|
|
Mostly Cloudy ~ River stage: 33.9 Rising Saturday, November 21, 2009 |
Wal-Mart changes its rules on recovering money for medical expensesThursday, December 11, 2008
When the world's largest retailer announced in April it would not pursue the money despite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that it could, the company also announced it was reviewing the rules that prompted it to pursue the court case. On Wednesday, Wal-Mart Watch, the Washington, D.C.-based group that keeps a critical eye on the company, announced it had learned the details of those rule changes and declared the changes a victory for workers. A spokesman for Wal-Mart, Greg Rossiter, said the policies were put in place in April. "Everyone was moved by Mrs. Shank's extraordinary situation," Rossiter said. "The plan did not give us much flexibility. We reviewed the guidelines of the trust that pays benefits for our associates and family members and modified the plan to allow us more discretion." Jim Shank, Debbie Shank's former husband, said he is grateful that national publicity surrounding the case helped push Wal-Mart to change its policy. "I wish it wouldn't have taken national outrage to push Wal-Mart to do the right thing, but I'm glad the company listened to everyone who spoke up on our behalf." Debbie Shank was a night stock clerk at the Cape Girardeau Wal-Mart in 2000 when she was in a severe car crash. The company's health insurance paid $469,000 for her care, covering expenses until she won a $1 million settlement from the accident. Attorneys fees and a $100,000 share for Jim Shank to care for their three sons left a trust fund of $417,000. The Wal-Mart insurance plan trustees launched a lawsuit to recover the money remaining from the settlement. Using a legal theory known as subrogation, the company said it had a right to be reimbursed for medical expenses that were the responsibility of another party when that third party had met its obligation. While the giant company won the legal battle, it lost the public relations war. An article about Shank's situation that appeared in the Wall Street Journal prompted a wave of publicity that included stories on CNN, NBC, Fox News and other national outlets. While the case was pending, Debbie and Jim Shank's son, Cpl. Jeremy Shank, was killed while serving in Iraq. Now, Wal-Mart Watch said, the company has included new rules in its health plan documents for the plan year beginning Jan. 1 that specifically exempt a worker left in Shank's condition from being hit with a similar lawsuit. Shank has lived in a nursing home since the accident. She has brain damage, can't walk or use her arms and has a limited short-term memory. "We applaud Wal-Mart for making this positive change to its subrogation policy," David Nassur, executive director of Wal-Mart Watch, said in a news release. "While we believe Wal-Mart could have done the right thing much sooner, we are very pleased with the end result. Wal-Mart still has a long way to go to improve the quality and affordability of its employee health-care plans, but this is a specific step in the right direction and a victory for Wal-Mart workers." The new rules, set out in the explanation of worker benefits for the coming year, say the insurance plan will not pursue recovery when the injury or illness involved results in paraplegia or quadriplegia, severe burns, total permanent mental or physical disability or death. And in other cases, the rules say, the recovery will be limited to no more than half of the amount recovered from a third party. Rossiter declined to discuss the specific changes. To do so could undercut Wal-Mart's competitive advantage, he said. "Our focus is on providing the best possible coverage that we can for our associates and their families," he said. As the corporation sought to portray the changes as old news, Wal-Mart Watch spokeswoman Stacie Temple said the company had not announced the specifics until it appeared in the employee handbook. "Our whole point is that this particular change is a very small step in making progress on their health-care plan and it is a good step." 388-3642 Have a comment? Log on to semissourian.com Comments |
Enter your email address to subscribe to our mailing lists:
|
Lot's of things going on here. First of all, subrogation is generally a good thing - and a pretty universal accepted policy. It helps keep all the other Walmart employees premiums at a reasonable level, helping keep the staggering health costs companies and their employees pay for in line. The Shanks lawyers were well aware of subrogation when they settled; and knew the consequences. The Shanks are wonderful people and have suffered a lot. Walmart didn't have to do this, and some would argue that they shouldn't have. But they did. Kudos to them. WalMart Watch??? Shesh!
Eh...Can we say DOUBLE Indemnity?
First, I'm NOT a huge WalMart fan (other than taking advantage of their low prices). And not really that big of a fan with regard to the insurance industry. But fair is fair.
However, I understand WHY WalMart should have stuck to the Insurance and legal tradition and collected what was due them from the Shanks.
Shanks ended up getting paid TWICE for the same claim. ie WalMart's insurance AND trucking company
Walmart has set a precident that will INCREASE everyone's insurance because DOUBLE Indemnity claims WILL cost the insurance industry money, thus insurance companies WILL pass that cost on to insureds.
Our insurance and healthcare system is in a big enough shambles withOUT paying claims twice. In addition THIS only encourages MORE lawsuits, which already burden our systems.
MeLange
And we shouldn't forget that Mrs Shank's injuries were caused in a traffic accident that was her fault. Under the circumstances she received a generous settlement from the trucking company.
THIS MAKES ME SO MAD. SHE WAS IN A ACCIDENT, THAT WAS HER FAULT. I HAD TO PAY MY INSURANCE BACK, AFTER I RECEIVED PAYMENT FROM THE PERSON THAT CAUSED MY WRECK. IT IS NORMAL. NOW, THE SHANK BOY DRIVES A BIG NICE TRUCK, SENIOR IN HIGH SCHOOL. VERY INTERESTING. THE SHANKS DO NOT DESERVE THE MONEY. THIS HAS BEEN SO CRAZY, THEY THREW A FIT, MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE THREW A FIT. WAIT, I KNEW FROM THE BEGINNING, I HAD TO PAY THEM BACK, THE SHANKS DID TOO, THEY SHOULD NEVER HAD RECEIVED THE MONEY. WHAT A JOKE.
IM SORRY IT COMES TO THE POINT TO BE THAT OBESS WITH ONE THING HATING WALMART. IM ALSO SORRY BUT IT WAS HER FAULT SHE GOT MONEY FROM TRUCKING CO. AND WALMART SO NOW I GUESS EVERYONE IN THIS COUNTRY WHO ARE AT FAULT FOR A ACCIDENT IS REPAID BY BOTH THEIR INSURANCE COMPANY AND THE ONE THEY HIT. VERY MUCH SHAMEFUL TO BE. THIS IS SICK EXPECIALLY SINCE THEIR SON IS DRIVING A NEW TRUCK HUMMMMMMMM WONDER WHERE HE GOT THAT MONEY FROM.
lol, when this story first broke I was one of only a few people trying to explain how terrible this was.
finally more people waking up to see it? Time to go burn down my house, blame it on the cigerette company sue em and collect the insurance too...bbl
Yes it was her fault and the insurance company compensated her for damages/disability/etc. I can't believe Walmart has changed its policy, thus just passing along the cost to the rest of us (insured, shoppers, employees).
I don't believe the Shank children understood subrogation. They saw it as David v. Goliath and assumed everyone would be on their side against big bad Wally. I talked to one of the older Shank kids once, not the one in high school. I didn't tell him my thoughts on subrogation, or that I thought the case shouldn't even be heard. I believe he mistook my concern for his family as being supportive of the family in their case against WalMart.
WalMart paid up front for her expenses, like it should have, then asked to be reimbursed when she settled with another insurance company. That IS how it works folks, and it is right. $100,000 may not have been enough to care for Mrs. Shank for the rest of her life, but I imagine there was a limit on how much the attorney could ask for in settlement with the insurance company. That is where I see a problem, the amount of the original settlement, not Wally World's seeking reimbursement.
****** MAKIT
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,
TAKE THAT WA WA WA WAAAAAAA
The ignorance of you people just frightens me. Let it be known that I'm Debbie Shank's eldest son before reading on. That being said, first of all, the wreck was found to not be her fault. It was originally thought that, but they had only one testimony and it was from the driver of the truck that hit her. Neither the passenger of the truck, my mother, or my mom's passenger remember anything from the wreck.
Secondly, yes, subrogation is a good thing. But, when a person's life is at stake, and you're looking at giving them what equivocates to a death sentence by taking monies that would have gone to her care and relegating her to a hospice situation, you do what you can. Our lawyers did what they could in the confines of the law. And when the law didn't work, PR took over. I'm thankful that Wal-Mart decided to cut us some slack on this.
As to the person who made a crack at my brother's truck, I bought it for him. Where did I get the money? Well, when my brother Jeremy died a couple of years ago, he left money to me and to my dad through his SGLI benefits. I put aside money for my brother for college or whatever he needed. We bought his truck using that money.
So, basically, shut your trap. My brother's life paid for my other brother's truck.
I'm just tired of you folks bad-mouthing my family that you know nothing about. Shut up. Shut. Up.
Hey I'm Nathan Shank, Debbie Shank's youngest son. A few of you have made a comment about me driving a new truck. Well the facts are, I am not rich, the truck didn't cost a lot at all. Shannon Birk, who owns Birk Motor Co. has had good relations with us in the past and I got the truck at a good price, $4995. And where did the money come from? Well my brother Jeremy was in the Army, before he left for Iraq, he purchased SGLI which is military life insurance which would cover me, my father, and Chris if anything were to happen to him. We recieved $100,000 from SGLI, $50,000 was put away for my father, which he put away towards his future. $25,000 each was given to Chris and me. My money was put safely away for college, but since I won't be needing it because I enlisted in the United States Air Force, I will use that money towards a house, or my future family. I love my brother very much. And a little more about the truck, I earned it, I worked hard, I pay my taxes, and my old vehicle gave out. So get your facts straight before you go talking smack about my family or my truck. I just want to leave by saying God Bless, and God Bless America.