[LoudRepublicangirl]

I am wondering if it is not actually Wal-Mart itself but it's insurance provider that she signed the contract with. I can understand that any insurance company would want to recoup their losses if there was a settlement awarded-otherwise they end up losing big time when people are injured by other parties,etc. It's a real heart-wrenching story. I saw it on the local news about a month ago and it's really sad that things have come to this for this woman and her family.

[Conservababe]

Evidently Mrs Shank has used some of the trust fund already. According to the article, which is scanty on facts, she would still be eligible for Medicaid. But, she would not be able to have a private room or private assistant.

Now, I am wondering why her husband would have to divorce her in order for her care to continue? Is it because he received over 100K personally in the settlement?

[Muleteam1]

Although my situation was different I once faced a situation where my health insurance company wanted to duel it out with my auto insurance company to see who would pay for an accident that involved a 1990 vehicle fire where I was burned quite badly. Upon seeing that the accident involved a vehicle, my health insurance immediately sought to transfer the responsibility to my auto insurance. This resulted in several weeks delay in payments for my emergency and hospital bills which were being sent to me. I was lucky that just weeks prior to the accident I had cancelled my "medical payments" under my auto policy to reduce redundancy. Had the "medical payments" insurance been in effect at the time of the accident, I would probably still be waiting for reimbursement. Crippling bureaucracy is not limited to government anymore.

Muleteam1

[Richard Kimball]

I know in Texas there are laws governing insurance claims. For example, because chiropractors frequently offered to treat people for insurance only (running weekly treatments for years), it's changed so that no one in Texas can treat for insurance only.

I think there is also the risk of setting precedent. When I worked for Michelin Tire Corporation, they would replace tires for any reason, including blowouts from road hazards. They ended up paying for entire accidents, including medical treatments, on a couple of accidents where the tires blew out as a result of, not because of, the accident. However, because they paid for part of the accident, they were ruled to having assumed responsibility for all of the accident.

While it could be money-grubbing on Walmart's part, it could also be that there are bigger issues of legality and precedent at stake. It could also be that the article's biased, and leaves out some key facts.

[Conservababe]

I have just learned from an employee in management at Wal-Mart that they are solely self funded. BC/BS is only contracted to handle paper work. Wal-Mart themselves make decisions in denial of claims, according to the contract signed by the employee.