OT I will NEVER shop at Walmart again!! | Arthritis Information

 

We will no longer shop here after the story below. I don't hear my husband cry very often but this reduced him to tears. The story is on many different sites. This is shameful and there is no excuse for what Walmart did to this employee. I am starting an email campaign to hopefully put a stop to people shopping there. My husband and I will never step foot in any company associated with them again.


JACKSON, Missouri (CNN) -- Debbie Shank breaks down in tears every time she's told that her 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq.
Debbie Shank, 52, has severe brain damage after a traffic accident in May 2000.
The 52-year-old mother of three attended her son's funeral, but she continues to ask how he's doing. When her family reminds her that he's dead, she weeps as if hearing the news for the first time.
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 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, 7,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank's long-term care.
Wal-Mart had paid out about 0,000 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.
The family's attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money.
"We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to," Graham said.
The Shanks lost their suit to Wal-Mart. Last summer, the couple appealed the ruling -- but also lost it. One week later, their son was killed in Iraq.
"They are quite within their rights. But I just wonder if they need it that bad," Jim Shank said.
In 2007, the retail giant reported net sales in the third quarter of billion.
Legal or not, CNN asked Wal-Mart why the company pursued the money.
Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, who called Debbie Shank's case "unbelievably sad," replied in a statement: "Wal-Mart's plan is bound by very specific rules. ... We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank's case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan."
Jim Shank said he believes Wal-Mart should make an exception.
"My idea of a win-win is -- you keep the paperwork that says you won and let us keep the money so I can take care of my wife," he said.
The family's situation is so dire that last year Jim Shank divorced Debbie, so she could receive more money from Medicaid.
Jim Shank, 54, is recovering from prostate cancer, works two jobs and struggles to pay the bills. He's afraid he won't be able to send their youngest son to college and pay for his and Debbie's care.
"Who needs the money more? A disabled lady in a wheelchair with no future, whatsoever, or does Wal-Mart need billion, plus 0,000?" he asked.
The family's attorney agrees.
"The recovery that Debbie Shank made was recovery for future lost earnings, for her pain and suffering," Graham said.
"She'll never be able to work again. Never have a relationship with her husband or children again. The damage she recovered was for much more than just medical expenses."
Graham said he believes Wal-Mart should be entitled to only about 0,000. Right now, about 7,000 remains in the trust -- far short of the 0,000 Wal-Mart wants back.
Refusing to give up the fight, the Shanks appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But just last week, the high court said it would not hear the case.
Graham said the Shanks have exhausted all their resources and there's nothing more they can do but go on with their lives.

Sadly this was part of the policy that was signed.  I worry about so much, there are tons of policies that will sign me up but wont' give me proper money for treatments should something related to RA go wrong.   Reading the fine print is so important.

I wouldn't shop at Wal-Mart anyway, but after reading this I will continue to never shop at Wal-Mart. I don't get why it's her own fault because she signed the policy. Does Wal-Mart offer ANOTHER policy which doesn't have this in the fine print? Was she supposed to say, "No thanks, I don't need any company health insurance. I'll get my own private insurance which costs 0 month on my 00/month Wal-Mart salary"? (All fincial stuff made up but true).Gimpy-a-gogo2008-03-26 21:46:52Well, a policy is a policy.  You sign it, you abide by it.  I'm sure there are a lot of other situations like this and if they bend the rules for this one, why not that one.  It would also drive the cost up for everyone else.

I read this when someone posted on my board...  It brought me to tears too.  I felt sickened by it.... It is unfair.  WalMart with it's billions in profit do not need this woman's money.... but she does!!  Where is their humanity?  Just because it is "policy" doesn't mean it must be enforced.

I too, will never shop WalMart ever again.

 

If Wal-Mart lets her keep the money they will set a presidence and others to follow will keep theres also. All Lawyer crap. What Wal-Mart should do is keep the money and then make a donation to her or start a fund for her I agree wuth 6t5.... I guess what bugs me more though, is the amount that the Lawyers took!!WalMArth has never treated their emplyees well. There is a tape on how they dump waste and are cruel to their employees in other parts of the world as well. I agree with Debrakay. It's a sad situation but it is what was agreed upon. Kelstev, your right,too. Maybe the lawyers could show some compassion. Especially since they did not seem to do their job as they should have sued the trucking company for much more.

I am not a fan of Walmart and shop there very infrequently, but they are not to blame for this woman's unfortunate circumstances.This is not the first time for Wal-Mart to do something like this.  A deplorable thing they did and  they got caught was a while back was secretly putting life insurance policies on various employees without their knowledge and then if something happens to that employee they would secretly collect that money, none of it went to the family of the deceased employee.  This was found out when a Ca store manager was shot by a disgruntle customer in the parking lot of his Wal-Mart.  After the funeral the widow got a call from the insurance agency about the policy and she didn't know what they were talking about since her husbsnd did not take a life insurance policy out with the company, when she contacted Wal-Mart they gave her a song and dance about it.   So she started doing some research and found out what Wal-Mart was doing and she also found out  it is Illegal to do this.  She contacted the proper authorities and they did research and it was found out that Wal-Mart was doing this in all states, they had to stop and they had to make restitution to several families because of this.  Wal-Mart is not the only company who has done this but the greed of this company and the way they treat the "common joe" is disgusting.  Yes they could have looked the other way and let this woman's family keep the money to take care of her, and they should have.  Their big wigs on their board have borrowed MIllions Of  Dollars  and were forgiven on their loans so they never had to pay them back.  Unfortunately  you will not be able to get all people to never walk into a Wal-Mart again , expecially with the way the economy is right now, but what about a national one day boycott that will really hurt them and let them know it is not fair what they did to this poor lady.  Yes it was in the policy but I can tell you it is never brought up to the employee, when they sign for insurance, I know I was an employee.  Yes they can legally do what they did,nbut did they really have to??  If they can forgive the millions upon millions dollar loans from their board emembers and look the other way they could have done the same with this poor woman.Is this in the fine print of all insurance policies? I don't think that is a stipulation in mine. And another thing, none of us really think anything like this will ever happen to us. Walmart should think about maybe dropping this from the policy. It is very easy to do. There is a place on walmartwatch where people can donate to this family fund. I'm sure they will more than raise the money to make up for the loss.

I shop very little there but will now never enter their store. There are plenty of other stores that will match their prices. Their clothes are of poor quality so I really don't need any of it. They have very little in the way of organic and I'm not sure I would trust their organic choices anyway.

Anyway, that is my rant. I know I'll still shop there...I live in a small city, so there aren't many choices...and what choices I have, Wal-Mart is usually the cheapest. 

What I don't understand is why everyone is upset with Wal-Mart...what they did was legal.  Not very nice, but legal.  They lawyers are the one's that took the biggest chunk of the money.  Again though, it was legal.It is in the fine pint of a lot of insurance policies. I know that when I received a settlement from an accident that I was in, I had to pay back a certain amount for medical expenses.

Luckily, my insurance company also went after the persom who was responsible for the accident, so I wasn't stuclk paying for a great deal.
I'm sure what they did was very legal, I'm not mad about that. I'm mad that this is a policy and why Walmart feels that they need to do something like this. The woman and her family are changed forever. She and her family will never have the quality they once had. And he had to divorce her to get her the help she needs. Last time I heard, this is America, the greatest place on earth. Walmart should be ashamed of themselves for having this clause in their insurance policy. I agree with KEL, what WalMart did was legal. It goes to show that nobody is exempt from having a horri ble accident or act happen to them. WalMArt has the policy for a reason, most companies do. THere has to be a cap, otherwise companies would be sued more than they are and then the economy would crumble more.

 

Where i used to live the only place ot shop was WalMart. So I shopped there for food ect. eeverything. Many of my friends worked there. They have great prices.

 

Who is to say that Meijer or any store at the Mall would have done any differently. Now as far as taking life insurance out on someone without their knowledge....I am certain that is done al lthe time. I have also known ppl that have talked their partner into putting their name on a policy, then cashed in when they died, even though they had broken up years before......it is legal.My guess it happens quite a bit.

 

Ruthless, unfair and amoral.....perhaps...but legal.

[QUOTE=babs10]

I read this when someone posted on my board...  It brought me to tears too.  I felt sickened by it.... It is unfair.  WalMart with it's billions in profit do not need this woman's money.... but she does!!  Where is their humanity?  Just because it is "policy" doesn't mean it must be enforced.

I too, will never shop WalMart ever again.

 

[/QUOTE]

Wal-Mart's humanity died when Sam Walton died.  I gurarantee you that if he were alive today he would have written a check to his insurance administrator to replace the money, and been all too happy to allow this woman to keep the benefits.  Sam had a real heart.  His kids are nothing but spoiled alcoholics who have turned his dream into a profit-machine that destroys small business, which was the backbone of  this country at one time.

 

WalMart's heirs are the ones leading the charge to cut prices ever lower, using whatever means are necessary. Much of their stock comes from China. There is a REASON that American made goods cost more. For all that people love to beyotch and moan about 'government regulations' driving up the cost of goods, it is those same regulations that prevent the kind of devastation and callbacks caused last year when the tainted chemicals got into our pet foods... and some of our HUMAN foods. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. We are only now beginning to realize just how bad some of the Chinese goods are, from lead on children's toys to antifreeze in the toothpaste they manufacture... China does not have the same kind of protections in place that we have here.

 

Walmart has become a monopoly...a very dangerous one.

Actually, Walmart self-insures so they wrote that into the policy themselves. The also have a thing called a "hardship exemption" which would allow them to legally waive their right to collect this money, so they don't HAVE to take it or risk setting a precedent. Walmart could easily not have persued this settlement while still being within their own policy terms and within the law in regards to the shareholders.

But if Walmart feels they MUST persue this money because of legal issues, it would be great if they would apply such exacting legal standards on other matters such as not forcing employees to work "off the clock", adhering to the Fair Labour Standards Act, and perhaps stop embezzling life insurance policies from their poorly treated work force.


Quote from Bizzalou: 

"Wal-Mart's humanity died when Sam Walton died.  I guarantee you that if he were alive today he would have written a check to his insurance administrator to replace the money, and been all too happy to allow this woman to keep the benefits.  Sam had a real heart."

While I a college student in the 80's my final paper for a business class was on Sam Walton and WalMart.  I was so impressed with the information I uncovered which proved you can provide quality products and customer service and be successful. What impressed most though was the fact that Sam Walton cared about the well-being of his employees at all levels and considered his employees to be his number one asset.

Personally, I haven't walked through the walls of Wal Mart for years. Not only because of the company's business practices but because the aisles were so cluttered it had the feel of shopping at a huge rummage sale.  Also, it was difficult to find a employees when you needed  assistance. If you did the employees they were more interested in chatting with each other than assisting the customer, me.

My understanding is that if you collect money either by lawsuit or another insurance policy, the primary insurer (in this case Wal-Mart's insurer)isn't obligated to pay what is essentially twice on a claim. While I agree that WM should have just let this one go for appearances sake, this looks like a media hatchet job. The insurance industry necessarily pursues people who directly or indirectly try and collect multiple times on a claim. In a catastrophic claim like this one, I doubt this was willful on the part of the family. But it's wrong to make WM look bad for what is normally running a legal procedure.  Watching wolf: Unfortunately this is happening with alot of retail companies.  It is the all mighty dollar that rules how a store is staffed.  They go according to last year's profits, employee hours then they predict what their sales will be this year and this also includes a cut in employee hours so that they are still making a profit. So in the end we see less help on the floor so that store can still make a profit for the coming year.  It is a constant crunch of numbers and figures.  Right now too in Wal-Mart's case they have alot of employees that have been with them for well over 25 yrs so these employees cut into their profits.  They now have salary caps that go with your job description and once you hit your cap for your work area you can no longer  get pay raises. So here you have employees with so many years in, making let's say .00 an hour they can get almost 3 new hires for that hour pay they have to dole out for the employee that has been there so long. Meijers does the same, the higher the pay the less hours.  We are all to blame for Mass Merchandise stores because we want stuff at a cheap price  and too many of us don't care where they get it as along as it is cheap.    I met both Mr and Mrs Walton and they were wonderful people, it was Mrs Walton who pushed her hubby into getting health insurance for the employees.  No they would not be happy with the way this company is being runned now and I am sorry but I feel the company should let that family keep that money to take care of the mother, they could well afford to look the other way and there are hardship clauses that would allowed them to let the family keep the money.  This is bad publcity for Wal-Mart and they already have too much bad publicity

 

PS.

Gimpy they also have healthplus hmo I was with that and that was big help with all my problems butI no longer work for them but husband does and he carries us on the insurance plan  now for a family to have healthplus it is 0 per paycheck for it.  Wr went to the bcbs which is a paycheck and this gives us for each of in the family oo.oo to use for dr visits, medical procdures, etc any way we need to.  Then we have to pay 00.00 out of our pocket before they will cover 80% of our bills 

meme2008-03-27 12:22:12A lot of the settlement was for pain and suffering and future care expenses. Walmart wants all of whats left to offset their "insurance" costs when only a fraction of it was for medical expenses. While it might be argued Walmart should get the medical expenses portion I really can't see how they can be entitled to her future care allowance, even if the medical expenses portion is less than they spent on her medical care.

That's the insurance game. They took her premiums for their policy. Now they're crying they had to pay out.
Meme: All you say is true but trust me there's a whole lot more goes on than the public or employees of large companies, such as WalMart, realize.
I have a four-year business degree with minors in psychology and marketing. These degrees were terrific assets for my research endeavors.
Another question? Wouldn't it have been standard practice for the truck insurance to pay this womans medical bills? Why did Walmart get involved in this when it was cleary an accident outside of this womans employment?That's the bad part of the US today.  There are policies like this that shouldn't exist, companies are cruel to have it, but if it is there and you sign it, then you must abide by it.  It may not be right, but it is the contract.

 

I don't think walmart should put the money they take in a fund for her, then others would expect the same, maybe donating it to a cause for brain injuries would be more of the right thing to do.

 

I remember all sorts of businesses from Nordstroms, to kmart, sears etc. all doing bad things with people making their clothing over seas for little to no money etc.  Walmart wasn't the first one to have the problems.  What makes things bad is these companies open shops in other countries but sign a contract that says their own people can't stay there, but that countries people will run it and when they want to visit, they have to give weeks notice or more before arriving which is why companies get in trouble so much.  They sould just make stuff in the US and charge us all more money.

 

I shop Walmart and will always shop walmart.  I am poor, have no medical and need the shirts.  Until someone faithful costs the same, i will shop there because i need to.

You are right, she should have had the company pay the bills.  The settlement probably was for the bill payment and for the problems that occured which is probably why walmart wants their money back.

[QUOTE=kelstev]I know I'll still shop there...I live in a small city, so there aren't many choices...and what choices I have, Wal-Mart is usually the cheapest. 

What I don't understand is why everyone is upset with Wal-Mart...what they did was legal.  Not very nice, but legal.  They lawyers are the one's that took the biggest chunk of the money.  Again though, it was legal.[/QUOTE]

 

Yes it was legal and they were within their rights.  However, decency goes way beyond legality. 

 

From my experience, if you win a lawsuit as a result of a personal injury, there will be a lien for payment from insurance companies and health care providers.  However, in all cases in which I have been involved, the insurance company and the health care providers have always negotiated the amount.  They usually take a small portion of what is owed them.  So, Wal-Mart would not be setting a precedent.

Honestly, this story does not surprise me. I am not saying it is fair or right, but it was stated in the fine print, something that EVERYONE looks past and never thinks about.

But how could anyone be surprised about this, especially from a US company. I am sorry but in times like these it is very hard for me to be patriotic towards my country, because we have one of the worst health care systems. It only works for those who DON'T get sick. Sounds genius to me.Hmmm.  It works for me and millions and millions and millions and millions of others.  We're nobody? I guess it's a good thing you're in Germany, huh?   It's probably a perfect country that you could feel patriotic about.  Maybe you should consider making it your own.Linncn2008-03-28 04:05:00We have a system in the UK where if you are involved in an accident that isnt your fault you can go to the citizens advice bereau and apply for a no win no fee solicitor. Its a personal accident specialist who deals with your claim, you need no insurance for it. You get 100% of the money if you are found to be in the right and the person who caused the accident has to pay your compensation through their insurers and your legal fees. Your insurance isnt affected. it does cause people to claim for silly things but for those who need it, it works well

My husband had an accident at work 7 years ago, some machinery wasnt being used properly, the manager knew and it in turn caused my husband to be in hospital for a while and out of work for 13 months. He luckily retrained and went into management instead of out in the field but we were able to get a settlement for his time unemployed, and for the accident itself, we were paid out in full and no money on our side was deducted.

I understand there was small print in their insurance and Walmart was within their rights but how can someone have their compensation taken away for something that wasnt their fault.

Linn, I don't know if you have ever been to Germany but it is not a perfect country. No country is. They all have their downfalls. And yes, if I cared enough to I would have no problem making Germany my own country.

You are right though, our health care system does work. It provides health care, which it is intended to do, but at an exoberant rate. However, if you have a pre-existing condition then you are screwed. Or in the case of the Wal-Mart worker, the person was provided health care as their health insurance stated it would. It was their fault entirely for not reading the fine print and having that money awarded to them taken back by Wal-Mart's policy.

It is Wal-Mart's fault, health insurance companies fault, and the fault of those that do not read the fine print. I agree in this. It is not the fault of the already existing American health care system. That is why some of the governors and senators have been trying to change our system. Because it works for you and million others of American citizens.A nurse I work with recently quit to do day care in her home. She went to apply for private insurance as she could not afford the cobra that the hospital offered. A couple of weeks into the application, she received a letter from the insurance company saying she was being denied. Why? Because she had had 2 Csections in the past 4 years. Hmm. Seems strange to me that this is considered a disease that never goes away. Sorry, guess i jacked my own thread. Well...walmart has done something good!  She can keep the money!

 

http://us.cnn.com/2008/US/law/04/02/walmart.decision/index.html

Good. It's nice to see business show largesse when it's due.
Copyright ArthritisInsight.com