SEARCH
So Much for ‘Remaking’ Its Image: Wal-Mart Sues Brain-Damaged Worker |
|
Wal-Mart has spent millions trying to convince consumers that its critics are wrong about its anti-worker actions and that it is a good company that cares about its employees and the community. But the way the company has treated Deborah Shank shows the retail giant’s true colors.
The company, which earned $2.9 billion last quarter, sued a former employee who suffered permanent brain damage in a car accident to get back $470,000 it spent on her medical bills.
Here’s the story. The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) reported yesterday that Deborah Shank, 52, who stocked shelves in Wal-Mart’s store in Cape Girardieu, Mo., was broadsided by a tractor-trailer seven years ago, causing permanent brain damage. Unable to walk without help or communicate meaningfully with her family, she now lives in a nursing home.
Wal-Mart’s health insurance plan paid about $470,000 in medical expenses. But after the Shanks sued and settled with the trucking company, Wal-Mart sued the couple and demanded its money back, plus interest and legal fees—more than the $417,477 the settlement had placed in a special-needs Medicaid trust fund for Shank’s future health care expenses.
A federal judge ruled that Wal-Mart’s health care plan gave them first dibs on any money gained by an injured employee. Such provisions aren’t uncommon in health plans, and Wal-Mart isn’t the first to enforce one.
To add to the tragedy, shortly after the judge ruled against the Shanks, their son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq. The Shanks have two other sons.
Deborah Shank, who receives Medicaid, is not the only Wal-Mart employee receiving public health care. More than 60 percent of Wal-Mart employees—600,000 people—are forced to get health insurance coverage from the government or through spouses’ plans or live without any health insurance. Last year, the AFL-CIO released a report showing how Wal-Mart shifts health care costs to consumers and a bunch of studies showing how Wal-Mart profits from taxpayers.
In the “it’s legal, but is it moral” category, Wal-Mart’s lawsuit shows its unrestrained greed. As the Los Angeles Times points out in an editorial today:
Doing what the law allows isn’t the same as doing the right thing, however. The company made itself whole at the expense of a helpless former employee who will never be whole again. Instead of having some resources to improve her care, Shank will receive only the basic services afforded her by Medicaid and Social Security. Nor will the trust fund be in a position to reimburse Medicaid (i.e., taxpayers), which stood to collect any unspent money upon Shank’s death.
Wal-Mart has spent the last few years working hard to rebut health care reformers, labor unions, anti-globalization groups and other critics who’ve argued that it puts profits ahead of humanity. While its advertising campaigns try to put a friendlier spin on the company, its behavior toward Shank tells a different story. If Wal-Mart can’t restrain itself, perhaps Congress should prevent health plans from draining settlements won by injured workers with more bills to pay.
Wal-Mart’s anti-worker actions could fill (and have filled) books.
Earlier this year, a New Jersey court ruled a class action suit could proceed on behalf of 80,000 current and former Wal-Mart employees who say they were forced to work off the clock.
Human Rights Watch issued a report showing how Wal-Mart systematically thwarts workers’ efforts to form unions. Recent reports also reveal how the retailers’ reliance on goods made by cheap labor in China threatens public safety and costs nearly 200,000 jobs.
13 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
What Wal-Mart did was legal, but why didn’t Wal-Mart and their insurance company (ha ha!) sue the trucking company, driver, etc. to re-coop their losses/costs rather than having the injured worker incur the legal costs, hassles and headaches in doing so? The lawyer who represented the worker got 1/3 of the settlement, so that decreased the amount that was going to be available to care for her and her family for the rest of her life, and now Wal-Mart gets theirs before she’s taken care of? Poor planning on the part of Wal-Mart should not constitute an emergency on this family. And why didn’t the lawyers get their heads together on this one? If Wal-Mart suffered the loss due to her initial care, then they should sue for those damages, sue the trucking company, not the injured worker. Is there not some sort of legislation that can be proposed at a federal level, as many of these businesses are multi-state, multi-national, that would allow for a business/insurance company to become a party to any suit and to add on their incurred expenses to date on behalf of their employee/insured without diminishing the award given to the injured/harmed employee/insured that is intended to care for them for the rest of their lives or compensate for pain and suffering? This case sucks because the Wal-Mart is made whole and the injured worker is in a worse situation than when she started. She had health coverage before, now she’s on Medicaid and welfare. Wal-Mart received the benefit of her lawyer’s time and talent without having to pay a dime. Seems she should go after them for legal fees plus costs of this suit so she has some money for care.
Well now if the family had not engaged in a ‘frivolus law suit’ we wouldn’t be here would we? If Wal Mart takes care of it’s people it has a negative impact on the bottom line, the single most important thing in modern America. I tried really hard to use humor to get through this story-I just can’t. Wal Mart has crossed the greedy bastards line once too many.
I can tell you Wal-Mart is not alone in this kind of suit if there is a third party payer. I think it is wrong, but they feel that she is benefiting from her disablity. Naturally they do they want their money back. With the courts today you can beleive that they will get it back.
Shame, shame, shame. Now this is an article to send to friends and family during this season of shopping excess.
What Wal*Mart did may be legal, but it sure is not ethical. I have pretty much stopped shopping at Wal*Mart unless I have absolutely no choice; this isn’t the way to win me back!
This is an out rage that we the people let this morden retail gaint that has no concern for its employees and for what the real meaning of being a American, the Shanks now has to pay back
the health care that she recieved from the retail gaint that is selling our country, everytime you’ll send at the retail gaint you are selling your county too the foreigners.
Now, the bigger side there son that was in Iraq was killed by you’ll that voted Bush back in, the people vote for Bush put that HOT LEAD BULLET in there kid, plus you’ll voted Bush in you’ll have sold our rights out the back door.
After this law sue, watch what I’ll tell you more companies will follow this class action because it’s in the books. No one is safe now even the UNION WORKER
Theres no use of putting my opinion here due the fact my opinion is rare and down right just, but the people of this website will govern the right of speech, then I don’t want to be part of this
anti-trusted site that is for the retail gaint.
I am just wondering why the UFCW, Change To Win and the AFL-CIO have not agreed upon a well organized boycott of this greedy retail chain?
If we are as concerned as we say we are, then we must back up our words with economic action! BOYCOTT WAL-MART!
This website IS NOT FOR THE RETAIL GIANT!!! This website is FOR THE LITTLE PERSON who has put up with this corporate greed!
What a twisted set of circumstances. I would really like to know what insurance company Wal-Mart uses, and what is the purpose for having insurance if you have to give all the money back. I agree with Jerri; Wal-Mart should have filed its own lawsuit with the trucking company if it wanted some of the money, but it could not legally do so, because Wal-Mart did not lose any money. The insurance company that paid the medical expenses would have had to file the lawsuit, and obviously they did not. So now, Wal-Mart does the most under-handed thing imaginable and sues Ms. Shank for all of her settlement. That, in and of itself, is disgusting, but what is even more disgusting is that the judge rules in Wal-Mart’s favor and that Ms. Shank is left penniless. She should not have had to give up any of the money, because there was no profit for her. The settlement was awarded to guarantee a lifetime of medical and necessary care. She had no money for Wal-Mart to take, and sadly, Wal-Mart sued for money it really was not entitled to. What a scam. This is no better than stealing, and the laws are written to actually allow it.
I AM NOT A VERY BIG FAN OF THE WAY ‘WAL-MART’ USUALLY CONDUCTS THEIR BUSINESS. HOWEVER I MUST CONCUR THAT THIS TIME I DO AGREE WITH THEIR DECISION ABOUT THE MEDICAL BILL REIMBURSEMENT FORM THE PERSON THAT WAS INVOLVED IN AN ‘AUTO ACCIDENT’ SHE WOULD OF GOTTEN A VERY LARGE SETTLEMENT FROM THE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY TO COVER ALL HER MEDICAL REINBURSEMENTS & PAIN , SUFFERING CONTINUED MEDICAL CARE , ETC. SO I DO FEEL IN THIS CASE ” I FULLY AGREE’ WITH THE WAL-MART DECISION.
IT IS RARE I DO AGREE WITH THEM BUT THEY ARE WITHIN THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF AN AUTO ACCIDENT, ALL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE ENTITLED TO REINBURSEMENT FROM THE AUTO INSURERS. LOOK IT UP, HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY & I FEEL IT IS THE CORRECT THING TO DO, AS IT IS WRITTEN NO CHANGES.
WHEN IT BECOMES AN ISSUE BECAUSE SOMEONE WANTS TO BASH A COMPANY THEN YOU NEED TO CHECK THE LAWS, NOT BE A GOODY TWO SHOES OVER A LEAGAL MATTER, JUST LOOKING FOR HEADLINES AGAIN AS THE ‘AFL-CIO’ ALWAYS DOES NOT ALWAYS LAWFUL NOR FAIR JUST ‘HEADLINING’ AS USUAL, AGAINST BIG BUSINESS.
dorothy: You’ve missed some of the key ideas in the Wal-Mart case. Ms Shank DID receive a large settlement from the auto insurance company, but she was not allowed to keep ANY of it. Second, while it is true that personal insurance companies ARE entilted to reimbursement from the auto insurers, it was not the insurance company that filed the claim, it was Wal-Mart. This has nothing to do with bashing a huge corporation, but rather of pointing out that Wal-Mart is not being fair with the injured party, and once the settlement was made, Wal-Mart should no longer have been involved; Wal-Mart’s insurance company would have had to seek some kind of retribution if it wanted to, but IT DID NOT, and had it done so, it would have been egregious of it to take the entire settlement, leaving nothing for Ms. Shank. Ask yourself this, would you have been satisfied with the outcome if you were in her shoes? I don’t think you would be.
Re-read my post [no.10]; this is all about corporate greed without any of the ethical considerations that should have been employed from the department heads of such a huge huge corporation.
PS: if you want to be taken more seriously, edit your writing so that it is more concise and clear. As it is, it is difficult to read, and sounds more of a rant than an actual, intelligent post.
I believe that Wal-Mart would do this to Mrs. Shank, a little over five years ago my husband worked for them and I had a brain tumor. I was in a Las Vagas hospital and he was with me. He called Wal Mart (which was long distance) and was told that he had to call the store manager and his immediate superviser twice a day. He was trying to start a union and they found out about it so they tried to do everything in their power to get rid of him by changing the rules. They told him they didn’t care if his wife was in the hospital, that was the rule he had to go by. They threatened to fire him but my daughter told them that we would sue them and they backed off. My husband always gave to donations of other employees when they had hardships but, if they took one for me we never received it. They probably put it in their own pockets, just like the “Toys for Tots by the Marines. My husband saw them take baskets of toys out of the donation box and put them back on the shelves so they could re-selll them and make a profit. When the Marines asked where the toys were they said someone else must have picked them up. They did it during the night restocking. How low can a company go? We are through with WalMart, we now go to Target, KMart, Shopko, Costco and on line shopping. Their meat department is to be desired, it stinks. We bought spareribs from their store and it was spoiled, (they had put a sticker over the expiration date so you couldn’t read it), when I called them to tell them about it they made me take it back to the store. When the clerk was about to open the bag I said ” you don’t want to open that, believe me”. We got our money back and that was the last time we bought meat from there. They wear white coats like real butchers do but, they have nothing to do with the meat, as it is all imported. The white coats are for looks only.