Author Topic: 27Wal-Mart lawsuit for reimbursement of medical costs illustrates important HR i  (Read 435 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ms

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
Home About KJK Practice Area Bio and Contact Info
   skip to main | skip to sidebar Mar
27Wal-Mart lawsuit for reimbursement of medical costs illustrates important HR issue
 
Labels: employee benefits, employment policies, FMLA 2 comments
Wal-Mart is at the center of a huge public relationship mess after it has asked a former employee to reimburse most of the $470,000 its health plan paid for medical costs following a traffic accident. CNN.com has the details:

[Debbie] 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 and later sued for the same amount. However, the court ruled it can only recoup what is left in the family's trust.

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. I think walmart shouldn't do this. I will not be shopping there.


Offline Will Bison

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 591
Like many employers today, Walmart has an optional health plan.  Walmart IS NOT the carrier. They negotiate with the industry for health care and pick a company that best fits the situation. The carrier has the right to subrogate, what's wrong with that?

Read your homeowners or auto insurance policy. It will clearly state that they have the right to subrogate. Those who pay for private medical will also notice a clause regarding subrogation of claims.

That Mrs. Shank suffered an accident is lamentable but certainly has nothing to do with Walmart. The carrier paid her medical bills in a timely manner and then went after the other insurance company. Mrs. Shank had no right to get paid twice for the same claim.


Offline powderman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32823
  • Gender: Male
WILL BISON. Horse patoot. Sounds like she didn't get paid at all. Thats what insurance is for, to provide for the care of the injured. Shame on that insurance co, and those that agree with them.  POWDERMAN.  >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
Mr. Charles Glenn “Charlie” Nelson, age 73, of Payneville, KY passed away Thursday, October 14, 2021 at his residence. RIP Charlie, we'll will all miss you. GB

Only half the people leave an abortion clinic alive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAiOEV0v2RM
What part of ILLEGAL is so hard to understand???
I learned everything about islam I need to know on 9-11-01.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDqmy1cSqgo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u9kieqGppE&feature=related
http://www.illinois.gov/gov/contactthegovernor.cfm

Offline beemanbeme

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2587
Sounds like another opportunity to bash Wally to me.  What you have is two insurance companies going at it with Shank caught in the middle.  I think what it illustrates is the need to read something before you sign it.  Also, the lawyer representing Shank should have been aware of this and made allowances for it. Noone seems upset that her lawyer collected over half of her award.
Is the insurance company that Shank has a policy with (Wally's policy) still liable for her long term care?  If they are still liable for her long term care and money has also been set aside for her long term care, what was the money that was set aside going to be used for? 
Lastly, can we be objective about this?