Will Wal-Mart Do the Right Thing for Brain-Damaged Ex-Employee Debbie Shank's Family?

Debbie Shank used to stock shelves at night for Wal-Mart so she could spend time in the afternoons with her three sons. Now she lives in a nursing home, requires around-the-clock medical care and owes Wal-Mart almost $500,000.

Last November, I wrote about this 52 year-old Missouri woman who worked for Wal-Mart when she was left "brain damaged, disabled and penniless" from a car accident seven years ago. Much to Wal-Mart's dismay, the story isn't going anywhere. This week, it was the lead feature and most-emailed story on CNN.com, and was featured on CNN's Headline News and Anderson Cooper 360. Wednesday, Wal-Mart was named "Worst Person in the World" on Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

Now Wal-Mart is forced to decide if the relatively small amount of money they'll collect from this suffering family is worth the damage to its reputation from the growing national outrage against what Wal-Mart is doing to Debbie Shank.

First, a little background on the story:

After the accident, Debbie won a $417,000 settlement (after legal fees) from the trucking company at fault, which the family set aside in a trust for her future medical expenses. Wal-Mart subsequently used a subrogation clause in Debbie's health insurance policy contract to sue the family for $470,000 to reimburse the company for every cent it had paid for Debbie's medical bills - plus interest and legal fees.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court crushed the family's last hope when it refused to hear Debbie Shank's case, and required her to pay Wal-Mart $470,000 - more than the amount that remains in her trust. Now her family doesn't know how they'll pay Debbie's nursing home bills.

This family has already sacrificed enough. In fact, around the same time the U.S. District Court sided with Wal-Mart over the Shank family in fall 2006, Debbie's 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed while serving in Iraq. The Shanks are an honest, hard-working family living most people's worst nightmare - and Wal-Mart is determined to make it worse.

Debbie's husband, Jim, recently told the Morning News for Northwest Arkansas:

"She's 52 and she's going to live a life in a nursing home. I just got a call today from the head nurse, and (Debbie) hasn't eaten in a couple days and she's talking about wanting to die," Shank said. "It makes the visits hard."

... "Be a human being; don't be a corporation," Shank said, "for the sake of one lady who is going to be miserable for the rest of her life. Take your victory. Let us pay some bills and get some quality of life."

Wal-Mart representatives repeatedly assert that it is necessary to take this money from the Shank family to ensure its health care plan can pay its future claims for associates. But, as Jeffrey Toobin pointed out on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, Wal-Mart does NOT have to sue this family. The reality is that Wal-Mart's health insurance plan is funded by Wal-Mart - the largest company in the world with $11 billion in profits last year, and run by the Walton family - the wealthiest family in the United States.

This company already has a reputation for treating its employees poorly, but for Wal-Mart to take Debbie Shank's money shows that Wal-Mart and the Walton family are truly heartless.

In December, Wal-Mart Watch conducted an online fundraiser for the Shank family and appealed to the Wal-Mart Foundation, the Wal-Mart Employee Fund and the Walton foundation to match our donation. But, Wal-Mart didn't care enough to even respond.

We recently launched an online petition to ask Wal-Mart to let the Shanks keep their money because we're not the only ones who think that Wal-Mart employees or shareholders would probably be willing to let this one go. Wal-Mart earns $470,000 in revenue every 38 seconds and Lee Scott takes home more than $470,000 every week.

For the millions of dollars that Wal-Mart spends to improve its image, it can't hide from the truth. Wal-Mart can still do the right thing and let the Shank family keep their money so they can take care of Debbie. Or, it can continue to be live up to its poor reputation, recently dubbed "the worst person in the world."

Comments

[zerostress]

Well, it look as if the pressures worked !

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120708739471181553.html

[Justtellthetruth]

Walmart's Strategy is evil, yet Brilliant, and is helped by law's set up to favor the insurance companies.

Walmart did NOT go after the trucking company or their Insurance company to retrieve their expenses, even though it was pretty clearly the fault was that of that driver's. They did not go after them because THOSE companies are well funded with BIG legal teams and money to burn.

No, Walmart waited until the family, who footed the huge legal bill to sue for damages to help cover this womans LIFETIME of care and pain and suffering, won their case, and then rained Legal TERROR down upon that family, a family with no resources (save what they had after their own legal expenses) and who are in the midst of unimaginable tragedy. OF Course They were easier targets!!! Therefore Walmart MAXIMIZED their profits and their chances of recouping the most money with the least amount of risk. They got ALL of the Money PLUS legal expenses.

So, they made this family cover THEIR legal expenses in recouping their costs from the other insurer, and in effect used THIS FAMILY, the lowly employee, to sue the third party instead of taking that responsibility upon themselves, leaving Walmart fully reimbursed.

Anybody who thinks that is fair must be working for Walmart corporate.

[Justtellthetruth]

OK, I think many people here are missing the point. Walmart is SUING HER to get back the money that was paid as part of her health insurance coverage, coverage she paid for as an employee. She had health insurance coverage from walmart. she got hurt. they covered her expenses as they should, but when she sued the driver that hurt her to help pay for her LIFETIME of hospitalization, Walmart sued HER to get THAT MONEY. she is not asking walmart for anything, they are just robbing her blind, with legal blessing, and ANY HEALTH INSURANCE CO. CAN DO IT, AND OFTEN DO. This is legal in most states (maybe all of them now)

ANY BODY WHO HAS HEALTH INSURANCE CAN BE SUED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY TO GET MONEY FROM OTHER INSURANCE CLAIMS, LIKE AUTO, OR FROM RELATED LAWSUITS. IT HAPPENED TO A FRIEND OF MINE AND IT COULD HAPPEN TO YOU!!!! This is not confined to WALMART only.

I wonder, when Hillary forces everyone to buy from these crooks, will this law still be enforced? I bet it will, and she probably was aware of this while she was on the board at walmart.

[ConservativeCouchPotato]

I have agonized over this story for some time now. As a human being, I of course want the Shank family to be able to just take care of Debbie as best they can. But, Wal-Mart is right in this case. It is just like Welfare, if you are on Welfare and win the lottery, or get an inheritance, you are expected to pay the government back.

Debbie Shank signed on to this plan, and like most of us would, did not care much about the payback clause because it is something that you worry about if you have to. You certaintly would not fore go health insurance because of it. Luckily, the overwhelming majority of people don't have to worry about it.

The Wal-Mart funded health insurance plan is laid out so that if you are compensated for the condition that they have been paying your medicals bills for, you must pay it back. This should have been considered by her lawyer during the lawsuit.

Wal-Mart is only doing what is their right to do. If they don't do it in Debbie's case, then they won't be able to do it to any of its employees who have much lesser accidents. That would cause higher premiums to all involved. Remember that in order true ensure true fairness, Wal-Mart has to treat everyone the same way. Not on a case by case basis.

[Justtellthetruth]

Why should Walmart get to pay NOTHING for the health insurance that this woman slaved away every month to cover as a walmart employee? She paid her premiums, but ultimately, Walmart paid NOTHING. they get away with simply loaning her some money for a while, while she faithfully covered her premiums every month.

The state or federal law that allows this MUST be overturned, and those politicians who back it should be shown the door. WHERE IS HILLARY ON THIS ISSUE? Talk about selling out the little guy!!!! IS THIS THE HEALTH CARE REFORM SHE HAS WAITING FOR US???!!! SHE WAS ON THE BOARD OF WALMART FOR CHRISTS SAKE!!!!

[Justtellthetruth]

First, Ask yourself; What kind of health "insuranance" is it that you PAY FOR, (this is part of her MEAGER compensation from walmart,) but that gets to sue you in order to retreive all of the the coverage it was contractually obligatged to pay? Whatever that is, it is not health Insurance.

Second, This is not particular to WALMART, but rather ANY INSURANCE COMPANY, INCLUDING YOURS can do this, and in fact they did attempt to do it to a friend of mine, but the families laywer was able to fight them off. This is part of state law, written by SCUMBAG legislators who caved in to insurance companies. ANY HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY CAN SUE YOU FOR EVERY THING YOU GET FROM OTHER INSURANCE COMPANIES or LAWSUITS.

for instance, lets say you are in a car accident, and you are badly hurt, and health pays and then your auto pays for other aspects of your recovery (ie to cover lost wages, other expenses), as a normal part of your auto policy. The Health insurer is alowed BY LAW to try to sue you to get that ALL OF THEIR PAYMENTS TO YOU BACK, ie whatever amout the other insurer pays you for any reason.

This is fundamentally UNFAIR. I WONDER IF HILLARY WILL SPEAK OUT AGAINST THIS DRACONIAN PRACTICE AND WALMARTS EGREGIOUS USE OF IT.

[hoopesaz]

It doesn't take much sense to look at this case and to hope Wal-Mart does the right thing. On the other hand Wal-mart is a business. If Wal-mart did cover these expenses, it would also get huge press. And then what happens when the next Wal-mart employee has some similar situation? Does Wal-mart pay again? What about all of the past employees that may have a similar situation? Do they now sue to get similar treatment based upon the president that has been set?

I still think Wal-mart should do the right thing. But, I also think that it is unfortunate that the laws of this country encourage greedy law firms to file class action suites against companies to coerce them to pay big money based upon something just like this. The very legislation that everyone touts as "protecting the little guy" often has the very opposite affect. This is one such example, in my opinion.

[Justtellthetruth]

If your hurt, and your health insurance company pays the bills as it is supposed to, should they be able to SUE you to get that money back????!?!?!?! Is that not what you paid premiums for in the first place, with the understanding that you pay a thousand dollars of more a month, which they keep, and then if your really badly hurt, they cover (al least most of) the Bills???!?!?!?

This is what Walmart is doing. they are trying to get away with paying NOTHING towards the health insurance that this woman SLAVED away to pay every month as part of her MEAGER compensation at WALMART.

REALLY, THOUGH, ANY insurance company can choose to do this, even yours. The politicians responsible for allowing this to occur should be run out of town on a rail.

[filo]

If Walmart gives in O'Riley will take all the credit as if no one else in the world covered this story.

[Samnite]

There is only one way to stop Wal?Mart -- do not purchase anything from them. This would have an immediate impact upon them in the USA but what about China where they plan to open more outlets than in the USA? That's a different story and the verdict will be one that only time will tell. In the USA their success is driven by an advanced distribution system that enables them to readily respond to consumer trends based upon their weekly trips to regions followed by their weekly conference calls.

They tried to export this approach to Mexico and it failed lacking many of the culturalism differences and what would expect (and hope) the same will happen in China.

For us will should do everything in our power to boycott anything from them or Sams. Not simply because of this troubling case but the many that have gone unreported.

[scott59]

I hate Wal-Mart as much as the next guy and have not shopped there in years. I will go out of my way and/or pay more to get what I need rather than feed that machine.

Having said that, Wal-Mart operates a self-insured medical plan which is subject to the rules of ERISA. That plan has a subrogation provision in it which is not uncommon at all. In fact, it would be exceedingly rare for a plan not to have one. And that provision does require the reimbursement to the plan for expenses paid by a third party. If Wal-Mart were to waive this provision in this case, there would be a legal issue under ERISA.

So Wal-Mart sucks, but they did what the plan requires. But this is a horrible situation for this family.

[scott59]

OK, I'm an idiot. Just because they have to do something under a plan ddoes not mean they can't otherwise help this employee (ie, a lump sum payment).

They are still evil.

[sculptor]

I've heard WalMart referred to as 666 and this sure doesn't counter that image. I personally don't shop there and give people that shop there a piece of my mind but I suspect that this won't change anything....

[NABNYC]

This is a very compelling case because of the unique facts. WalMart employee is seriously injured, unrelated to her job, suffers permanent brain and physical damage, needs full-time care, husband has cancer, and one of her children was just killed in Iraq. It is a horrendous case on the facts. But it would be better if the media stepped back and looked at the big picture instead of focusing on these unique facts. These people just represent your typical working people. A few problems, accidents, sickness, injury, they're sunk.

The suggestion that WalMart should give them money just because this lady used to work there is a little irrational, and much too dependent on the concept of a generous gift from the rich folks.

Better still: raise minimum wage to $15/hour; tax the WalMart owners at 90% of everything they earn over $1.0 million, and use that money to provide publicly-funded healthcare and long-term care for injured, sick, and disabled citizens. Everyone. Regardless of whether they ever worked at WalMart, or have kids in Iraq. If the principle is that people should not end up dying, or sleeping in their car because of injuries, then the solution should encompass every citizen in this country, not just this lady or this family with their unique circumstances.

[Justtellthetruth]

What you fail to comprehend is that WALMART is suing her to get BACK the money that was paid for her medical expenses under her health insurance contract. IE, she got hurt, insurance, which she paid for, covers bills (as it is supposed to do) then, when she sues the party responsible for her injuries, WALMART sues HER to get it's health insurance money back. leaving her unable to get the care that the damages she won were supposed to cover.

That is so Craven that it is beyond belief.

The same thing happened to a friend of mine, (not walmart, just a health insurance company).
That person sucessfully fought them off in court, but not without losing a lot in legal fees.

I wonder, when Hillary forces everyone to buy health insurance form these crooks, it that little gem of a law will still be in place. What do you want to bet it will?

[montemalone]

So what's the point of insurance? Does she get to countersue for the return of all the premiums she paid to Walmart? Plus interest? And attorney fees? And damages for duress and emotional distress? What jury wouldn't love to let Walmart choke on it's own greed?

[mydogshakespeare]

I used to shop at WalMart when they professed to sell "Made is USA only" products. But then greed won out and "cheap, cheaper, cheapest" mentality took over along with their "lowest prices, always" slogan. Now it's all imports. Haven't been in a Walmart for nearly 20 years.

[swift_goat_pet_for_truth]

Contrast Wal-Mart's behavior with this interview of Costco's CEO.
(Keeping in mind it IS the CEO, so has a particular point of view.)


http://www.smartmoney.com/mag/ceo/index.cfm?story=april2008-Costco

[trinity]

Wouldn't it be something if Costco's CEO offered to take care of the 400,000 owed by the Shanks.

[BOBZILLA]

Doesn't Hillary's vast lifetime of experience include being on the board for this wonderful group of humans?

[Spookcatcher]

Michelle Obam also worked as a high level consultant for Wal-Mart. Check out the Investment Bank Law firm Sidley Austin that she worked for too, one of if not the largest Wall Street and international investment banker group protectors and cronies .

[DoAsISay]

Billary should intervene. Did'nt Bill's foundation just get a huge donation from the walmart foundation? It was way more than this sum.

[TXfemmom]

I think the lawyer was bound by law to report the settlement to WalMart.

However, despite what WalMart says, they were under no legal requirement or moral one to go after the settlement, and they probably hadn't even paid that much for her care. They tacked on interest on what they had paid, and then attorney fees to come up with it.

WalMart is self-insured, so an insurance company administers the program, but WalMart establishes the policies and pays for it, meaning that they could have just let this woman keep the money for her care. THEY ARE A BUNCH OF GREEDY, BLOOD-SUCKING, ANTI-AMERICAN, ANTI-DECENCY, ANTI-ANYTHING THAT IS GOOD AND CARING AND THE FAMILY STILL CONTROLS MOST OF THE ACTIONS OF THE COMPANY, SO THEY ARE AT FAULT.

Were the controlling family to get their justs, the earth would open up and spit fire into the air and incinerate the whole bunch of them. The very wealthy and greedy and blood-sucking of their type rarely get what they should get in terms of retribution. However, if one goes by what Jesus taught, none of them will get to heaven, because of things such as this. That is what right wing Evangelicals seem to miss. They support this form of rampant Capitalism running amuck, when it goes against the very teaching of the Prophet and God that they claim to love.

[dadw5boys]

Well they maybe all that but the use of liens on settlements was put into laws by the Republicans to protect insurance Companys. Walmart health Insurance paid her bills and took care of her. Without the settlement refund the loss of those finds will hurt the furture employees that will need health care.

When you set up a system it works that works within a set of laws and guidelines. The amount of money in the health care system of the employees count on being repiad by settlements and lawyers should know this it has been on the books many many many years.

[scottyboi84]

yeah, but what if you're NOT awarded a settlement? DO they still ask you to repay them if they don't think that you' ve got enough money? And, if she did get a settlement, that is for her medical bills for the rest of her life, not 2 years worth, and her pain and suffering at having had to go through whatever the guilty party caused her, and her family, to go through. The money is meant to cushion, as nothing could compensate, for the loss of the quality of life that she had been living before her accident. It's almost like she's being punished for having had to use the insurance money that was promised to come to her anyways had she needed it...and we all know how insurance companies are, too. Not every single one of her bills got paid without a hassle, or a copay, or a wait, call here, call there...You give them premiums to insure that you are covered in the event that this happens...imagine the surprise when you find out, you're covered, but if you ever can, you have to repay what was promised to you anyways, that you paid to have promised to you? That's kind of a catch 22.