Thread: Brain-damaged ex-worker must pay $470,000 to Wal-Mart

Brain-damaged ex-worker must pay $470,000 to Wal-Mart
By Jonathan J. Cooper
POST-DISPATCH WASHINGTON BUREAU
03/18/2008

WASHINGTON — The family of a Missouri woman must reimburse Wal-Mart for nearly a half-million dollars in medical expenses now that the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to review her case.

The court on Monday let stand a ruling by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis requiring Debbie Shank of Cape Girardeau County to pay nearly $470,000 to Wal-Mart.

The appeal was the last legal recourse for the family of the 52-year-old Shank, a mother of three who was critically injured in a car accident eight years ago. She suffered a brain injury that took her memory and left her with very little ability to move or communicate. She has lived in a nursing home since she was released from the hospital.

"It's been kind of hard on us," Nathan Shank, Debbie Shank's 17-year-old son, said Monday when told about the court's decision.

Nathan Shank said that with her case in limbo, his mother already had lost a private caregiver and might be moved out of her private room in the nursing home.

According to legal documents, Shank's medical bills — totaling $469,216 — were covered by a health insurance program at Wal-Mart, where Shank worked nights stocking shelves.

Her family later settled a lawsuit with the trucking company whose driver was involved in the accident. After attorneys' fees and expenses, $417,477 was put in a trust for Shank's care. That settlement money, plus $51,739 that Shank will have to pay out of pocket, must be paid to Wal-Mart.

As is common for employer-sponsored health plans, Shank's insurance required full repayment of medical expenses if she received money from a lawsuit.

Daphne Moore, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman, said the company sued "out of fairness to everyone who contributes" to the plan.

"This is a tragic situation," Moore said. "The reality is that the health plan is required to protect its assets so that it can pay future claims for other associates and their family members."

The Supreme Court gave no explanation for its decision.

jcooper@post-dispatch.com | 202-298-6880

Link

Just another example of an American Citizen being destroyed by a catastrophic medical bill while an illegal invader would have received the same medical care, on the house!

And of course Wal-Mart is going to make sure they recoup every penny they can. This woman wins a civil suit and still ends up owing out of pocket money to Wal-Mart. This poor woman Shank worked nights stocking shelves for goodness sakes. Geez, show a little compassion Wal-Mart! I guess it truly is all about the bottom line.

The way Wal-Mart makes it sound, the company would have gone belly up if they did not recoup that money.

How much did Wal-Mart pay out in executive bonuses last year.

It's a sad situation but realistically, that is part of the agreement that she entered into, when she became insured by Wal-Mart's insurance agent.

Trust me, I'm waiting on someone to get a windfall, because that's the only way I'm ever going to be repaid and I plan on going after them for the money they owe me.

Secondly, she has been in a private room, with a private care giver, which in my opinion is excessive. If they had placed her in a semi-private room and shared a care giver then I bet they would have had some cash left over from the settlement. Instead, they chose to be unreasonable and squeeze as much as possible out of the insurance company and run up as much debt as possible for the lawsuit and it has come back to bite them. Now she can be placed on Medicare or Medicaid.

Lots of people doing the wrong thing but I don't think you can point the finger at Wal-Mart. They provided insurance, the lady accepted the terms of the insurance and a tragic accident occurred.

Dixie

Perhaps Dixie. However I have yet to see any health insurance plan provided by an employer that requires you re-imburse the plan if you prevail in a civil suit which arose from the same transaction or occurance which led to your injuries.

In addition, an agreement could have been reached in which the family paid the difference for the private services they received.

Hey, I'm all for personal responsibility. But I don't know, this seems somewhat unjust to me. Maybe i'm getting soft in my old age of 40 years.

LOL

Announced on CNN, Walmart is changing their insurance policy and not taking the money the woman won in the lawsuit.

Walmart received so much negative criticism they decided to change the insurance coverage.

Peoples voices even reach the corporation officers at Walmart.

Wal-Mart drops $400,000 reimbursement claim against injured former worker

ASSOCIATED PRESS
04/01/2008



Debbie Shank is shown in this 2005 photo at her nursing home in Jackson, Mo.
(File photo/Robert Cohen/P-D)

BENTONVILLE, Ark. (AP) -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is dropping a controversial effort to collect over $400,000 in health care reimbursement from a former employee who suffered brain damage in a traffic accident.

The world's largest retailer said in a letter to the family of Deborah Shank of Cape Girardeau County in Missouri that it will not seek to collect money the Shanks won in an injury lawsuit against a trucking company for the accident.

Wal-Mart's top executive for human resources, Pat Curran, wrote that Shank's extraordinary situation had made the company re-examine the situation.

Deborah's husband Jim Shank welcomed the news. Family lawyer Maurice Graham of St. Louis said Wal-Mart deserves credit for doing the right thing.

"It's a good day for the Shank family," Jim Shank said in a statement.

Wal-Mart has been roundly criticized in newspaper editorials, on cable news shows and by union foes for its claim to the funds, which it made in a lawsuit upheld by a federal appeals court. Advertisement

Insurance experts say it is increasingly common for health plans to seek reimbursement for the medical expenses they paid for someone's treatment if the person also collects damages in an injury suit.

The practice, called "subrogation," has increased since a 2006 Supreme Court ruling that eased it.

Wal-Mart's Curran said the retailer was required by the rules of its plan to seek reimbursement from the Shank's settlement. But she said the case has made Wal-Mart revise those rules to allow for flexibility in individual cases.

"Occasionally others help us step back and look at a situation in a different way. This is one of those times," Curran wrote in the letter.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the Shanks' appeal of a legal judgment that said they had to pay Wal-Mart. The appeal was the last legal recourse for the family of the 52-year-old Shank, a mother of three who was critically injured in a car accident eight years ago. She suffered a brain injury that took her memory and left her with very little ability to move or communicate. She has lived in a nursing home since she was released from the hospital.
"It's been kind of hard on us," Nathan Shank, Debbie Shank's 17-year-old son, said at the time of the Supreme Court's decision.

Nathan Shank said that with her case in limbo, his mother already had lost a private caregiver and might be moved out of her private room in the nursing home.

According to legal documents, Shank's medical bills - totaling $469,216 - were covered by a health insurance program at Wal-Mart, where Shank worked nights stocking shelves.

Her family later settled a lawsuit with the trucking company whose driver was involved in the accident. After attorneys' fees and expenses, $417,477 was put in a trust for Shank's care. That settlement money, plus $51,739 that Shank will have to pay out of pocket, must be paid to Wal-Mart.

As is common for employer-sponsored health plans, Shank's insurance required full repayment of medical expenses if she received money from a lawsuit.

Daphne Moore, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman, said last month that the company sued "out of fairness to everyone who contributes" to the plan.

"This is a tragic situation," Moore said. "The reality is that the health plan is required to protect its assets so that it can pay future claims for other associates and their family members."

The Post-Dispatch Washington bureau contributed information for this story.

Link