Wal-Mart sues braindead former worker for every cent she has

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/walmart.insurance.battle/
I don't know about you, but this HORRIFIES me.

How can any company have the right to "recoup" expenses when this is insurance that the employee pays for?

Walmart can go to hell.

That's ASDA (uk walmart subsidiary) off my list of places to shop.

I hate Wal-Mart.

Well, I already hated Wal-Mart. More fuel for the fire.

I don' shop at Walmart anyway, this type of behavior on their part just reinforces that decision.

The problem is...The settlement was undersized to begin with. The truck companies insurance should have recouped medical expences as well as the extra funding, however the family lawyer made a MISTAKE. To put it in perspective, if I hit you with a car, your medical insurance would pay for your treatment until my automotive insurance payed them back. You should demand in court that further medical expenses are taken in to consideration. I think the lawyer that got the original settlement should be held accountable for his mistake, and should be disbarred. The settlement they reached with the truck insurance was woefully undersized, but it's not Wal-Mart's fault. I am not however a fan of Wal-Mart's business practices. I just think the press is WAY wrong on their coverage of this one.

Wal Mart is like an evil empire. It has so much power and money that even abhorrent stories such as this don't slow business down enough to impact their profits. Of course, if we didn't practically need to take out a loan to fill our gas tanks, consumers would be more willing to put money back into their communities. Unfortunately, people are saving every way they can, even if it means going to Wal Mart.

Nothing unusual here. If you get in an accident, you can't collect money for medical costs from one party and then collect money from the insurance company for the already paid medical bills. It's called double dipping and I believe it's illegal and called insurance fraud. I don't think the Wal-Mart health insurance plan is any different than other insurance plans. Wal-Mart did the right thing like any other company would do in this situation and the courts upheld their correct decision. The media seems to love bashing Wal-Mart with cleverly crafted sensationalist stories like this one.

May a thunderbolt knock me out but I agree with Zendell. I don't think it's "fraud" per say but Walmart is entitled to recoup their "losses" in an accident case like this. The family lawyer should be disbarred and sued for malpractice if he convinced the family to proceed with keeping the money. He's admitting that Walmart is right but that they should be nice about it. He also looks like he was trying to outlast the statute of limitations with his "3 years" comment. As if Walmart wouldn't have the right to any monies because it had been too long.

I don't shop there ever but this is a really dumb article. BTW, she's not "braindead", she's brain damaged and living in a nursing home. Big Difference.

All health insurance companies would do the same thing. The only reason Wal-Mart is singled out is because it's Wal-Mart.

BTW did you notice in every single article they mention the woman's son dying in Iraq, like somehow Wal-Mart is responsible for that as well?

I thought that when there were two payees for an injury or illness, the companies would coordinate to pay all valid medical expenses. Debbie Shank has legitimate medical expenses and personal loss expenses that go beyond what Wal-Mart paid.

There are some rights that should be illegal to sign away, and perhaps all rights should be illegal to sign away. What might be legal isn't right and Wal-Mart should volunteer to leave the rest of the money with the family who needs it to take care of Debbie.