What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.493 Comments
- inactive, on 11/21/2007, -37/+315I agree that is legal for W-M to do so, it's just most companies would not go to trouble of suing an employee in a nursing home. Believe it or not , there are good companies that will leave some money on the table because it's the right thing to do.
I knew a guy who worked at AG Edwards and became paralyzed during a skiing accident. AG Edwards bought him a new handicapped accessible house with elevators, a new van, hired him a nurse, and created a job for him. I'm not saying every company needs to be that generous, but they don't have to kick elderly people when they're down. - Wiini, on 11/21/2007, -83/+343To those of you who didn't read the article: This isn't Wal-Marts fault. It's their carriers fault.
If anything, people are just upset that Wal-Mart isn't covering the cost of one of their employee's accidents in a completely un-related-to-work accident.
Would you expect your employer to pay your medical bills if you got into a car accident on your day off on your way to Grandmas?
If your employers insurance company sued you to recoup the money they lost in covering you... would you be mad at your employer?
Buried for being propoganda anti-walmart hype. - Wiini, on 11/21/2007, -56/+236Here's what happened:
Lady gets injured on her day off.
Her insurance companies pays out her injuries.
She sues the trucking companies for her injuries PLUS extra money for pain, suffering, and life long treatement.
She's now been paid twice for her injuries, and then some. She pays her lawyers.
Her insurance company (who IS NOT Wal-Mart but is immediately associated with wal-mart) calls her up and says "look.. we paid you.. and now you got someone else to pay you. legally you owe us money.
She says "uh, no"
So they sue her, and take the money they had previously paid out for her injuries.
Nothing Unjust has happened here. Wal-Mart shouldn't have to (Even if they were 'doing the right thing') pay for this ladys injuries that she received on her day off unrelated to her job. That's the trucking companies responsibility. And Wal-Mart shouldn't have to, even if they were a miracle company, have to pay out twice, just because it'd be nice to have twice as much money.
Mrs. "Shank"(Anyone think it's funny that Mrs. Shank got Shanked?) should've sued for more than a measly 700k$ for lifelong injuries, especially when nearly 300$k went to taxes and their attorneys. who pays their attorneys close to 50% anyway?
No one should be surprised when their insurance carrier doesn't want to pay for something when the people responsible have already paid. - bimtott, on 11/21/2007, -19/+160If Wal-Mart doesn't squeeze everything out of its employees, how will they keep the prices on their cheap, plastic ***** so low?!
- Octantis, on 11/21/2007, -11/+146I think the real crime is that the lady only received $700k for her injuries. Even on a Wal-Mart Salary she should be compensated for lost wages and continuing care. She needed a better lawyer.
- chrisk9, on 11/21/2007, -34/+139If the insurance company has a legal right to part of the settlement, why isn't this adjusted by the legal fees and other expenses? It is not as if this was free money.
Way to go Wal-Mart. Kicking a disabled former employee when she's down to save a dollar. I'm sure you make your shareholders proud. - CaptainNoPants, on 11/21/2007, -18/+84buried for whining.
- bimtott, on 11/21/2007, -12/+74I initially dugg your article, but after reading that, I've changed my mind. Get over yourself.
- FeartheKnighted, on 11/21/2007, -14/+70Well, at least we can trust diggers to submit stories with totally unbiased headlines.
- krabat, on 11/21/2007, -12/+65Shut the ***** up.
- mattewood, on 11/21/2007, -52/+101Wow, I never liked Walmart, but I never imagined they could be THAT sleazy.
I rarely shop at Walmart, but with that piece of information, I'll be sure I never shop there again. - aliengoods, on 11/21/2007, -4/+52Better yet, why didn't the insurance company go after the trucking company if they were so interested in the money.
- jeffgtr, on 11/21/2007, -37/+76Just when you think your opinion of Walmart couldn't sink any lower.
- GeneralFailure0, on 11/21/2007, -15/+54Having read the article, I am somewhat less than outraged.
- Pilot85, on 11/21/2007, -2/+40HEALTH PLAN. Not "work related injury plan". Health plan. That's why they paid - she had been paying premiums on a health plan in the event this ever occurred. The company then goes after her for all the money remaining for her care, leaving her with nada - and when it didn't cover her expenses anyway, they recoup all their costs? Not exactly fair for them not to pay a god damn dime on a plan she paid premiums on, and leave her basically destitute and unable to afford proper care.
- DelSolid, on 11/21/2007, -11/+45Dugg down because your OP is horribly biased and intentionally misrepresents the facts. If you hate Walmart for whatever reason then just say it, but don't submit inflammatory headlines backed up by completely false descriptions and then complain that you are being dugg down and imply that something is wrong with "you people".
Yours is a perfect example of a biased post. - prefect421, on 11/21/2007, -1/+34And what position did the guy at AG Edwards hold? something tells me it wasn't in the mail room. Most likely he was an executive who probably could have afforded a lot of the stuff himself. Yes some companies are nice but they are not usually that nice unless you are a big wig, have pictures of someone, or the company caused the problem to begin with.
And it doesn't make it right for these companies to go after the rewards but like the article says, It isn't just wal-mart doing this but wal-mart is every one's favorite punching bag so that is who the article is about. - DelSolid, on 11/21/2007, -13/+44Let me get this straight:
Insurance company pays her bills
She sues and gets compensated for her medical bills
Insurance company wants the money because it was the one who actually paid the bills
She complains that she's handicapped and want to keep the money
Court agrees that the settlement was awarded specifically to reimburse the medical care and the people who paid for the care should get it
Makes Digg front page as anti-Walmart and anti-american!
Am I missing something? - noremorse1, on 11/21/2007, -7/+36Did anyone else read far enough down to catch, "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." Wow... that is awful.
- niczar, on 11/21/2007, -14/+42You're missing one important "fact" in your list: Walmart's insurance didn't cover all the expenses (in particular the life-long nursing home), yet they want to get the whole of what's left of the settlement.
And you make it sound like the lady's whining; you insensitive corpocrate shill, she's brain-damaged! - xelerated, on 11/21/2007, -13/+39Now wait a second.. isn't this what insurance if for... to INSURE? I don't think they deserve a damn dime! She paid into insurance premiums, she puts insurance into effect to do what its supposed to do.
If you end up having to pay it.. then why give up your money for monthly premiums? tell me that. - thebaron2, on 11/21/2007, -3/+28The guy AGREES that Wal-Mart should be payed, he just doesn't think they should be fully compensated. FTA:
"Mr. Graham, the Shanks' attorney, says he approached Wal-Mart's attorneys about negotiating a compromise, but was told the health plan wanted to proceed with the lawsuit. "We're not contending that Wal-Mart isn't entitled to a payment. We're saying they're entitled to one based on equity," he says. Since Mrs. Shank wasn't fully compensated for her damages in the first place, he argues, Wal-Mart should also expect only partial reimbursement."
What basically happened here is that the lady was hurt, Wal-Mart payed her medical expenses (PROMPTLY according to the husband), and then they sued the trucking company for the medical expenses. Essentially, two different parties paid for the same medical care - first Wal-Mart, then the trucking company. What Wal-Mart is saying is that since the trucking company was at fault and paid out for the medical, Wal-Mart should be compensated for the medical bills that IT paid. Otherwise the same bills are being paid twice.
This is extremely common in health care policies - read your own, I'm sure there's a clause in there. Without it, everyone could basically be paid twice for one incident and health care would be even more expensive for everyone as a whole. It certainly sounds disturbing in cases this serious, but this is standard practice. Why should two different agencies be responsible for paying the full medical bills? - shorn, on 11/21/2007, -1/+25Wow, you got all but one point completely wrong. Congrats!
"Lady gets injured on her day off."
Wrong twice in seven words. Excellent start. She didn't "Get Injured" in the sense that she did something to herself. You phrase it to sound like she has some culpability in getting fscking rammed by a semi-truck. Back that up before insinuating. Also, the "fact" that it was her day off has absolutely NO BEARING, because she is being sued by a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wal-Mart (NOT by some third-party, but we'll get to that wrongness repeatedly later) for recovery of medical expenses paid by medical insurance, NOT workers comp or some other insurance.
"Her insurance companies pays out her injuries."
No, wrong. She doesn't own an insurance company. It is Wal-Marts insurance company, not hers. Again, you insinuate to delude yourself and others that it isn't Wal-Mart behind the suit. And they didn't pay for her injuries, they paid the medical providers for administering to her injuries. You really need to think about the things you leave vague with intent to deceive. It's fscking annoying.
"She sues the trucking companies for her injuries PLUS extra money for pain, suffering, and life long treatement."
Wow, you got through a whole sentence without being wrong. Congrats.
"She's now been paid twice for her injuries, and then some. She pays her lawyers."
So totally fscking Wrong, she was not paid by Wal-Mart's Insurance. The people who provided medical care to her were paid by Wal-Mart's insurance. And the part they didn't pay, she did. So she wasn't paid anything until she won the lawsuit. As you phrased wrong, her lawyers took their cut and left her the remains (she didn't "pay them", they left her some.) So she was paid ONCE for her pain and suffering. As has been mentioned, she was paid too little.
"Her insurance company (who IS NOT Wal-Mart but is immediately associated with wal-mart) calls her up and says "look.. we paid you.. and now you got someone else to pay you. legally you owe us money."
No sense rehashing, but you did so I will. NOT her insurance company, Wal-Mart's wholly-owned insurance company. It Is Wal-Mart. The same way your fscking neck is "you", the entity suing her is "Wal-Mart". - sockpuppets, on 11/21/2007, -49/+72Anyone surprised by this needs to download and watch "The Corporation." Hell, let me make it easy for you:
http://www.torrentz.com/565e44c9eef39db4972474c9b3 ...
Bottom line: Don't ever expect corporations to have a soul. Corporate America is out of control and needs to be disempowered. - mnocket, on 11/21/2007, -5/+27While Wal-Mart's position regarding the subrogation of Deborah Shank's settlement is legally correct, it is morally wrong. The reason Wal-Mart suffers from a poor public image is that the company repeatedly earns it! Senior management just does not get it, people do not WANT to do business with a company like Wal-Mart because of its lack of respect for employees and customers. Some people NEED to shop at Wal-Mart. Unless Senior management wises up, the company's growth will be limited to those who NEED to shop there. Wouldn't it be better to be a company that people WANT to do business with? Wouldn't that lead to more growth? Unfortunately, Wal-mart is lead by management that is penny wise and pound foolish. Sad, really sad.
- NinjaBoy, on 11/21/2007, -4/+26In all fairness I'm sure walmart Desperately needed the money much more than someone with brain damage sitting in a nursing home....
- merreborn, on 11/21/2007, -1/+22"Would you expect your employer to pay your medical bills if you got into a car accident on your day off on your way to Grandmas?"
Uh, if that's not what health insurance is for, then what the ***** *is* it for? - thetechkid, on 11/21/2007, -3/+22Chinese child labor...
- Wiini, on 11/21/2007, -10/+29... You obviously don't understand what happened if you think Wal-Mart should pay for this ladies injuries when the guilty party already did.
- shandromand, on 11/21/2007, -1/+20and toxic ingredients...
- falstaff, on 11/21/2007, -2/+20Bingo. This whole story is actually proof that LAWYERS are pure evil. They took their 40% for doing a piss-poor job and left their client in a worse position than when they started.
- Wolfie351, on 11/21/2007, -14/+32Your explanation is too well thought out and logical for the majority of Digg commenters and you obviously read the entire article, shame on you
- Rahodeb, on 11/21/2007, -0/+18Yeah, the responsibility should be on the trucking company to pay greater damages over and above the cost of medical care provided. Essentially, Wal Mart paid for the cost of health care, then she won a judgement which covered the costs of health care and Wal Mart is trying to get it applied to the costs they paid. It sounds much sleazier than it is. The real problem is that the lady wasn't awarded enough money to cover the costs of continued care.
- aliengoods, on 11/21/2007, -15/+31Watch the documentary "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price". I did almost a year ago and haven't shopped at Wal-Mart since.
- MrPeach, on 11/21/2007, -7/+23Let's see... brain damaged and in a nursing home for life == windfall?
*****. - Drahkar, on 11/21/2007, -2/+16No kidding. Frankly I have to wonder why we even would be paying monthly premiums for a health plan like that. If they are going to take all the money we get out of the situation as a settlement, then why should we be paying a premium for their services?
- Quaterni0n, on 11/21/2007, -5/+19You're wrong. Nothing unlawful happened, but it certainly was unjust. Although it's the insurance carrier that's being an evil bastard, as they always end up doing, Walmart is a humongous client for that insurance carrier. They could stand by their employee and use their influence to make the carrier do the right thing. Losing Walmart as a client would hit them a lot harder than losing the money that woman needs for long term care.
- SleepingOrange, on 11/21/2007, -1/+15Wiini, you're missing the point. Point in case.
I pay roughly $150+ per month in long and short term health insurance through work. Imagine I am on my way home from work and somebody runs a red light and puts me in a coma. My health plan covers my medical bills while I am in the hospital....that's why I pay for health insurance.
Now imagine we won a settlement from the other driver for his stupidity.. But the insurance company that provides my health care coverage comes along and takes that settlement because it had been providing the coverage it was required to do because I had been paying them monthly for said coverage.
Does this make sense now? - NormalVisual, on 11/21/2007, -2/+16"Wal-Mart shouldn't have to (Even if they were 'doing the right thing') pay for this ladys injuries that she received on her day off unrelated to her job."
Jesus Christ, does *anyone* here understand the difference between general health insurance and workers' compensation insurance? - pcghost, on 11/21/2007, -1/+14You hit the nail on the head. He received $500,000 in insurance benefits, which is why he was paying an insurance company in the first place. That money is owed to him for having insurance against the event. It's not a windfall if you paid for the privilege.
- withincontext, on 11/21/2007, -0/+13Paid health insurance != a new house.
He was simply stating that AG Edwards went above and beyond their legal obligations to accommodate an employee. In my experience, this is quite rare. - copperhead, on 11/21/2007, -11/+23How do you know that most companies would not do that? It's in the fine print of every company paid health insurance program.
- thebaron2, on 11/21/2007, -10/+22Seriously, read the ***** article instead of basing your reaction on an over-hyped Digg title. Why on earth should two different parties BOTH have to pay full medical costs for ONE injury? Do you WANT health insurance to be even more expensive than it is now?
- biogears, on 11/21/2007, -15/+26Dang, those facts getting in the way again!!!!
- inactive, on 11/21/2007, -1/+12No the Chinese are becoming too expensive and occidental influence made them give their workers "liveable conditions".
So they moved the sweat shops to even poorer countries that the Chinese exploit. (imagine a place where the labour is cheap compared to China), and now they just assemble the parts in China.
But don't worry, once your currency will be worth nothing (that's in 12.5 years if the trend continues, 40% value lost in 5 years) they'll hire you to build cheap crap for them. - plexxer, on 11/21/2007, -3/+14Basically what the article is saying, is that the insurance companies don't want to be liable for you when it is not in their interest. It is saying that if you are in an accident, they will cover your medical costs, but if you receive compensation for your accident, you have to use that money to pay off the said medical bills.
However, if you have insurance, and pay premiums your entire life and NEVER get into an accident, do you think you would have a legal opportunity to get your money back? This is essentially the same point from another perspective. No matter how you slice it, insurance is a gambling proposition, with the company hedging the fact that if it covers enough people and set their premiums correctly, they will make a ***** load of money, and laws like this are giving the house an unfair advantage. - inactive, on 11/21/2007, -1/+11the only true vote the american people have is the dollar vote. if you don't like the way walmart operates, then don't shop there. but that would require possessing a backbone against greedy self interest and i think most americans would rather let their fellow citizens drown and die, than to have to stop shopping somewhere 'convenient' that saves them ten cents on a tube of toothpaste.
- smcnow, on 11/21/2007, -1/+10Wiini, you'd better wake up. If you have a health plan from an employer it had better cover the cost of health car from an accident not related to work. This is one of the "benefits" of selling your time to an employer.
A large employer has leverage over the terms in its health plan, so it is legitimate to place blame on Wal-Mart. WM could have gone with a provider that did not have a subrogation clause or insisted that the provider drop or change the terms of the clause.
In case you did not notice, you and I are now paying for WM's niggardliness. - thebaron2, on 11/21/2007, -3/+12I think it's reasonable that only one party should pay for the medical expenses! Why should this woman be paid twice for the same bill?!
Insurance company pays $400K; court finds the trucking company at fault so they pay $700K for the same doctor's bill + suffering. If anything this is an example of lawyers being evil and taking ~40% of the settlement and not asking for enough in the first place.
Someone below had a good analogy - your car is totaled and your insurance company pays you to buy a new one. Then a court finds the other driver is liable and HIS insurance company pays you for another car. Why should you get paid twice for one accident? In this example, your insurance company should get the money from the other insurance company because they shouldn't have had to pay out in the first place!
How does that not make sense unless you're just looking for a reason to bitch? - copperhead, on 11/21/2007, -3/+11Because it's in the fine print of every insurance policy. Let's say you were in a car accident, and your insurance company paid you to replace your car, which you do. Then, it's determined that the other driver was at fault, and the other driver's insurance company pays to replace your car. Why would you think that you could just pocket the extra money?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 483 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is