WalMart vs. Deborah Shank

blacbird · Mar 28, 2008

I'm amazed no one has yet posted on this issue (unless somehow I missed it). This story is now making big air time with Anderson Cooper on CNN and Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, among other places. Curiously, I haven't seen a mention of it on Fox, but I may have missed it there. In any case, in case you are unaware:

Shank is a former WalMart employee who was severely injured, suffering permanent brain damage, in an auto accident. She got a $400,000 and change settlement from those judged at fault in the accident. WalMart immediately sued her for that money, and some more, on grounds that the WalMart health care policy demands that people such as Shank, who get settlements of this sort, owe those back to the company health plan. WalMart not only won the lawsuit, but it got taken all the way to the Supreme Court, which refused to hear it.

A week after the accident, Shank's son was killed in action in Iraq.

Shank has severe memory problems and requires constant medical care. She cannot remember her son's death, and asks about him constantly. Everytime she asks, and is told he has died, it is like the first time she's heard it.

WalMart has sent the Shanks a notice that they imminently intend to collect this money, which is the entirety of what she has for her care. Last quarter, WalMart made a profit of $90 BILLION dollars. Three or four of the WalMart heirs get listed every year on the top ten richest people IN THE WORLD.

The Supreme Court of the United States obviously thinks this is all just fine.

If you haven't heard about this atrocity, google is your friend.

caw

LloydBrown · Mar 28, 2008

You missed it. It's around here somewhere.

blacbird · Mar 28, 2008

LloydBrown said:
You missed it. It's around here somewhere.

Thanks. But the thread's not current, as far as I can see, and there's a revival of public outrage about it playing out on TV news now, and elsewhere. Threats of boycott, etc. Worth publicizing, seems to me.

caw

bluntforcetrauma · Mar 28, 2008

And people continue to shop that evil place. If you choose to shop walmart after knowing this, it's beyond me. We quit going there a few years ago.

InfinityGoddess · Mar 28, 2008

No Wal-Mart near me! I usually shop at Rite-Aid and when I go home, there's either Target or K-Mart.

So there, evil Wal-Mart.

~

whistlelock · Mar 28, 2008

blacbird said:
The Supreme Court of the United States obviously thinks this is all just fine.

caw

Well, she signed the contract when she was hired. so...I don't think there's a lot that can be done about it.

Other, than you know, never shopping at walmart.

bluntforcetrauma · Mar 28, 2008

Contract or no, it's a heartless clause.

Jersey Chick · Mar 28, 2008

I heard about this on Countdown with Keith Olbermann - I already despise WalMart, so this was just one more reason to add to it.

Siddow · Mar 28, 2008

It is heartless, but it's not uncommon. My insurance will pay for my medical expenses but also expects to be paid back in the case of a judgment against the party who did me harm. The thing I think we're missing here is that Ms. Shank received compensation for her medical bills and then did not pay them. She had a crappy lawyer, as far as I can tell. Being brain-damaged for the rest of your life is worth a hell of a lot more than 400K, you know? Who would take care of someone for what--60 years?--even 40--for 10k a year, 24 hours a day?

I mean, really.

How the court even thought that judgment was fair to begin with, I don't know.

Lyra Jean · Mar 28, 2008

It's not like the health insurance is a real benefit. I work at Walmart and I pay for my health insurance it comes out of my pay every month and when I do go to the doctor's office I still have to pay for what the insurance doesn't cover. So why do they get to keep the settlement?

blacbird · Mar 28, 2008

whistlelock said:
Well, she signed the contract when she was hired. so...I don't think there's a lot that can be done about it.

Other, than you know, never shopping at walmart.

Sure there is. Embarrassing the schidt out of this company and the lampreys that run it, which is what Cooper and Olbermann are making a stab at. Might not work, God knows, considering the avarice of these "people", but it'll be fun trying, won't it? It's an incredibly stupid thing for them to do; they could easily have proposed a deal to the Shanks to clear up any potentially damaging legal entanglement, for pocket change, and been able to play the magnanimous charitable caring company they like to advertise that they are. No, it makes more sense to them to crush these little people like cockroaches. They deserve every molecule of bad press they receive over this issue, and many others. WalMart makes Exxon/Mobil look like archangels.

caw

Siddow · Mar 28, 2008

So, should we walk into the store and tell management that we're not buying because of this?

Otherwise, I think they might not notice.

Celia Cyanide · Mar 28, 2008

blacbird said:
Sure there is. Embarrassing the schidt out of this company and the lampreys that run it, which is what Cooper and Olbermann are making a stab at. Might not work, God knows, considering the avarice of these "people", but it'll be fun trying, won't it?

Absolutely. This is disgusting, blacky. Who gives a crap what contact she signed? Wal-Mart is not legally obligated to fuck this poor woman over. They are choosing to.

bluntforcetrauma · Mar 28, 2008

rosemerry said:
It's not like the health insurance is a real benefit. I work at Walmart and I pay for my health insurance it comes out of my pay every month and when I do go to the doctor's office I still have to pay for what the insurance doesn't cover. So why do they get to keep the settlement?

Let me go on record saying I have no ill will toward WM employees. They are by and large great people. But like many huge corporations, WM owners thrive by killing off anything in their way.

Cranky · Mar 28, 2008

This makes me a little ill. I've never really had a huge problem with Wal-Mart, but this is a disgusting policy, imo.

My stepfather works for them...has for many years. I'll have to ask him if he's aware of this lovely clause.

Siddow · Mar 28, 2008

Folks, it's not an unusual clause. Seriously. I'm not defending the suing of someone who clearly cannot represent herself, but it's not off-base for the insurance company who paid for medical claims of an injured person to reclaim the money from a future injury settlement.

The settlement was for medical bills, was it not?

Cranky · Mar 28, 2008

Siddow said:
Folks, it's not an unusual clause. Seriously. I'm not defending the suing of someone who clearly cannot represent herself, but it's not off-base for the insurance company who paid for medical claims of an injured person to reclaim the money from a future injury settlement.

The settlement was for medical bills, was it not?

I don't necessarily disagree with you, Madam President. What bothers me (and apparently you, as well) is the fact that Wal-Mart, Inc. couldn't be bothered to make an exception that would not have hurt them. Now, if you're talking about an injury that will heal fairly well, and doesn't necessitate long-term care, then I would have no issue with it.

But this...it just strikes me as unseemly greediness. Can't help it, I'm afraid.

Unique · Mar 29, 2008

LloydBrown said:
You missed it. It's around here somewhere.

First I've heard.

I don't do TV, newspapers, radio -
I got AW and ... dial up.

Got linkx? (dial up is sloooowww...)

ETA:

And people continue to shop that evil place. If you choose to shop walmart after knowing this, it's beyond me. We quit going there a few years ago.

Well, she signed the contract when she was hired. so...I don't think there's a lot that can be done about it.

Hiding shit in legalese doesn't make it right. I feel badly for her if she didn't read it AND comprehend it; if it is written in such a way that the 'average' person cannot comprehend it (i.e. legalese) there might be something to be done about it. That would depend on her skillz of her attorney and getting the Supremes ... to do their fucking job!! (*%&#^#^!!!)

So, should we walk into the store and tell management that we're not buying because of this?
Otherwise, I think they might not notice.

Well - if I ever actually saw a manager on duty at Wal-Mart .... But perhaps I shall make it a point.

Personally, I have cut waay down on my shopping there. Choices aren't great here where I live (at present) but I definitely don't do most of my shopping there (groceries) anymore.

Some things I never buy there because it ISN'T cheaper and I don't like the packaging, the price, or the quality. (meat & veg mostly) YMMV

onlyhere · Mar 29, 2008

My daughter works at Walmart, but we've opted not to take the health insurance because she is disabled and automatically qualifies for medicaid.
Although this is tragic, I have to agree with Siddow and if I ever believed she had paid in as much as they paid out for her medical I would agree with others, but I doubt she did. She had bad lawyers. They seem to be the ones who should be at fault.
Even a person on SSI is required to repay if they receive a settlement for a disability.

LaceWing · Mar 29, 2008

The person at fault is liable for the medical bills. Until the case is settled, one's own insurance company pays the bills -- and of course they want the at fault party to repay them.

The settlement is usually expected to be three times medical costs plus other losses, or so I learned after an auto accident. The woman was not awarded enough. The lawyers and case expenses ate too much of the settlement. Is WalMart still liable for her ongoing care? If not, that's one part that gripes me, that her coverage ended.

A little known clause in some company benefits: a surviving spouse may get health insurance, but it will not continue after a subsequent marriage. It irks me greatly knowing that unmarried people don't live as long; insurance actuaries certainly know this. (It did save me from a drastic mistake, however.)

Appalachian Writer · Mar 29, 2008

I have been in court rooms, speaking for myself and for others, and I have yet to see what I consider TRUE justice. The LAW is blind to suffering; it can only see the threads that bind us to legalities. Is this a bad thing? I'm not sure. If there were any TRUE justice, this woman would be treated with the compassion she deserves. What I've come to believe is that JUSTICE, as we might understand the word, and the LAW are two completely different things. Is it just that a mother, especially one in this condition, lose her child? NO. Is it just that the monies reserved for her physical care be swept into some corporate conglomerate without conscience? NO. But the reality of this world is that corporations do not have a beating heart. What's morally just doesn't play well in the daily business concert. As long as the free market is balanced like a bank account, without any ability to tip the scale toward compassion, more and more horror stories like the one the Shank family is enduring will pop up. Maybe public outcry will change the decision, but I have my doubts.

johnnysannie · Mar 29, 2008

rosemerry said:
It's not like the health insurance is a real benefit. I work at Walmart and I pay for my health insurance it comes out of my pay every month and when I do go to the doctor's office I still have to pay for what the insurance doesn't cover. So why do they get to keep the settlement?

If your insurance is written like what I had in my brief time at Wal-Mart a long, long time ago, it is written into the policy that way.

HeronW · Mar 29, 2008

legal uncertainty here--remembering something heard/read a long time ago--aren't corporations treated as 'human' i.e. can collect on pain and suffering, loss of income, etc, and all the claims a flesh and blood person has for a coporate entity has as well? If so, isn't that a load of crap?

Appalachian Writer · Mar 29, 2008

HeronW said:
legal uncertainty here--remembering something heard/read a long time ago--aren't corporations treated as 'human' i.e. can collect on pain and suffering, loss of income, etc, and all the claims a flesh and blood person has for a coporate entity has as well? If so, isn't that a load of crap?

Again, JUST? I think the operative word here is "entity," as in vague, vaporous collection of ectoplasm, ghost, shadowy, only resembling a flesh and blood person? Again I say it, sometimes I'm so ashamed to be human that I long to be a bear! At least a bear knows crap when it sees it!

Robert Toy · Mar 29, 2008

HeronW said:
legal uncertainty here--remembering something heard/read a long time ago--aren't corporations treated as 'human' i.e. can collect on pain and suffering, loss of income, etc, and all the claims a flesh and blood person has for a coporate entity has as well? If so, isn't that a load of crap?

On B2B, all the many contracts that I have worked on, (aircraft sales, parts, support, etc.) the companies are strictly legal entities and not humans. Great pains are taken with various standard clauses specifically excluding things like loss of income, consequential damages, and even death unless caused by gross negligence or willful misconduct.

The later is near impossible to prove unless it is an act of sabotage.

WalMart vs. Deborah Shank

Esquire

Goddess of Infinity

Whiskey Rebel

Esquire

Up all night to get Loki

I'm super! Thanks for asking

Two years old now.

I'm super! Thanks for asking

Joker Groupie

Esquire

I'm super! Thanks for asking

Agent of Doom

Non-deceased hearse rider

Somewhere in the hills....

Down Under Fan

Somewhere in the hills....

FOB and Slayer of windmills