Wal-Mart Crooks Sue Brain Damaged Gold Star Mom for Medical Bills!
JACKSON, Missouri (CNN) -- Debbie Shank breaks down in tears every time she's told that her 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq.
Even though the 52-year-old mother of three attended her son's funeral -- she continues to ask how he's doing. When her family reminds her that he's dead -- she weeps as if hearing the news for the first time.
Shank suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident nearly eight years ago that robbed her of much of her short-term memory and left her in a wheelchair and living in a nursing home.
It was the beginning of a series of battles -- both personal and legal -- that loomed for Shank and her family. One of their biggest was with Wal-Mart's health plan.
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, but in 2005, Wal-Mart's health plan sued the Shanks for the same amount.
The Shanks didn't notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart's health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit.
The family's attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money.
Watch this couple's story »
"We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to," Graham said.
The Shanks lost their suit to Wal-Mart. Last summer, the couple appealed the ruling -- but also lost it. One week later, their son was killed in Iraq.
"They are quite within their rights. But I just wonder if they need it that bad," Jim Shank said.
In 2007, the retail giant reported net sales in the third quarter of $90 billion.
Legal or not, CNN asked Wal-Mart why the company pursued the money.
Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, who called Debbie Shank's case "unbelievably sad," replied in a statement: "Wal-Mart's plan is bound by very specific rules. ... We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank's case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan."
Jim Shank said he believes Wal-Mart should make an exception.
"My idea of a win-win is -- you keep the paperwork that says you won and let us keep the money so I can take care of my wife," he said.
The family's situation is so dire that last year Jim Shank divorced Debbie, so she could receive more money from Medicaid.
Jim Shank, 54, is recovering from prostate cancer, works two jobs and struggles to pay the bills. He's afraid he won't be able to send their youngest son to college and pay for his and Debbie's care.
"Who needs the money more? A disabled lady in a wheelchair with no future, whatsoever, or does Wal-Mart need $90 billion, plus $200,000?" he asked.
The family's attorney agrees.
"The recovery that Debbie Shank made was recovery for future lost earnings, for her pain and suffering," Graham said.
"She'll never be able to work again. Never have a relationship with her husband or children again. The damage she recovered was for much more than just medical expenses."
Graham said he believes Wal-Mart should be entitled to only about $100,000. Right now, about $277,000 remains in the trust -- far short of the $470,000 Wal-Mart wants back.
Refusing to give up the fight, the Shanks appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But just last week, the high court said it would not hear the case.
Graham said the Shanks have exhausted all their resources and there's nothing more they can do but go on with their lives.
Jim Shank said he's disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case -- not for the sake of his family -- but for those who might face similar circumstances.
For now, he said the family will figure out a way to get by and "do the best we can for Debbie."
"Luckily, she's oblivious to everything," he said. "We don't tell her
what's going on because it will just upset her."
Comments
https://secure.walmartwatch.com/page/contribute/deborahshank
It seems everyone is painting walmart as the bully, a company that did pay for all the medical expenses from an accident they had nothing to do with and are only asking for their own money back yet you completely ignore the lawyer who made his money free and clear and took more then half the settlement in the first place. The family if they had won the case would of been paid twice for the injuries, walmart paying first for the medical expenses and then the trucking company paying again for the same expenses and more.
Right now she is in a private room, a luxury most of us cant afford. The worse case scenario is she will go to semi-private care like average people who are not rich. Not to mention the husband stuck her in a nursing home, thats not saying much about him in mho. If he really cared he could of kept her home and hired home health care which is a lot cheaper then a nursing home. Also im curious to who's name is on that trust, the settlement was in her and his both names and depending on how the trust was set up, he either had access or didnt, im curious if he has access to spend the money however he wants thats suppose to go for her care only.
OK, from what I understand - almost 60% of the settlement went to legal fees. That is more than just the lawyer. Experts (which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars), research and even her medical record cost a lot of money. When I was suing - my medical file was $2 a page. The file was over 5000 pages. With the extent of her injuries, I imagine her file was probably double that of mine.
As for her husband - he has cancer. This sounds like a woman that needs round the clock care. With the husband working two jobs just to pay the bills - he wouldn't be able to help her much. That means she would need live-in care. Does anybody know if that is more than a nursing home?
Subrogation is crap. Why should people, like myself, have to pay back an insurance company? We pay premiums to be covered if something unforseeable happens. What really gets me is this - the insurance company gets all of their money back AND gets to keep our premiums!
As for the legal fee's paid to the lawyer, its the lawyers place to make sure he recoups his cost plus makes a decent profit (decent not lascivious) but his first priority is suppose to be making sure the person in question gets all they deserve. The lawyer apparently failed miserably in his task but he still made sure he recouped his part of the settlement. He expects walmart to give up the medical fee's they are legally entitled to because the womans circumstances is so heartbreaking but i dont see him offering free attorney fee's or offering his personal share of the settlement back. Not to mention we dont even know if they even went to court, more often then not cases like that are settled outside of court which in that case expert witnesses and other court related expenses didnt even come into play.
Every time some company like walmart has to pay out astronomical health care costs it costs every single one of the people who have insurance with them. More often then not causing rising premiums. When we make them pay medical expenses the trucking company is also covering, the only thing we are accomplishing is pushing up the cost of insurance for every single person on their plan.
The family also did not have to put the lady in a private room. I was a CNA for 3 years at a nursing home and in most cases that cost is triple the cost of a regular semi-private room. Not to mention even if this ladies family is really in financial trouble the government will cover the cost of a semi-private room. If the husband did divorce her the woman is considered homeless because im willing to bet he transferred any assets she had into his name only. Once being considered homeless and considering her medical situation the government steps in and takes over all the costs of her care at a nursing home.
As for costs of nursing homes vs. in home nursing. It depends on the amount of care the patient needs. Without knowing the full extent of care required its hard to guess the cost, but based on someone i knew who was brain damaged when he was birthed and lived till age 31, he required bathing, feeding, changing (he wore diapers even as an adult) and constant supervision the cost is much less then a nursing home.
In response to Indiana: my own personal experience taking care of my grand-aunt leads me to believe that nursing homes and personal care are about the same. We had 4 nurses and myself taking care of my aunt, and the care was not cheap!! She required 24 hour care and also had to have us the family members drive her arround for her appointments (numerous and costly). Insurance only covers a portion of the costs, and medicaid only covers a portion of the remaining costs, even for homeless incapacitated people.The disabled/injured person is still financially responsible for a good 20% of thier medical expenses.
I do agree that the tow company needs to be the one who pays for the medical expenses: why can't Wal-Mart sue the tow company and leave the family alone? Does that make more sense in the long-run, or am I too off base??
The ability of an Insurance Company (or self-insured) to recover expended funds in the event that an insured recovers (the same) medical expenses from a third party has been a part of group policies for many decades.
This is truly a horrible situation, how could anyone let alone on what I use to think was a well liked company do such a thing. Wal-mart I believed should be ashamed to what they did to the lady and her family. The family already lost there son to the war, a war being fought for America and they can’t even help her. I could go on and on how what a terrible company this is and how much money their employees help bring in, that they are being so pity over a small amount. If it weren't for the peopl working
Even if Wal-Mart was to let the family keep the money they would recoup it by raising their prices. We might as well face it, the rich get richer and the poor get the shaft. There are very few if any businesses or anybody for that matter who are left in this world that are willing to be honest and do the right thing. It's unfortunate, however we are now living in a society that has a lawyer that is willing to sue anyone for anything, we should be able to take people at their word and not have to have a lawyer draw up legal documents and all that junk. Whatever happened to a handshake and taking someone for their word? I really don't see any problem with letting the people keep the money, that would give Wal-Mart more publicity for free than they could ever pay for. This family has been dealt enough of a bad deal, it wouldn't hurt to let them keep the money. Something else I feel everyone has neglected, what about the money from the son's SGLI (servicemans group life insurance) usually around $250,000.
Most insurance policies have that clause now days, more often then not its in the fine print but i can almost bet if you call your insurance company and ask them they will tell you they do the exact same thing, i know mine does and I have Humana.
For the system to be financially viable, like all insurance funds, it depends on the majority of employees never using the full amount of premiums paid in lieu of wages on their behalf. It seems to me that Walmart are the ones who are double dipping, as they get to keep all premiums paid, and to recover payouts when the opportunity arises in damages claims. Is this not discriminatory?
I understand that if employers paid the equivalent of an insurance premium to an employee in lieu of wages, they would have to pay more as the wage equivalent would have to include tax. So employers do quite well financially from carrying health insurance, and, as well, have a powerful weapon to bring employees to heel. It seems to me that Walmart are the winners in every case, and at the expense of those least able to afford it.
Unconscionable behaviour in my book, and just another reason why Americans should be insisting on a single payer health care system.
Most companies offer insurance now as an incentive to get better workers, either the employer pays part of your premiums and you pay the rest or if the company sponsors their own insurance like walmart supposedly does, you get a much cheaper premium then if you go get private insurance on your own.
Walmarts family insurance premiums are $65 per month according to CNN money and the NYT. If those people were getting insurance through a private company they would be paying at least 600 a month if not more depending on the size of the family and getting a lot less coverage.
The sad thing is this - they are going to pay more in fees to their public relations people to help rebuild their image than they would have paid if they just let the family keep the money...
She isn't "collecting twice". That money was for pain and suffering and for her life long care.
Sadly, subrogation is meant as a punishment on people who dare to use our tort system to recover some of their losses.
Indiana...
Do you know what is the worst part of cases involving subrogation? The patients have to get the lawyer. The patient's lawyer have to do all of the work.
The insurance company does nothing to assist in the lawsuit -yet they reap all of the benefits. They get free legal representation (paid for out of the victim's share) and they get their money back (again from the victim's share).
If insurance companies and employers REALLY wanted their money back - they should have to file a suit on their own and pay the legal fees.
Once again walmart isnt responsible for her life long care, the trucking company caused the injury that will effect her for the rest of her life, if her attorney failed to collect enough damages to cover medical and her life long care they should sue the attorney not walmart who had nothing to do with the whole incident. I bet he is making sure he gets paid for walmarts lawsuit.
Second comment, if they did it would effect all areas of our legal system and wouldnt end with just this one case.
For example, in most court cases an abused spouse when they sue for divorce also include their legal fees (actually thats done in nearly all divorces now days) Whomever is the injured party whether it be a person or a company has every right to recoup their legal fee's, the thought is the victim shouldnt of had to sue in the first place. In the case above walmart is the victim trying to recoup their own money from a family that has no right to it. It doesnt sound right but sadly thats the way it is.
I cant stand walmart, so to me its not about walmart its about how this effects every company out there. I applaud the woman for suing the trucking company, but its not walmarts fault her attorney didnt get enough damages to pay for her medical and her life long care. The attorney is the slimeball in this case not walmart.
I dont believe we are going to agree on this KatieKat and it serves no purpose to keep going back and forwards on it. Its enough that we agree what happened to the woman was tragic and agree at least someone should be made to pay.
I don't have a problem with the insurance company suing for medical bills that they paid. However - they should sue the trucking company - not the woman.
There is no reason that they should get free legal. There is no reason that they should get the benefit from somebody else's lawsuit. There is no reason that the injured pays all of the legal fees while the insurance campany just sends demand letters.
If the insurance company wants to play victim - they need to hire an attorney and sue the people that caused the injury.
In most cases - the cost of the insurance bills aren't even considered. These bills aren't considered a "loss" for the victim because they don't have to pay it out of pocket. Most times they aren't even added to the settlement.
It would be much easier to evaluate the situation if you placed yourself in Wal-Mart's position. You have gone above and beyond and provided for the care of the employee with causation relatively understood. You realized that the trucking company was at fault but the health care was required immediately. The system is set up to protect good samaritans like you and allow you to provided for so many more. However, if the lady would get hurt at your house, you would be responsible. As it is, the lady was provided for and now you feel compelled to double the coverage because you are so generous. You will have to increase the cost to all your other friends/employees but they won't mind since they will be happy to pay for someone else's problem that was already covered. Oh, by the way, because of your one time generosity in allowing the lady to keep her monies,there are other attornies out there that will use these as a precedent. I am not necessarily a WalMart fan and I do feel for the lady but it really boils down to the attornies and their lack of ethical morals.
The lady's attorney could certainly cut back on his fees. The argument will be that they don't win all their cases but then again they probably file their fair share of frivelous cases. Irrespective, they did seek and did obtain monies to cover this unfortunate lady. That is what she has coming to her.
You know - I wouldn't have a problem if WalMArt and BCBS had used THEIR high powered excessively competent lawyers (that they keep on staff) to sue the trucking company. It would be nice to see a major company use their influence in the court system to push the case into court to get an award that covered everybody's fees.
However, they couldn't be bothered.
They watched some woman with no clout and no income go to court with a lawyer that probably had half the capablties of the lawyers employed by Wal-Mart and/or BCBS. They watched this woman struggle to get a minimal settlement.
The standard cost of a personal injury attorney is 1/3 of the final amount. You add to that the fees (which can add up massively before you ever even go to a trial). The average case can take 1-2 years of work to finanlize a settlement and/or a court award. Longer if there are appeals. We all know that lawyers are expensive.
However, how are the lawyers any less ethical than the CEO of Wal-MArt that recieves 30 million in compensation for a single year of work at a company that ships most of its employees off to the state medicaid system for healthcare?
LOL, Wal-Mart complaining about ethics is like the Devil complaining about them.
"Derr, I didn't expect dem to come after da munny..."
Hard situation. You'd like to see the local community maybe raise some money to help them, or something.
Maybe Wal-Mart should have officers whose function i