider, THEY WOULD BE DOING IT? Here's a free clue for you: the law needs to be changed so that injured people CAN SUE ON BEHALF OF THEIR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF MEDICAL CLAIMS PAID THAT WERE THE DIRECT RESULT OF AN OFFENDING PARTY.
Like I said, I'm about sick to death of people who have such low comprehension skills that they fail to grasp the outrageous nature of Wal-Mart's money grab.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:53 PM on 04/04/2008

BTW if brains were shoe leather you, Obama and Olbermann together would not have enough to saddle a fly.
Follow the pied piper off the cliff due to your inability to have an original thought

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:03 PM on 04/04/2008

Most if not all insurance policies have a payback clause. But you are too blind to see that. Your feelings are in the way of any logic. And Wal-Mart has resolved it by allowing them to keep the money and lastly why don't you spit the same venom at your radical trial lawyer allies for not taking it pro bono. Or is that because like Olbermann and Obama you too are a hypocite

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:01 PM on 04/04/2008

Olbermann rides in a limo because he can't drive, due to some neurological problems resulting from an accident some time ago.

Keith's the man.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:55 AM on 04/04/2008

Keith is an idiot..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:03 PM on 04/04/2008

is that an excuse for his irrational rantings and positions?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:02 PM on 04/04/2008

Is there any excuse for anything as far as you are concerned? What happened? Michelle out sick or something?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:40 PM on 04/04/2008

Aace, come Keith isn't an idiot. He's a WORLD CLASS IDIOT.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:58 PM on 04/04/2008

You guys are missing one fact and Olbermann won't report the additional information because then it's not as easy to bash Walmart.

The Shanks were PAID $470K by WALMART under their Walmart health insurance plan. The Shanks then also sued those responsible for the traffic accident and won $1M (417K after legal fees). Walmart sued to reclaim the money they had paid out. Walmart had sued for the $470 but a court said they could only get what the Shanks ended up with in the lawsuit. Do the math. Walmart ends up losing $53K on this while the Shanks end up with $417K. How is Walmart evil? They PAID it out then reclaimed it only after the lawsuit was won.

The Shanks are able to afford their medical bills and expenses thanks to the lawsuit win. Why should they also get the medical insurance money? The insurance money that Walmart reclaimed will be used for other policy holders who need it, who do not have the luxury of winning a huge lawsuit.

It is not uncommon for any insurance policy to include language that says the money can be reclaimed if the recipient wins a lawsuit related to the insurance policy claim. Payouts come from a fund of company matching funds and policy holder premiums. The money Walmart got back would go right back into the fund to be used to payout to other policy holders.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:37 AM on 04/04/2008

The Shanks were NOT paid $470K by WALMART. The money went to the medical bills.

If the Shanks had not sued the trucking company, WALMART health insurance would still have paid $470K for the medical bills. So this getting the money for future policy holders is pure BS. Even if WALMART health insurance plan covers all medical bills, the fact still remains that her life is ruined. And the $1M ($417K) was for that. If you ask me, the problem in this whole thing is NOT WALMART but the lawyers who handled the Shanks vs. Trucking Co. If the settlement was to cover her legal fees ($583K), her medical fees ($470K) and her long term suffering ($xxx), then it should have been $583K+$470K+$xxx. Seems to me, the lawyer should be disbarred for charging $583K while NOT able to secure even the medical cost. I am more outraged by that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:03 PM on 04/04/2008

It's obvious this will wreak havoc on the Walton family and their top execs. In deed, - Christmas is really going to suck for the executives and top shareholders.

After this major payout, - I wonder if Walmart is now questioning the risky move of eliminating most the small retailer and grocer competition in the U.S.

How dare the Shanks take advantage of the humanitarian good nature of Walmart? They should be ashamed of themselves - paying their mortgage, putting gas in their car, replacing worn out appliances.....Truly, we are in the gilded age.

These people should just feel lucky to have a job that doesn't pay their bills.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:59 AM on 04/04/2008

Is everyone on this thread stupid? I have never seen so many people ranting and raving about nothing they know nothing about.

In the 1st place they should be glad Mrs Shank had the insurance from a job to be able to pay for this tragedy. And the coverage she got was far superior to anything that dope Obama will be offering in his socialized medicine schemes.

And 2nd why should any employer be paying all the bills of an injured employer. That is what disability insurance is for.

And 3rd Wal_mart already said they are NOT going to retrieve the money from the Shank's suit. For those of you slow on the uptake, that means the Shank's can keep the money.

And 4th why didn't the ultra liberal trial lawyers take the case pro bono if everyone is accusing Wal-Mart of being heartless, what about your allied trial lawyers

And last, if everyone was double dipping on insurance AND lawsuits there would no longer be places to get jobs and even your friend those maggot trial lawyers won't have any deep pockets to sue

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:35 PM on 04/04/2008

It's nice when someone can ask a rhetorical question and then prove the affirmative in a single post.

Michelle must be one lucky lady!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:55 AM on 04/05/2008

and 1st, in case you missed it, Mrs. Shank earned every penny of her health care.
It took years just for Wal-Mart to begin even offering such benefits, they're notorious in every country for evading their obligations to employees.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:29 PM on 04/04/2008

4th, For every two rich lawyers representing an individual, there are a gang of 50 representing the multinational conglomerate. The company lawyers are each being paid triple what the plaintiff can pay his or her attorney. And you know this fact very well.

Why do you believe that a faceless, multinational multibillion dollar company should have more rights than an individual with a sincere need for sustained health care?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:20 PM on 04/04/2008

3rd, Wal-Mart only caved after an immense campaign by two large media networks--a campaign this woman could never have mounted or afforded herself.
What a crock to believe that Wal-Mart has some heart of gold in this matter; they were literally embarrassed into reversing their position.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:05 PM on 04/04/2008

2nd, an employer offers both disability and health care benefits, both are mutually exclusive and have nothing necessarily to do with each other.
Disability wouldn't pay more than a month's worth of care for this woman's situation.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:04 PM on 04/04/2008

1st place: Wal-Mart's health policy is a sham, nothing more or less. When I have a health care policy through my company, and I get a foot operation, for instance--the company can't sue back for the money if they find out I'm worth a million dollars! The benefit plan is part of my pay, part of my job, and I'm damn well entitled to it. I don't have to prove that I am without funds to get the coverage. I don't have to beg!! My net worth, or lottery winnings, or rich uncle or court settlement outside of my workplace have absolutely positively nothing to do with my given coverage.

End of argument.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:00 PM on 04/04/2008

You don't quite understand. Her medical insurance was to cover her immediate medical expenses. The settlement was to cover punitive damages and long term care. Wal-Mart's healthcare plan does not provide for long term healthcare and ongoing therapy and loss of income.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:23 AM on 04/04/2008

So if I understand you correctly, Mrs. Shank received nothing from her health insurance for long term care or punitive damages (pain, suffering)? Nothing for ongoing therapy or loss of income? So why was Wal-Mart trying to recover the settlement? It seems like apples and oranges to me.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:32 PM on 04/04/2008

Keith, Keith, Keith. The target of your show is Hillary, dude. Forget about Walmart and the social and economic problems that plague American lives. Time to rattle the cage and spew your rage at the one person responsible for the downfall of America. Bush? Heck, no. He's done nothing wrong compared to that egregious wife who thinks she can take over a man's job. After all, Hillary started the war by giving her blessing to Bush. Without her we wouldn't BE in Iraq, right? Yep, she alone did it all. Not even precious John Edwards had anything to do with the war vote because he's agreed to display his public mea culpa before the altar of the media punditry. So, drop the populist theme, Keith. It really doesn't fit you. Hey, I hear Randi Rhodes is looking for a job. You two can have your own mutual admiration society - aw, won't that be grand!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:54 PM on 04/03/2008

Your statement/argument amounts to this: there are WORSE people than Hillary, so that absolves her. Unfortunately, that isn't a sound argument. And covering Bush every single night would get tired... Although to Olbermann's credit, he DOES cover Bush very frequently.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:21 PM on 04/03/2008

Dude your ignorance is only exceeded by your stupidity.. You probably belong to the Clinton quarter.. the 25% that think the clinton's can do no wrong.. (like the bush quarter). Hopefully they overlap and my worst fears (25+25 = 50% of the country is full of tards) are not true...