Posted on 01/29/2006 9:31:25 AM PST by Conservababe
Wal-Mart pursues Shank's trust fund Sunday, January 29, 2006 RUDI KELLER ~ Southeast Missourian
A case before the U.S. Supreme Court could determine whether Wal-Mart can take the trust fund Debbie Shank uses to pay for long-term care for severe injuries from a traffic accident. Shank, who suffered brain damage and other injuries when a tractor-trailer slammed into her minivan in 2000, is being sued by Wal-Mart for every dollar remaining in the trust fund. The federal lawsuit contends that because Wal-Mart's employee health insurance plan paid for her hospital care following the wreck, it is entitled to the money she was awarded in a settlement with the trucking company.
She understands little of what is happening in the lawsuit, husband Jim Shank said Saturday. She has almost no short-term memory and requires constant care, he said.
"She's read about it in the paper but it hasn't sunk in," Shank said.
Last week, Wal-Mart decided to pursue the money, about $417,000, in Debbie Shank's trust fund. Wal-Mart is asking for $459,000.
When Wal-Mart filed the lawsuit in August, the company said it hadn't decided whether to pursue the case. The lawsuit helped the company examine its options while preserving its legal rights, a spokesman said at the time.
Jim Shank doesn't believe Wal-Mart ever intended to do anything but try to get the money. "That was just corporate babble," he said. "It is a line they've got to use. Blah, blah, blah, we are protecting our interests. Well, I'm protecting my interests, too."
Jim Shank visits his wife two or three times a day. If they lose the trust fund, he said, she will lose the personal-care assistant "who is like a part of the family." She will also be forced to share a room and he might have to divorce her so she would be eligible for increased Medicaid and Medicare benefits to support her care, he said.
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.
Wal-Mart can't give up its rights in this case, even if it disrupts Debbie Shank's care, spokesman Marty Heires said Friday.
"This is a very, very sad case, and many people will have an emotional and sympathetic reaction," Heires said in a prepared statement. "But the reality is that part of Mrs. Shank's legal settlement included reimbursement for medical costs which had already been paid by her Wal-Mart health plan."
The plan's trustees had no choice, Heires said in an interview. "Our hands are really tied."
Cases like the Shanks' turn on an arcane principle of law that has a huge impact on individuals. In a 2002 case, the high court ruled that a health insurance company was not entitled to seize a trust fund set up for an accident victim in a settlement.
The Supreme Court agreed in November to hear another similar case from Maryland. A couple was injured in an automobile accident and put the proceeds from their settlement into an investment account. Lower courts ruled their insuror could recover the money paid for their care.
The Bush administration, working through the U.S. Department of Labor, supported the insurance company's assertion that it was entitled to reimbursement.
Attorney Maurice Graham of St. Louis, who represents the Shanks, believes the high court will rule against the insurance company. Such a ruling, he said, would immensely help the Shanks.
"There has been a substantial amount of litigation around the country as the enforcability of these types of agreements," Graham said. "It is our position that because of the nature of this settlement, we don't think the money is payable to Wal-Mart's health plan."
If the case goes to trial, Graham said, it will likely be early 2007 before a decision is reached. "We are now gearing up to aggressively defend it."
Right or wrong, it's bad publicity; businesses need good will.
You bet it is. The reasoning behind the policy and/or law is that no one should get double benefits for being disabled. The amount of disability one is entitled to is based on a percentage of former income. Not on how much each available disability insurance would pay. This is true of SSDI or private disability plans. I can give myself as an example. I worked for a city that had private disability insurance. The premiums were paid by the City. When I became disabled I received benefits from the private company. When it was determined the disability (MS) was permanent the private insurance company made me apply for Social Security. When that was approved the private benefits company subtracted the SSDI monthly payment amount from my private insurance payment amount. This meant my overall benefit amount did not change. Also SSDI paid me in a lump sum because the SSDI was retroactive. That amount had to be paid back to the private company. Course I had to pay taxes on that amount ( Thanks Uncle Sam).
I did not think it was right to make me apply to SSDI since my employer had paid premiums for the very purpose of supplying employees with disability insurance.
To me the practice would be like a homeowner's insurance company requiring the homeowner to apply for FEMA assistance after a disaster and requiring that homeowner to pay back any insurance monies if FEMA assistance is approved.
What is the point of having private insurance if they are going to force people onto gov't insurance.
So wrong as I think it is. I believe WalMart will win this one.
Last week, Wal-Mart decided to pursue the money, about $417,000, in Debbie Shank's trust fund. Wal-Mart is asking for $459,000.
First,if Wal-Mart win this case will it's insurance CONTINUE to pay for medical and physical therapy if her injuries are permanent??
Second,again If Wal-Mart wins they want $58,000 more than whats available. Does that mean Debbie and her family lose their house TOO???
Muleteam1
That's Ok, if my employer while increase my compensation to make up the difference. My medical/Dental/Vision and Life Insurance are all part of my employment package, along with my salary, 401k, pension, tools and vehicle that they agreed to give me in exchange for me to use my skills and knowledge for thier benefit.
My employer makes a lot of money from my applied services.
And they know that I'll move on to the next one with better benefits if they take that part of the package away. I fend off a dozen offers a year. But I explore every one of them.
I don't have a problem with this as long as WalMart continues to honor her medical needs, because by seizing her repayment, they have claimed responsibility for her. She should for file for medical disability with the company and file for SSI. If this is not WMs intention, then a jury trial should clear this all up quick....
I have no sympathy for Wally this time. They brought this on themselves.
So Walmart wants 459,000 and there is only 417,000 left in the trust.
Who makes up the differance? This does look like a case of corporate greed. Lots of info missing tho.
Give me a break. Wal-Mart is demonized for even existing.
Another fact of the case that remains hidden is that Ms.Shank was making an unsafe uturn on a state highway when she was hit by the truck. She contributed greatly to her own misfortune. Thus, the settlement with the trucking company was not in the millions nor was it adequate to take care of Shank for life. She was always going to have to be dependant on some sort of government aid.
Thanks for the info.
That's an understatement.
It's time to dump Wal-Mart AND the Bush administration...
I see that Walmart is living up to my expectations. Hopefully, they'll lose the case and get lots of bad PR in the bargain.
How?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.