Way to go WalMart!

Thanks for providing ANOTHER reason I won't shop there any more.

Bastards.

legal, yet scummy

I think Wal-Mart is in the right here, but it should only be allowed to take up to the value of the settlement after legal fees. Sounds cruel but they're the ones who really paid for all of her expenses.

Then again, it's not like they really helped during the litigation process against the tuck company (or did they?), so I could see both sides of the argument.

Was the suit againt the trucking company just for medical expences? I would think that whatever was for medical compensation they could take, but anything else the couple should keep.

Even though this is a terrible story and it sounds like the people do need the money - this is a standard clause if a settlement is reached. Many people do not understand that.

Walmart has nothing to worry about. This story, and 50,000 more wouldn't affect their stock .01% Because you can get glassware 88 cents cheaper.

This is called Subrogation and it's a standard clause in just about every health care contract that every employer offers. I hate Wal-Mart, but they're not wrong here. Wal-Mart (actually their insurance carrier) paid her medical expenses, then the responsible party paid them. Wal-Mart's insurance carrier deserves to get some back.

I know this is not just legal, but not uncommon. It still leaves me feeling oogy, though.

"Now Walmart wants all the money she got from the trucking company. "

See, that line makes it look worse than it is. It makes it sound like any and all money she got, wal-mart wants (beyond what they paid out).

Why should she get 2x medical expenses?

Just another way that ordinary Americans suffer because they lack a universal health care safety net.

Wal-Mart was perfectly within its rights. That's why this case is oh so wrong. We need a universal safety net for all Americans.

well, her medical care probably will probably cost 2x what they gave her

I just realized why I'm uncomfortable with subrogation. She has continuing medical needs that will cost a lot of money. The insurance company paid for the initial medical costs related to the accident. What about continuing care? The don't have insurance through Walmart anymore because she clearly can't work. Medicaid is not always a viable alternative for continuing care. So what happens to her now? I think this is kind of situation is one that needs to be looked at more closely.

I agree she should not get to keep all the money paid for medical, but should be able to keep what ever she paid out in legal fee's + emotional damage etc.

@DrGirlfriend: Well she should have gotten disability insurance. That would have clearly helped her in this case. I still feel really bad for her family though.

@AlteredBeast: "Why should she get 2x medical expenses?"

How do you figure she gets 2x medical expenses. The suit is for pain and suffering and lost future earnings. The suit was about the condition she is in now, not her medical bills.

Shame on walmart, shame on all of the commenters above who defend walmart and shame on every person who continues to shop there. walmart is what is wrong with this country.

Wal-Mart's website has a massive "Community" page outlining how they spend $170 million to help the disadvantaged. If this is TRULY the spirit of their company, then suing a victim to leave them completely destitute really taints all the corporate whitewashing they're trying to do.

@impudence:

I thought that all that Wal-Mart could go after was medical expenses it laid out (and perhaps lost earnings). Isn't that what they are trying to get back?

@DrGirlfriend:
There are also benefits such as long-term disability that would help in this case. If she were enrolled in a LTD plan, she would still receive part of her salary while unable to work.

@MsClear:
Other ordinary Americans would suffer if there was a universal health care safety net. We would suffer in the form of increased taxes and decreases in other programs.

I work, and I have medical insurance, and I have LTD and STD insurance. Do you?

@impudence: you are so right on every point.

why? why would they want that money anyway? if they advertise healthcare benefits as part of a job package, they dont have to 'recoup' their losses. thats like recouping the 'losses' you infer when you do payroll.

there is no need for this mega-corporation to take these people's money. sure, its legal, because it was in the contract. (yet another thing wrong with this country. should we take legalese as a second language in high school, along with a basic law course?)

some sam walton fan club member will tell me to move to another country i'm sure, but something should be done to fix this one for crying out loud.

Wal-Mart was not at fault when this woman got hurt, so why should wal-mart have to pay out of pocket for her medical expenses? When you pay for insurance, you're paying for the prospect of payment for injuries that you are at fault for or injuries where the at-fault party is unable to pay.

In this woman's case, a large company was at fault for her injuries. Wal-Mart did the right thing by helping her get immediate medical attention while her case was pending against the trucking company. Once fault was assessed and the trucking company coughed up the dough, Wal-Mart should be reimbursed for their expenses in covering this woman in her time of need.

This situation has happened to me twice. In the most recent case, my wife was hit buy a reckless driver and needed emergency attention. Blue Cross/Blue Shield paid for the emergency room visit ($5,000). When I received a settlement from the other driver's insurance company ($10,000) $5,000 of that went to BC/BS. What is so "evil" about that scenario? It happens every day of the week, and no one should be shocked about that sort of policy.

And why is this story even on the Consumerist? Why isn't it "Woman gets hit by truck and has to resort to a lawsuit to get her money (some of which was reimbursed to her insurance company who was nice enough to cover her expenses during the trial)"

There are arguments to be made here again the health care system in general, but I have to say that even though I'm normally very anti-Wal-Mart, I'm on their side in this one. The money should have been paid by someone else, and Wal-Mart paid it in good faith that it would be returned to them when the responsible party gave it up.

and to the people that are saying she should just have bought more insurance, what? should we just spend all our paychecks on various insurances?

greed insurance would be a good one to have, apparently.

She sued for damages and won. Like alot of people are saying why should someone get paid for their medical expenses, and then get paid again. This is a manufactured controversy by Wal-Mart haters and Socialists.

@SOhp101: *All* her expenses? She's going to have huge medical bills the rest of her life with no income.

@boandmichele: There should be an insurance just to protect consumers when they get screwed by companies.

Generally, damages in a personal injury suit are broken down into lost wages, medical expenses and pain and suffering. I'm curious whether the settlement was a general settlement or whether it was allocated according to these categories. Certainly, the health care provider should be receive subrogation, but only to the extent that the claim was for past medical expenses.

The result in this case just seems overreaching to me given the extreme injury involved.

This bothered me enough to sign up so I could comment. My problem is that the Shanks have been paying premiums to the insurance company and their premiums (plus everybody else's premiums) are there exactly to cover the payouts when someone has a catastrophic accident. Anything they get from a settlement is above and beyond what they're entitled to so they should get to keep it. Also, a lawsuit is not just about the money won, but about time, effort, stress, legal fees, etc . . . If they have to give Walmart the money, then they are far worse off then when they started.

This is absurd. Walmart is taking this too far. The point of all this insurance is to make this woman whole again. The settlement and Walmart's payments come nowhere near to doing this as she will need care the rest of her life and is now permanently disabled. If this woman was somehow able to made whole, I could understand Walmart going after a portion of the settlement, but this is not the case.

If anything Walmart shouldn't be allowed to recover 100% of their expenses. The Shanks certainly did not recover a 100% of their losses.

Disability insurance doesn't last the rest of your life. Especially if you can't pay the premiums out of pocket.

One thing I'm not clear on: if she sues the truck company, does that mean she cannot file a claim with the truck company's insurance? Because here's the way I see it: you are supposed to bill the truck's insurance for medical costs. If that coverage has a cap on it of how much it will pay, the balance goes to your health insurance. So, if she sues for damages, is that above the claim that was placed with the truck's insurance carrier? Or if you decide to sue are you agreeing to not file a claim?

If she did file a claim *and* sued, then the responsible party was, in fact, billed, and her health insurance through WalMart is, in fact, the right company to bill for the balance. If this is the case, then her WalMart insurance is, in essence, not covering her for her medical costs because they are making her pay them back from the settlement.

@boandmichele: I'm sorry you're so adverse to the idea of purchasing insurance, but companies don't offer disability insurance just for fun.

Insurance (in most cases) is optional, but she really could have used it. You don't need insurance for most things (like electronics), but when it comes to situations that can financially ruin your life, then it just might be a good idea.

Why do you people just look for a reason to pick on Wal-Mart? This is well settled tort law in this country and it is how our society works. Guess what? I'm not shopping at Wal-Mart this Friday because their deals aren't that good. I'm shopping at places that offer lower prices for what I want and all those holiday workers won't have insurance either. Whaa.

@murph1908: You have STD insurance??? I didn't even know that existed. I'll have to look into this because I absolutely HATE condoms as well.

If we have to pay back the insurance company for doing their jobs, then why the hell are we paying premiums to begin with? I read this story off of fark originally and one commenter made the point that the insured has the duty to sue and pay all court costs. If the insurance company wants to be reimbursed, they should be the ones bringing legal action as they are the ones with the motivation. Then if the people injured wish to sue for damages, then there isn't any of this bs going on.

Here is my favorite quote from the article

"In August last year, U.S. district judge Lewis Blanton sided with Wal-Mart, ruling that when Mrs. Shank signed on to Wal-Mart's health plan she was obligated to abide by its terms.

The ruling came six days before the Shanks' 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in September last year in Iraq shortly after he arrived in the U.S. Army's 25th Infantry Division."

F'ing wow, just wow. You know I'll pay an extra 2.64 a trip to Target if it means that Wal*Mart's founders go straight to hell.

@DrGirlfriend: It doesn't last for the rest of your life but in most cases it does last until you're 65, and then you can go on Medicare. Many disability plans also give you a stipend, so you'll just set aside x amount of dollars per month to pay for the premium.

Honestly though I do agree with you... I think she could probably be free from being forced to pay Wal-Mart back if she sued for the right reasons. I guess this is all the more reason to read all contracts carefully before signing and agreeing to them.

@littlejohnny: You win the thread.

@SOhp101: I should add that the life of your disability plan would depend on whether you got short term or long term disability.

Legal does not always equal moral. I am FLOORED by people who think this woman should have been spending a higher proportion of her income on insurance.

First of all, Wal-Mart is notorious for having crappy insurance and pushing their employees to take state aid!--it's amazing this woman had insurance through Wal-Mart to begin with.

Secondly, what sort of phat cash do you fantasize this woman was making while in the parking lot at the 'Mart?

I will never understand those eager to protect their own (false) sense of security at the expense of others. You can not trust insurance companies. They exist to make profits and have plenty of incentives to get their employees to shortchange--not help--their clients.

If you haven't had a stressful run-in with your insurer, you're luckier than this woman, not smarter or better at life.

This needs to be clarified - it's Wal-Mart's HEALTH PLAN / INSURANCE COMPANY, not Wal-Mart itself, that wants the money she got from the settlement.

As sad (and despicable) as this situation is, being ignorant about the terms of your health care policy isn't an excuse - and while it's also sad that her son died in Iraq, that has no bearing on whether she or her family owe money to her insurance company.

If this family got special treatment for their situation, hundreds or thousands of others who had to reimburse their healthcare costs out of a settlement would cry foul.

Walmart paid-out-of-pocket to for her so they deserve the money back afterward Why is she deserving of the money if Walmart paid for her? Sound like Walmart did the right thing.

This is pretty common. A friend of mine was injured while on duty as a police officer, and his medical coverage was great. He was actually hit by a drunk driver, so lots of people tried to get him and his wife to sue the crap out of the drunk driver. But they would have gone through all that hassle and difficulty, but it all would have gone back to the medical bills first, then his disability leave, and then finally him. He never would have seen a penny, so why bother continuing to deal with the scum bag?

Eeveryone at Walmart setting their policies are sick twisted individuals whom deserve to go through their own system and suffer. I hope it's painful.

Not a nice thing to do, but legal.

Had the victim broken her legs rather than become brain damaged, I think the situation might've been quite different. But that's not what happened. She's brain damaged and they need money to keep her well. Medical expenses are always quite large, even for minor things. I can't imagine the bills that come in for this woman.

Imagine a role reversal if you will:

Jim Bob starts an insurance company with his grandmother's inheritance money. A local store, Wally-Market, takes out an insurance policy with Jim Bob.

Some drunk doctor crashes through the front door of Wally-Market, causing exactly $100,000 worth of damage.

Wally-Market files a claim with Jim Bob for the repairs and sues the doctor.

The doctor pays out $200,000 in the lawsuit, covering damages and lost profits. Since subrogation was outlawed after today, Jim Bob is out $100,000 which someone else HAS ALREADY PAID. Think about it that way. The doctor in this scenario paid money explicitly for the repair of the store. Since the store has already been repaired, the money should go to refunding whoever originally paid it.

Remember that the purpose of society is to be fair to all entities, not just people with low incomes. It sucks that this lady had to survive on a wal-mart income, and it sucks that she got hit by a truck, but it would also suck if your company lost out on half a million dollars.

I'm the one who sent this one it, yaaay! :p

Anyway, I think that the money is for her maintence and future care. She obviously can't work anymore, and her family doesn't seem like they can take care of her on their own (they are getting social security & medicaide and are trying to get more aid as well!). Her settlemetn should go to take care of her.

As for saying she should've had more insurance, sure maybe she should have. But, after all, she worked at WAL-MART. With 3 kids. Not only was she likely not making enough to afford the insurance, but I'm betting she didn't have a law degree either. She probably didn't expect that if, God forbid, something like this were to happen that her employer would "recoup" her settlement. At least they sued successfully.. as I said this woman was likely not highly educated, and her family probably didn't know how to ask that the suit be filed under certain terminology to enable her to keep the money. It looks as though the lawyer they found was at least a little competent. I hope that the fact that they put it in a trust for her benefit will be enough legal foothold to win an appeal.

For those who say that they insurance company needs to recoup their expenses... that's what our premiums are for!! These companies make PLENTY of money and I don't think any of us really need to worry after their pocketbooks!

And to the person who wondered why this is on Consumerist, I sent it in because I know that *I* am a consumer of health & other insurances, and it's re-enrollment time... this is a story to keep in mind!

i guess the only remedy to this is to make sure you bleed the person you are suing dry. Get enough money to cover payment to the insurance and then a hefty sum for yourself. Also, wouldn't payment depend on what you seek in the lawsuit? I agree with others in saying she shouldn't have medical bills paid for twice however what if you sue for $500000 for future medical bills not covered by insurance and for emotional distress etc. When you win, you can turn back to the insurance company and say you didn't sue to recoup medical costs since it was already taken care of. I'm no lawyer so I assume it's written into the trial filing what and why you are suing for.

NO NO NO NO! Most of the commenters seem to not be seeing Walmarts slight of hand.

If the woman had no insurance at all she would have ended up in the exact same position she is in now. Walmart and or its insurer received premiums so that they could pay her medical bills. Ultimately she would have been better off not having insurance at all and saving the premiums. Why have insurance at all if they will only turn around and make you pay for the medical bills in the long run.

omg....i just read the entire story. heart-wrenching....i understand wal-mart's right to get their money back, but jeez, show some compassion...

@joebloe: wal-mart (really, the insurance company) didn't pay anything "out of pocket" - the employee had been paying her copays/deductibles/premiums/etc. that's how insurance works.

Boy those insurance companies are slick...move for tort reform, cap judgments and then take it back. Congratulations on going to hell.