K
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
Guest
Here's the short version: A WalMart employee was injured in a vehicle
accident. She sued the company that owned the vehicle that injured
her and won $400,000. WalMart then sued her for the $400K, claiming
that she owed the money to WalMart as reimbursement for their paying
her medical expenses under her company insurance plan. After this
move by WalMart was exposed, they finally backed off.
-------------------------------
Wal-Mart is dropping an effort to collect over $400,000 in health care
reimbursement from a former employee who is confined to a southeast
Missouri nursing home since she suffered brain damage in a traffic
accident.
The world's largest retailer said Tuesday in a letter to the family of
Deborah Shank it will not seek to collect money the Shanks won in an
injury lawsuit against a trucking company for the accident.
Wal-Mart's top executive for human resources, Pat Curran, wrote that
Shank's extraordinary situation had made the company re-examine its
stance.
Deborah's husband Jim Shank welcomed the news. Family lawyer Maurice
Graham of St. Louis said Wal-Mart deserves credit for doing the right
thing.
"It's a good day for the Shank family," Jim Shank said in a statement.
Wal-Mart has been roundly criticized in newspaper editorials, on cable
news shows and by its union foes for its claim to the funds, which it
made in a lawsuit upheld by a federal appeals court.
Insurance experts say it is increasingly common for health plans to
seek reimbursement for the medical expenses they paid for someone's
treatment if the person also collects damages in an injury suit.
The practice, called "subrogation," has increased since a 2006 Supreme
Court ruling that eased it.
Wal-Mart's Curran said the retailer was required by the rules of its
plan to seek reimbursement from the Shank's settlement. But she said
the case has made Wal-Mart revise those rules to allow for flexibility
in individual cases.
"Occasionally others help us step back and look at a situation in a
different way. This is one of those times," Curran wrote in the
letter.
Shank, 52, lost much of her memory and ability to communicate or walk
in a crash between her minivan and a tractor trailer in May 2000. Her
family sued the trucking company and won $700,000. Court records show
that after attorney's fees and costs, the remaining $417,477 from the
settlement went into a trust to care for Shank.
The fund now has about $270,000, the family said.
Shanks' health insurance was through Wal-Mart, where she worked nights
stocking shelves. After the Shanks won their lawsuit, Wal-Mart sued
the Shank family to recover medical costs totaling about $470,000.
Wal-Mart won its case and subsequent appeals by the Shanks that went
as far as the Supreme Court, which closed legal avenues this month by
declining to hear the case.
Before eventually dropping the claim, Wal-Mart's initial reaction to
the outcry was as follows:
This is a very sad case and we understand that people will naturally
have an emotional and sympathetic reaction. While the Shank case
involves a tragic situation, the reality is that the health plan is
required to protect its assets so that it can pay the future claims of
other associates and their family members. These plans are funded by
associate premiums and company contributions. Any money recovered is
returned to the health plan, not to the business. This is done out of
fairness to everyone who contributes to and benefits from the plan.
The Supreme Court recently declined to hear an appeal of the case,
which concludes all litigation. While Wal-Mart's benefit plan was
entitled to more than the amount that remained in the Shank trust, the
plan only recovered the funds remaining in that trust.
During the case, the Shanks also lost one of their three sons when
Jeremy, 18, was killed in Iraq last year while serving in the Army.
The case put a spotlight on the growing use of reimbursement claims by
health plans, experts say.
Roger Baron, professor of law at the University of South Dakota and a
specialist in health-plan law, said health plans have become "very
aggressive" about subrogation since the 2006 Supreme Court decision.
"It's free money. They want the free money," Baron said. Lynn Dudley,
vice president for policy at the American Benefits Council in
Washington D.C., said the negative publicity around the case was
beginning to draw the attention of lawmakers who might want
legislation to stop or limit subrogation.
"Capitol Hill is paying attention," Dudley said.
Baron said Wal-Mart's size -- it is the nation's largest nongovernment
employer, with over 1.3 million workers -- means that its willingness
to compromise in an individual case may have a wider impact on
reimbursement practices by other health plans.
"I'm so pleased to see an element of reason because so much of this
subrogation has been about just blindly going after the money," Baron
said.
------------------------------------
No wonder Republicons love private medical insurors -- they both prey
on weak, helpless people.
accident. She sued the company that owned the vehicle that injured
her and won $400,000. WalMart then sued her for the $400K, claiming
that she owed the money to WalMart as reimbursement for their paying
her medical expenses under her company insurance plan. After this
move by WalMart was exposed, they finally backed off.
-------------------------------
Wal-Mart is dropping an effort to collect over $400,000 in health care
reimbursement from a former employee who is confined to a southeast
Missouri nursing home since she suffered brain damage in a traffic
accident.
The world's largest retailer said Tuesday in a letter to the family of
Deborah Shank it will not seek to collect money the Shanks won in an
injury lawsuit against a trucking company for the accident.
Wal-Mart's top executive for human resources, Pat Curran, wrote that
Shank's extraordinary situation had made the company re-examine its
stance.
Deborah's husband Jim Shank welcomed the news. Family lawyer Maurice
Graham of St. Louis said Wal-Mart deserves credit for doing the right
thing.
"It's a good day for the Shank family," Jim Shank said in a statement.
Wal-Mart has been roundly criticized in newspaper editorials, on cable
news shows and by its union foes for its claim to the funds, which it
made in a lawsuit upheld by a federal appeals court.
Insurance experts say it is increasingly common for health plans to
seek reimbursement for the medical expenses they paid for someone's
treatment if the person also collects damages in an injury suit.
The practice, called "subrogation," has increased since a 2006 Supreme
Court ruling that eased it.
Wal-Mart's Curran said the retailer was required by the rules of its
plan to seek reimbursement from the Shank's settlement. But she said
the case has made Wal-Mart revise those rules to allow for flexibility
in individual cases.
"Occasionally others help us step back and look at a situation in a
different way. This is one of those times," Curran wrote in the
letter.
Shank, 52, lost much of her memory and ability to communicate or walk
in a crash between her minivan and a tractor trailer in May 2000. Her
family sued the trucking company and won $700,000. Court records show
that after attorney's fees and costs, the remaining $417,477 from the
settlement went into a trust to care for Shank.
The fund now has about $270,000, the family said.
Shanks' health insurance was through Wal-Mart, where she worked nights
stocking shelves. After the Shanks won their lawsuit, Wal-Mart sued
the Shank family to recover medical costs totaling about $470,000.
Wal-Mart won its case and subsequent appeals by the Shanks that went
as far as the Supreme Court, which closed legal avenues this month by
declining to hear the case.
Before eventually dropping the claim, Wal-Mart's initial reaction to
the outcry was as follows:
This is a very sad case and we understand that people will naturally
have an emotional and sympathetic reaction. While the Shank case
involves a tragic situation, the reality is that the health plan is
required to protect its assets so that it can pay the future claims of
other associates and their family members. These plans are funded by
associate premiums and company contributions. Any money recovered is
returned to the health plan, not to the business. This is done out of
fairness to everyone who contributes to and benefits from the plan.
The Supreme Court recently declined to hear an appeal of the case,
which concludes all litigation. While Wal-Mart's benefit plan was
entitled to more than the amount that remained in the Shank trust, the
plan only recovered the funds remaining in that trust.
During the case, the Shanks also lost one of their three sons when
Jeremy, 18, was killed in Iraq last year while serving in the Army.
The case put a spotlight on the growing use of reimbursement claims by
health plans, experts say.
Roger Baron, professor of law at the University of South Dakota and a
specialist in health-plan law, said health plans have become "very
aggressive" about subrogation since the 2006 Supreme Court decision.
"It's free money. They want the free money," Baron said. Lynn Dudley,
vice president for policy at the American Benefits Council in
Washington D.C., said the negative publicity around the case was
beginning to draw the attention of lawmakers who might want
legislation to stop or limit subrogation.
"Capitol Hill is paying attention," Dudley said.
Baron said Wal-Mart's size -- it is the nation's largest nongovernment
employer, with over 1.3 million workers -- means that its willingness
to compromise in an individual case may have a wider impact on
reimbursement practices by other health plans.
"I'm so pleased to see an element of reason because so much of this
subrogation has been about just blindly going after the money," Baron
said.
------------------------------------
No wonder Republicons love private medical insurors -- they both prey
on weak, helpless people.
