Wal-Mart persues Shank's (local family) trust fund

Southeast Missourian | January 29, 2006 | Rudy Keller

[Conservababe]

This family is here in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. I'm not familiar with this practice. Is it common with other companies?

[LoudRepublicangirl]

I know that if someone in Illinois has medicaid pay their hospital bills and then receives a settlement through the courts there is a lien filed on that settlement so that the state can recoup whatever funds were paid out. As much as I sympathize with this family as to their situation I can see why Wal-Mart expects the contract that was signed by this lady to be honored.

[MineralMan]

Uffda! If a jury hears this, Walmart will lose. This is an ugly case, and Walmart will not gain from it. Bad publicity will cost them far more than this $400K.

[ASOC]

I would also ask, the the injured party sued and failed to get relief in the courts, would Wally Mart provide for this persons continued care? The article does not say, but I would doubt it.

That they paid this much is something of a surprise for me, as I had understood WM had a pretty low end policy for off-the-job injuries.

Be interesting to see if Alito has a play in the outcome.

[Slump Tester]

"The basis of Wal-Mart's claim is that by agreeing to participate in the employee health plan, Debbie Shank agreed to reimburse the plan if it paid for medical expenses that were later compensated by a lawsuit award or settlement."

If she signed it, then Walmart SHOULD be reimbursed. Seems harsh, but why should they pay for everything if she signed this and then recieved a large settlement?

The amount of her settlement isn't Walmart's fault.

[Paleo Conservative]

This problem is caused by a tax code that allows employers give health insurance tax free to their employees but doesn't allow employees to deduct health insurance premiums from their taxable income.

[NavVet]

Many individuals sue the person that injured them claiming their health care costs as part of the damages. Where a third party insurance company actually paid those costs, that insurance company is normally entitled to that portion of the settlement money which is based on the medical bills.

The government does the same thing when it is in Wal Mart's position. If a soldier gets injured in a traffic accident etc. the military will seek to get money from the person that injured the soldier to pay for medical care. Although the military is pretty good about waiving all or part of its claim in favor of the injured soldier if the soldier or his family is facing a financial hardship.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

This is why employers should stop offering health insurance and let employees pay for their own individual/family plans.

[Common Tator]

It is hard to make the case that the trucking company has to pay the costs of the wreck and say Walmart's insurance has to pay as well.

Consider if it were your employee that was injured. You as an employer had purchased insurance coverage for your employees. Then an employee is hurt in a wreck and the insurance company of the owner of the truch that hit you paid your employee. And your insurance also paid your employee's bill.

Now your insurance company sues your former employee and the headline says Conservababe sues former employee. hu

It is pretty common in law. One can not make two insurace companies pay a person for the same damages.

It would be like buying two insurance polices on your car. If your car was totaled in a wreck you would get two cars. The law generally does not allow that.

[From many - one.]

There could be some question as to whether the trust fund was to compensate for past espenses or to provide for future ones.

[Serious Capitalist]

The way I understand it- if you sue and win money for medical expenses- both future and past then if someone else had already paid for medical expenses (past) that were incurred then they are rightfully owed part of the money to reimburse themselves.

As always- since Wal-Mart is big- they are portrayed as the evil doer- however morality is not based on being big or little. It sounds like the trust is trying to keep money that is not theirs- and if that is true then that is immoral and wrong- no matter who is owed the money.

[Paleo Conservative]

The way I understand it- if you sue and win money for medical expenses- both future and past then if someone else had already paid for medical expenses (past) that were incurred then they are rightfully owed part of the money to reimburse themselves.

Sounds like her lawyers didn't ask for enough in the settlement. They should have known about the WalMart policy.

[Conservababe]

That is why I was wondering if this was the policy of other companies. If so, I'm sure that this has happened to other folks in this area, but I have never seen an article in the newspaper concerning it.

I guess Wal-Mart is being singled out again.

[Old Professer]

With crap like this, who needs PR reps?

[Gabz]

I guess Wal-Mart is being singled out again.

That was exactly my reaction when I read the article.

[Mike Darancette]

The Bush administration, working through the U.S. Department of Labor, supported the insurance company's assertion that it was entitled to reimbursement.

Given the paucity of information about the argument of the DOL I would surmise that an adverse ruling by the SCOTUS would drive insurance rates through the roof.

[reformedliberal]

When my late second husband was paralyzed in 1973 from a motorcycle accident, he was a state employee covered by Blue Cross/Blue Shield. When he later received an insurance settlement from the policy held by the driver at fault, BC/BS demanded a percentage of the hospital costs it had paid. I really don't recall the amount, but it was on the order of $25k, which was perhaps 5% of his bill or less. However, I believe this was under a subrogation clause and, in return, they continued to cover him for something like $1100/month or so. Since this was cheaper than the state COBRA, it was worth it.

Not quite the same thing, of course, and, IIRC, they would have waived it if he had decided not to take their insurance. As it was, BC/BS made him wait about a year before they offered reinstituted coverage.

This seems excessive to me. I should add that there were items that insurance never even covered, like an electric wheelchair that had to be modified to fit, modifications to home and vehicle for accessibility and personal attendants who were not necessarily RNs. His rehab was covered, but the special flight to the rehab center and attendant nurses were not.

This was a long time ago, so things are probably much more severe today. I haven't read the fine print of our present policy...I should.

[Recovering_Democrat]

You are correct. Let it lie, Wal-Mart. Sometimes taking a loss on paper is better than taking a loss in public relations.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

With crap like this, who needs PR reps?

Insurance companies do the same thing. I guess it's only bad when eeeeevil Wal-Mart does it, eh?

[deport]

Link?