Wonders never cease.
CNN is reporting that a former Wal-Mart employee who suffered severe brain damage in a traffic accident won't have to pay back the company for the cost of her medical care, Wal-Mart told the family Tuesday.
Eight years ago, Debbie Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart's health and benefits plan.
After a tractor-trailer slammed into her minivan, the 52-year-old mother of three lost much of her short-term memory and was confined to a wheelchair. She now lives in a nursing home.
Wal-Mart's health care plan lets the retail giant recoup the cost of its expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit. And Wal-Mart set out to do just that after Shank and her husband, Jim, won $1 million after suing the trucking company involved in the wreck. After legal fees, the couple received $417,000.
Wal-Mart sued the Shanks to recoup $470,000 it paid for her medical care. However, a court ruled that the company could only recoup about $275,000 -- the amount that was left in a trust fund for her care.
The Shanks appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the court declined in March to hear the case. CNN told the couple's story last week, prompting thousands of angry blog responses and at least two online petitions to boycott the company.
On Tuesday, Wal-Mart said in a letter to Jim Shank that it is modifying its health care plan to allow "more discretion" in individual cases.
"We wanted you to know that Wal-Mart will not seek any reimbursement for the money already spent on Ms. Shank's care, and we will work with you to ensure the remaining amounts in the trust can be used for her ongoing care," Curran said.
"We are sorry for any additional stress this uncertainty has placed on you and your family."
On a related note, Keith Olbermann excoriates Wal-Mart here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
WalMart the latest victim of Mob Rule
The shareholders, employees and the rule of law took a hit today as WalMart caved to public outcry generated by the anti-business trial bar and the usual socialist suspects. Actually, the trial bar does like business as long as it's them doing it by producing nothing through publicly funded courts.
Typical of this attitude is John Cummings, a Texas personal injury lawyer who was "seething" in December that WalMart would have the gall to enforce its contractual rights in court. Mr. Cummings apparently believes that some are more equal than others under the law. One wonders how much he and other WalMart critics donated to the Shank family.
I dont know Mr. Cummings and I'm sure he thinks he means well, but the notion that success and productivity is prima facie evidence of evil intent unless you bow to the extortionist left is an assault on basic fairness and common sense. In short, it's Un-American.
The crux of this case was Subrogation. Something that Cummings and others believe "screw the little guy" No, it's a concept that prevents double dipping in insurance claims and protects all of us. That's exactly what happened here. WalMart paid Mrs. Shank over $400,000 for medical expenses which were reimbursed to her by a third party. WalMart then wanted their money back. Not too hard to figure out, is it? This is the kind of thing Judge Judy disposes of in about fifteen minutes in $500 auto accident cases with no complaints because it's fair and equitable. But because WalMart is a big bad corporation that has committed crimes like employing 1.3 million people and offering low priced products to average Americans, then fairness be damned.
The fact that Mrs. Shank contractually agreed to this and that the courts sided with WalMart matters not to left wing demagogues and if you bring it up, then you're obviously a heartless bastard.
One of the more nonsensical arguments I've heard is that WalMart should pay because if they don't, then taxpayers would have to through Medicaid. First of all, since when is it incumbent on a private concern to mitigate the losses of the federal government? And where do people think this money is coming from? The employees, customers and most important, the shareholders of WalMart. Most of those shares are owned by individuals, pension and mutual funds which are owned by...you guessed it. You and me
http://www.radclown.com/2008/04/walmart-latest-victim-of-mob-rule.html
Post a Comment