Thread: One more reason to disdain Wal-Mart

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.

"I don't understand why they need to do this," says Jim Shank on a recent visit to the nursing home, between shifts as a maintenance worker and running a tanning salon. "This girl needs the money more than they do."

Full story: Employers grab accident victims' cash - MSN Money

But WTF, right? I mean, Wal-Mart is only gonna have revenue of about $351.1 Billion this year. The woman in question should have read the fine print. It's her own fault she doesn't have a nickel to receive proper care. The Walton family deserves every penny because they've worked hard to amass their fortune, and caring for their numerous mansions, fleets of expensive cars, and luxury vacations are very expensive.

This is why it's important to get a SMART lawyer. You'll never win the argument that insurance companies should not be able to recover some (or all) of their costs. A SMART lawyer would have argued for the cost of medical care (in the past) AND the cost of ongoing care and treatment for the chronic disability, plus loss of income.

walmart could have shown some good will and not filed suit to begin with. ugh.

Originally Posted by johnlocke

This is why it's important to get a SMART lawyer. You'll never win the argument that insurance companies should not be able to recover some (or all) of their costs. A SMART lawyer would have argued for the cost of medical care (in the past) AND the cost of ongoing care and treatment for the chronic disability, plus loss of income.

Let's see, her original settlement was $700,000. Lawyers collected $286,000 of that total, leaving her with $414,000. Let's assume she succesfully defends herself against Wal-Mart at the same $286,000 rate, which means she'd have $128,000 left. After the requisite appeal, defended again by her attorneys for $286,000, she's now in the hole for $158,000.

GP said it best; Wal-Mart could have shown some good will & left the poor woman alone. It's not like she's gonna party like it's 1999 with her $414,000. At 5%, the earnings on this nest-egg only earn $20,700/year. Combined with SS & disability, she might have had a chance at a comfortable existence. Wal-Mart just showed plain callousness in regard to this woman. Disgusting.

Originally Posted by Thomas Paine

Let's see, her original settlement was $700,000. Lawyers collected $286,000 of that total, leaving her with $414,000. Let's assume she succesfully defends herself against Wal-Mart at the same $286,000 rate, which means she'd have $128,000 left. After the requisite appeal, defended again by her attorneys for $286,000, she's now in the hole for $158,000.

GP said it best; Wal-Mart could have shown some good will & left the poor woman alone. It's not like she's gonna party like it's 1999 with her $414,000. At 5%, the earnings on this nest-egg only earn $20,700/year. Combined with SS & disability, she might have had a chance at a comfortable existence. Wal-Mart just showed plain callousness in regard to this woman. Disgusting.

But they're NOT going to do so. It's nice to say that companies SHOULD show good will, but most of them won't. Her lawyer basically screwed her over. He should have assumed that the company WOULD take back what it could and sued the trucking firm for future medical costs AND loss of income.

Originally Posted by johnlocke

But they're NOT going to do so. It's nice to say that companies SHOULD show good will, but most of them won't. Her lawyer basically screwed her over. He should have assumed that the company WOULD take back what it could and sued the trucking firm for future medical costs AND loss of income.

All that's well & good, Locke, but this isn't about what should have been done. It's about what we can do. We can protest with our wallets & not shop at Wal-Mart. My only point in posting this is to perhaps persuade one more person to stop giving their money to the Walton family.

Originally Posted by Thomas Paine

All that's well & good, Locke, but this isn't about what should have been done. It's about what we can do. We can protest with our wallets & not shop at Wal-Mart. My only point in posting this is to perhaps persuade one more person to stop giving their money to the Walton family.

Sure it's about what SHOULD have been done. Your whole premise is about what the Waltons SHOULD have done, how Wal-Mart SHOULD have shown some class. I"m simply stating that the woman's LAWYER SHOULD have seen this coming... that's what they PAY him for.

Originally Posted by johnlocke

Sure it's about what SHOULD have been done. Your whole premise is about what the Waltons SHOULD have done, how Wal-Mart SHOULD have shown some class. I"m simply stating that the woman's LAWYER SHOULD have seen this coming... that's what they PAY him for.

No, only I know the reasons why I posted this thread. I posted it so that I could inspire more people to cease shopping at Wal-Mart.

A discussion of what should have been done, though certainly welcome, is only a tangent.

Originally Posted by gpsweetness

walmart could have shown some good will and not filed suit to begin with. ugh.

But if they have a legitimate claim to the money why shouldn't they?

Here's an important paragraph from that story that was left out here:

"The reason is a clause in Wal-Mart's health plan that Deborah Shank didn't notice when she started stocking shelves at a nearby store eight years ago. Like most company health plans, Wal-Mart's reserves the right to recoup the medical expenses it paid for someone's treatment if the person also collects damages in an injury suit."

Sounds to me like Wal-Mart has a legal and proper claim to the money.