GainesvilleMoms.com

The big boys are suing a brain-damaged ex-employee...

"Eight years ago, Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart's health and benefits plan...

Two years after the accident, Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank's long-term care.

Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank's medical expenses and later sued for the same amount. However, the court ruled it can only recoup what is left in the family's trust."

...which is about $200K. I mean, legally, I guess they are right. But, morally, I do not think so at all!

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/walmart.insurance....ref=newssearch&imw=Y

You are so right on this one. The money that Wal-Mart paid out was paid out as a health benefit to one of their employees. Wal-Mart doesn't need that money, and unfortunately Shank does. I think the bad publicity that Wal-Mart is getting with this lawsuit will, in the long run, hurt them.

Morally, you are certainly right that it would be a wonderful gesture for Walmart to leave their hands off of the settlement money. However, legally they have a right to the money. No, Walmart doesn't NEED the money. But, what happens if they set a precedence by giving in on this one case? Then that opens the door for every employee/dependent covered under the insurance plan to point the finger at this situation and say "But you didn't make them pay the money back."

The other issue I have with this situation is who is going to incur the costs of this decision in the end. Do you really think that Walmart would be willing to lose money on this? Everyone else's copays and premiums would go up. You are talking about people who are already financially strapped.

And those are the points that Wal-Mart has made in standing by its decision. They say that if they do it for one, then it's not fair to all of the others. I think the entire situation stinks for everyone, especially since the same woman lost her 18-year-old son in Iraq. How sad.

I hadn't heard that she lost her son. That really is sad. I guess I see it from the corporate side because my husband has been helping to manage a small business. Although they only have 50 employees, they still have to deal with health insurance like a large corporation. It truly is staggering to hear what goes out the door every month in health expenses that the company covers. It's so easy for people to look at Walmart and see this massive company and forget that they started small too. Companies don't become profitable by doing the moral or "right" thing all the time.

Yeah, it's a tough one. This woman has short-term memory loss and so she forgets that her son has died. According to the article, she constantly asks how he's doing and when she is told that her son has died, she cries as if hearing it for the first time. Very, very sad.

So I heard that Wal-Mart dropped its suit yesterday. I think they were feeling the heat...

Hopefully things work out for the best for everyone in this case.

Like medicaid or even medicare, if you are rewarded a sum of money, they do negotiate and settle on a n amount that was used for medical care...so I understand that part.

However, Walmart or any other insurance company is considered 2ndary (after auto insurance) and is not a government insruance (medicaid/medicare) and should take its loss, simply because that is what they are there for. That is the whole purpose of insurance to help those whose sick and disable. That is why she paid her premiums. So Walmart is being greedy in many ways. Before they can get paid back, Medicaid and Medicare would get thier reimbursement before Walmart. they are NOT a government plan.

I know alot of ppl who work for walmart and they have complained how their plans are just bad. And with my understanding, their insurance plan is BCBS.

The whole purpose of the law suit being won is due to the shanks disability as the result of the accident. Its there to pay for her medical and other needs. By taking that from her it defeats the purpose of the trust. That is why I don't understand why medicare and medicaid goes after it too...because in the long run, when/if there is an reimbursement settlement -yeah they got most of their money back...but guess what???? they still have to pay out because now tht money is no longer there and if shanks is enrolled with them, they still have to care for her. So why not let the trust pay it out first??????

that is how stupid BCBS and the government is when comes down to this stuff. they are morans!!!! totally!!!!