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

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

[bar1ed]

just another example of the rich getting richer !!!!

[dragonfly142]

I realize Mr Olbermann is talking about the disabled woman lawsuit, but he also made remarks in the past about What Sen Obama said about Hillary sitting on the board of Wal-Mart....and I find that sort of the pot calling the kettle black (No Pun Intended) as the biggest customer for the pickles and peppers produced by Treehouse Foods is Wal-Mart, and the bête noire of American liberals, including Sen Obama, for its employment practices, most notably its refusal to recognise trade unions.
As Obama prepared run late last year, he threw his weight behind the union-backed campaign against Wal-Mart. He decried it was a "moral responsibility to fight" the company and "force them to examine their own values".
he then lambasted Clinton for being on the board......but it seems
According to Obama couple's tax returns, Michelle Obama earned $51,200 for her work as a non-executive director on Treehouse's board last year, on top of the $271,618 salary she was paid as a vp of the University of Chicago Hospitals.advertisement
She also received 7,500 Treehouse stock options, worth $72,375, as she did the previous year, when she banked a $45,000 salary from Treehouse. The apparent contradiction between Sen Obama's political calculation to join the Wal-Mart-bashing lobby, and his wife's profitable role with a company that makes money from Wal-Mart extremely hypocritical ...he also claimed to have not taken money from oil company and lobbyists but that wasn't true either

[blindjester]

Every food company, shoe company, clothing company, toy company , cosmetic company and entertainment company does business with Walmart. Many, perhaps most, of those companies are socially responsible and treat their employees fairly.


Selling their product through Walmart doesn't mean they are anything like Walmart, or can in any way control Walmart's policies.


If they were on the board, though, that would be quite different, don't you think?

[c1ee]

One is a case of direct assocation. The other is an indirect association. An association is there in both cases, but they are not equal. How is serving on the board of a company that supplies another company the same as serving on the said company?

His oil company claim is true as well. He hasn't received money from companies directly. He has, however, received money from individuals who work for oil companies. Everyone has to sign a pledge saying they are not representing the company they work for when they contribute, so your claims fall a little short.

[abeattie]

I'm sorry -- but whre does Treehouse employ workers? (3400 in the U.S.)

Does it pay a fair wage? (no idea)

Does it SUE ITS EMPLOYEES for their medical expenses?

Do they engage in wholesale union busting!? (a quick search on LexisNexis of National Labor relations Board decisions suggests not. 0! returns compared to walmart's 270 mentions in published decisions)

So, okay.. Michell O sat on the board of a corporation which sells stuff to Wal-mart.

"Hillary Clinton was on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart for 6 years. Wal-Mart paid her $18,000 each year she was on the board and $1,500 for every meeting she attended. She accumulated at least $100,000 in Wal-Mart stock. This might be the reason she refuses to release her tax records even though Barack Obama has done so. Maybe it's time we demand that she give back this blood money? Moreover, when Hillary Clinton was with the Rose Law firm in Little Rock she defended Wal-Mart against workers who tried to organize unions making the firm, in the words of labor leader Jonathan Tasini, "one of the most active anti-union law firms in the country." "

-- from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/hillary-clinton-and-walm_b_93638.html

hmm.. looks like good old Hil did more than just sit on that board, huh.

[WLA]

Great post. I see there has been no attempt at refuting it. Wonder why?

[jmaster]

It isn't just ERISA - there is also the doctrine called the "collateral source rule." Wikipedia has a good explanation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_source_rule
In states where tort reform has been shoved through, someone with a legitimate claim can get "double-dipped" by an employer with a subrogation clause. Here is how. 1) Plaintiff injured. 2) Plaintiff sues. 3) To mitigate damages Defendant tells the jury that plaintiff's meds have been paid by insurance. 4) Jury doesn't learn about subrogation, or doesn't care because they have drunk too much kool-aid. 5) Jury awards $X minus her medical costs, since "those costs were covered by insurance." 6) Insurance company files for subrogation, as is their right and responsibility. 7) Plaintiff takes it in the ass, because a deal is a deal.
Mrs. Shenk's attorneys may have some fault if they couldn't convince the jury as to the existence and importance of a subrogation clause in the insurance policy. But, if the jury didn't care, maybe because they listen to Rush Limbaugh and his fellow kool-aid servers, then it's a miscarriage of justice. If the former, then a malpractice case may be in the offing. If the latter, and Wal-Mart does nothing, they should do the right thing and pay.

[panchovilla]

Keith,

It should be "worser", "worser", and "worsEST" (not "worst").

You're welcome.

[Synoia]

No. Its, bad, worse, worst. Its irregular. As in, your education is bad, your knowledge of grammar worse, and your exposing this to all is the worst.

[drumz]

Give Poncho a break because it's his seconf language.

[thatvisionthing]

No, it's it's. As in, if it's a glass house, it's a fool who throws bricks.

[glesslib]

Walmart self-insures, folks. The insurance company they are protecting is Walmart. No one is saying that they should never try to seek recompense, but mercy is a beautiful thing and this company seems to find ways to show that its only consideration is the bottom line.

Years back, Walmart had a little plan where homesellers and buyers could register at their stores and Walmart would help them find a real estate agent. The company would give the buyer/seller a rebate on the real estate commission. The rebate was 5 or 10 percent of the commission. Walmart was asking the real estate firms to give them 25 to 30 percent.....for doing absolutely nothing but handing the firm the name of the buyer or seller. And the agency could not tell the buyer or seller how much Walmart was getting.

Always a plan to help the consumer.

I haven't been in Walmart or Sam's in years....Don't ever plan to go in one again. I know there are lots of little towns in this country where they are practically the only retailer around, and people don't have a choice. But people living in bigger towns and cities can find lots of places to buy sheets and tube socks. We don't have to enrich the Waltons, Lauries, Kroenkes . They've made billions while undercutting the manufacturing and retail sectors of our economy. They've squeezed retailing so hard that all the other companies have to follow their lead in order to compete.

[JerDogNebr]

I worked as a defense counsel for a major, major insurance company, before I had my "Come to Jesus" moment. I can tell you that $477,000 or $217,000 is chump change to Wal-Mart, as well as the "good hands" and "good neighbor" insurance companies. The insurance business is all about the money. Collect as much as the traffic will bear and pay out as little as possible. It makes no difference whether you screw the insured or the medical provider. They could care less about Mrs. Shank, her injuries, or her dead son. As a self-insured company, every dollar Mal-Mart gets back from the injuried employee is a dollar of profit for the company. Don't be fooled by their claim that they are just protecting the other employees in the insurance plan. What they are really afraid of is the precedent for the hundreds and thousands of other cases where they want to assert a subrogation interest. That could then turn into real money and they can't have that!
The only way to deal with these people is 1) keep the pressure on by the media hammering away at this disgusting conduct, and 2) let the company know through letters, e-mails, pickets, whatever, that until they do the right thing, a substantial number of customers will take their business to Target, Dillards, or some other major retail store.

[MNmommy]

Well, WalMart has dropped it's pursuit of the money.

What happens when Target, Costco or Dillards has a has a case like this?

We need Universal Healthcare. That's the only answer.

[Ping]

You don't get it. Normal corporations will contract with a health insurance company or an HMO and pay the premiums for the number of employees who are covered under the plan. Apparently Hillary Clinton had a problem doing this for her campaign workers. Thus if Walmart had contracted with say....Kaiser... this type of lawsuit would not be happening. Walmart is "self insured", get it?

[lawb]

Exactly. As Sportswoman pointed out as well, Wal-Mart had the right, but not the obligation, to take this poor ladies money. It's not enough it produces its products overseas for pennies, with child labor, making obscene profits. It's the corporate mentality is disgusting. I find this subrogation immoral and disgusting. Do you think if any of the Corporate officers of Wal-Mart were in the same position as Ms. Shank, the adjuster who handled this case would have decdied they needed to get the pittance of money back? . And Wal-Mart's response is just BULL. I don't have the answer because pickets, emails, whatever will not stop the corporate pigs like Wal-mart from keeping the little guy down. The real question is what is happening to America, and yes, time for universal health care come. Shut down the insurance industries that run our health care systems. Yes, the ones that tell medical providers who can be treated and what treatment they can recive. The ones that throw the poorest and most needy out on the street when they can't pay for their care.
Good for Keith Obermann and keep it up. And you can stop shopping at Wal-Mart, go to K-mart, Target or any other store just to punish Wal-Mart for being the greedy, disgusting company it is, in all respects, from the hiring of illegal workers, to the failure to pay over time, and on and on. How about Costco? They are pretty cool?

[billcham]

I think everyone should check their insurance policies. Most are worded so if the insurance company pays out for an injury and then you sue and get money for the same injury, you will have to return the money you got to the insurance company.

By the way, how much did the lady's lawyer give to her or did he keep his 50 percent commission?

[ProFromOre]

Would you please tell us all the state that allows a 50% profession contingency fee for attorneys. You negated what is thoughtful and good advice with an unsubstantiated dig at attorneys.

When will people understand this is just more of the corporate protectionism from the Failure Party. Attorneys are the only ones you can turn to when you have been harmed by a corporation, the government cannot help most of the time.

The corporations certainly look to THEIR attorneys trying to avoid responsibility before hand via their contracts and afterwards via filings in court.

[loocifer]

What a corporate tool!

[HopeandChange]

Where is Dan Patrick?

[Sportswoman]

Ask any corporate lawyer worth his/her salt, they will tell you that there was no mandate for the suit to be filed. They did not have to do this. A billion-dolar corporation does not need this disabled woman's $400G. They wish to prove a point and are using their shareholders as shields for their robbery.
Not all corporatiions are evil, but Walmart has proven itself ruthless and cold-hearted, so much so that communities like Inglewood, California have fought to keep it out of their communities.

[PhoenixtheUndying]

Normally I wouldn't write this but Wal Mart can kiss my ass

[MisterPurple]

Wal-Mart makes good... to read their NEW statement on this whole ordeal use the link below:

http://mrpurple2008.com/2008/04/01/breaking-walmart-hears-keith-olbermann-and-does-the-right-thing.aspx

They are NOT going to go after Ms. Shank's settlement money and are changing their policy... have to watch Keith tonight to see what he thinks of this new development.

Mr. Purple

[SZM]

Not so sure, we'll have to watch to see if there is any reality to it. Sounds to me that Walmart is doing the bare minimum to save face. I didn't see an indication that they're willing to reverse the decision to take the full $470,000 from Mrs. Shank. Sounds like a "nickel and dime" strategy to me.

[MNmommy]

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/apwire/8070d32f3be6f2f25ebf8e4bda56e349.htm

[WLA]

Sounds like good news. See? Bad pub works. It won't change my mind about patronizing wal mart, but I hope it helps this family out.

[mlaiuppa]

Oh, they could only take....every last penny remaining. I'll bet that was a disappointment.

Walmart didn't need to strip them of every last penny (and probably garnish future earnings and put a lien on their house).

Stop buying from Walmart. They don't need YOUR money either.

[ChiMan1]

Keith who

[WLA]

BillO? Is that you? I thought I smelled falafel.

[neocon43]

Keith the idiot lib

[rikoriki]

All indications are that it was a self-funded plan, not an insured plan. In self-funded plans the company has broad discretionary powers and could have foregone the third-party recovery based on humanitarian concerns if it wanted to. It stayed entirely in character by putting profits first. The Waltons didn't become billionaires by being good guys, did they?.

[Chris]

Excpet that in self funded plans every claim gets recorded and the use the amoutn of claims as part of determining your rates for the following years. A large hit like this probably would have resulted in great than normal increases to premuims going forward. Which in turn would have results in either higher co pays for the employees, higher deductions for employees and or higher prices for consumers.

[MNmommy]

Don't bother trying to explain - you'll just be called names or get your post moderated out.

All kinds of folks folks fired up and pissed off about this case - but it goes on every.single.day.

The issue is Universal Health Insurance and the deep need of it in this country. I used to be a benefits manager - the cost of health care is breaking empolyers, employees and our economy on the whole.

[jdenham]

Lets see Walmart has 500,000 employees maybe. They put out $470,000 for Medical expenses that raises employees premiums by maybe a dollar. Yep I see your point.

[rikoriki]

Not at all. First of all, self-funded plans don't have premiums as such; the company sets the employee contribution arbitrarily. Secondly, a large claim such as this would have been removed (above a certain stop-loss point) from the experience-rating for projection purposes, being a rare event and not expected to happen again soon. It is true that the company would have had to absorb the cost of the claim, which would eventually come from the bottom line, i.e., profits. But we're talking about one of the word's largest corporations which makes an obscene number of billionaires off the backs of poor working people.