digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

Final Proof That Wal-Mart is Pure Evil

online.wsj.com — Lowly stock clerk is hit by 18-wheeler on her day off. Brain-damaged and in a nursing home, stock clerk's family sue the trucking company and is awarded $800K (net about $450K). Walmart now says it's their money under the terms of the employment agreement!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ChickSplatt, on 11/21/2007, -37/+314I 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.
    • bimtott, on 11/21/2007, -19/+159If Wal-Mart doesn't squeeze everything out of its employees, how will they keep the prices on their cheap, plastic ***** so low?!
      • nihilite, on 11/21/2007, -21/+1,
      • thetechkid, on 11/21/2007, -3/+21Chinese child labor...
        • shandromand, on 11/21/2007, -1/+19and toxic ingredients...
        • ElAssoWipo, 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.
          • kingraoul3, on 11/21/2007, -2/+5And THAT's when it will be a horrible human rights violation, right?
          • ElAssoWipo, on 11/21/2007, -2/+5No, because there's no such thing as human rights in China.
          • GianDoe, on 11/22/2007, -2/+1the last sentence was funny as hell, so true but cummon the trend won't keep at this extreme the fed is just ***** with the rate
          • kuzotz, on 11/24/2007, -0/+2Within 12.5 years if the trend continues if you are still in the states then you're an idiot and deserve to be exploited unless you are a kid right now, and in which case you are just screwed.
        • grrrrrrrrrrrrrr, on 11/21/2007, -1/+4'The Great Wal-Mart of China'
      • vornan19, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3I always thought walmart was evil. Now I know they are cooking with gas. Evil gas!
      • 2oonhed, on 11/21/2007, -3/+1How do they keep prices so low???......VOLUME!-VOLUME!-VOLUME!
        • ztexas, on 11/22/2007, -1/+3Imagine all the lost hours of productivity throughout the world reading about this story, and then posting about it. In most (all?) western industrialized countries, there is socialized medicine so nobody ends up arguing over who pays. But now the inefficient US health care system and litigious culture is now negatively affecting world productivity. The heck with you and your wimpy dollars.
          • 2oonhed, on 11/26/2007, -1/+1Sue, me, if I go too fast,
            but the sons of his opponents wish that he was their dad.
            Got a wig for his wig, got a brain for his heart.
            He'll kick you apart, HE'LL KICK YOU APART! OOOH.

            He'll save children, but not the British children.
            He'll save children, but not the British children.
            He'll save children, but not the British children.
            He'll save children, but not the British children.
            Choo, choo choo choo choo choo choo choo choo choo jhoo jhoo jhoo jhoo........
    • miketrin, on 11/21/2007, -26/+14It's legal and it's the American way!
    • 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.
      • 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.
      • 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?
        • thebaron2, on 11/21/2007, -1/+9Because sometimes you won't win the settlement! If there was no settlement, the health insurance would have paid everything out. If there IS a settlement, you have two parties paying for one set of bills. How does that make any sense? Obviously, the party at fault for the accident - the one who settled or was forced to pay via lawsuit - should be responsible for the bills.
          • Drahkar, on 11/21/2007, -3/+9So you think its perfectly reasonable for a company to take all the money that would be used to care for a now extremely handicapped individual to line their own pockets? I pay a premium to a insurance carrier so that the premium would take care of what is owed. I consider it a positive balance in an account that is paid out in the case od some event. Not a zero balance that is owed to them. I pay money to them to make sure they take care of things. As if the whole industry wasn't corrupt enough already, now they get loopholes where they never have to pay out of their own pockets for events?
          • 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?
          • thebaron2, on 11/21/2007, -0/+6And another point (I'm beginning to think you didn't even read this article): "now they get loopholes where they never have to pay out of their own pockets for events?"

            The insurance company ONLY gets its money back in the case that someone is sued for the same damages and made to pay for said damages. If the woman just sued the trucking company for suffering and NOT the medical bills that W/M already paid then nothing would have happened. They only get their money back in the event that the doctor's bill gets paid twice - once by them, and then later by someone else who's found to be at fault.
          • kingraoul3, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1But they don't help out with the legal costs - ergo, why sue?

            What I don['t get is, now they're broke and can't care for her. Would the insurance company still be helping out with her medical expenses if she had not won her court case?
          • Spliced88, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1The way I've always understood insurance, is that you're paying them while you're working, and when you get injured, all that money that you've paid for coverage goes toward you're own care. Nobody is paying twice, you pay your insurance to insure you through your monthly costs, not from a settlement that they want to MAKE more money off of you. Especially in an extreme case like this thats probably more common than most people think. Either way, it's expected for people to be like this, more money for me, less for you, kind of thinking ya know.
        • thebaron2, on 11/21/2007, -5/+6Wrong reply. Bury me.
          • scubasteve377, on 11/22/2007, -3/+1[dugg]

            You don't get to ***** tell me what to do!
        • moush, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1because then you'd have to pay the doctor bill
      • gernblansted, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2If you read the article, you would have noticed the part about how most companies won't do this, even though they can. The article also states that companies are beginning to take advantage of "subrogation" more often.
      • peestandingup, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3If you dig deeper & talk with employees, you will know that Wal-Mart's health plan is a stinking pile of *****. So much so that they refer their employees to free clinics, how to get food stamps, etc. Im not saying roll out the red carpet for everyone, but they are too rich of a company to be treating their people like garbage.
        • Spliced88, on 11/22/2007, -2/+1That's why they are so rich, they treat their employees like garbage, many quit/are fire, more people start out with base salaries/wages. Rinse and repeat.
        • kuzotz, on 11/24/2007, -1/+1walmart is a damn economy if switzerland can give their citizens a free education + monthly pensions then Walmart sure as hell can treat its American employees better.
    • uziko, on 11/21/2007, -22/+4Wow! Thanks for your agreement, they would have never been able to exercise their legal right to take their money without it.

      That was sarcasm by the way. Keep your agreements to yourself they don't mean anything.
      • DashingLeech, on 11/21/2007, -0/+6I'm confused. Isn't this the comment section of Digg? You know, where we all get to make comments about the "news" items that are posted. Very much like ChickSplatt did. Nobody's comments here actually "mean anything" to the actual case or news story. They are our own discussions. So I have to ask why you would say "keep your agreements to yourself they don't mean anything". Seems you're in the wrong place.
        • uziko, on 11/21/2007, -2/+1Because he is agreeing on something that is a fact not an opinion that is why. That is like saying I agree that 1+1 is 2. His agreement doesn't mean anything and is just a waste of my reading time. It's ok to agree that say, ron paul is the best candidate, it's called fact v opinion didn't they teach you that in school?
        • topherbook, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1ChickSplatt only started off with "I agree..." in order to defend against opponents who would argue that WM had a legal right. After getting that out of the way, the rest of the post is filled with opinion and anecdotal information. Give it a rest dude. Plus: IT'S THE INTERNET. NONE OF THIS MEANS ANYTHING.
    • 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.
    • ubuwalker31, on 11/21/2007, -18/+12How is this subrogation lawsuit bad? Why should the injured party be compensated twice? Why should the insurance company pay the medical bills and then not get the money from the injured party who was compensated for his injuries?
      Here is the math: Guy gets injured, insurance pays $500,000 to hospital. Guy sues, wins $300,000 in compensation to pay for medical bills and $200,000 for pain and suffering. So right now, the guy has netted $1 million bucks, putting him in a 'better' position than when he started. Giving the $300,000 to the insurance company is the right thing to do. Can someone explain why this injured guy should get a windfall?
      • MrPeach, on 11/21/2007, -7/+23Let's see... brain damaged and in a nursing home for life == windfall?
        *****.
        • thebaron2, on 11/21/2007, -8/+5So if your injury is bad enough you should get paid twice for one bill, by two different insurance companies? How does that make sense, and where do you draw the line?

          If someone breaks my leg in a fight and my insurance company pays my immediate medical bills, should I ALSO get the money from my assailant's insurance company after I sue him? Or is a broken leg not serious enough to merit me getting paid twice? Where do you draw this line?

          The simple fact is that only ONE insurance company should have to foot the bill. Why should two different entities both pay 100% of a single doctor's bill, especially when one of those entities is found to be at fault for the accident?
          • kingraoul3, on 11/21/2007, -2/+5No, healthcare should be free and universal, so that no family faces lifelong poverty because someone else ***** up and hit a member with a semi.
        • ubuwalker31, on 11/21/2007, -3/+1Good point, assuming that the compensation from the law suit doesn't cover future expenses. If you assume that the medical insurance and government covers the nursing home, and the $200,000 covers the brain damage, isn't getting an additional $500,000 a windfall? Riddle me that!
      • 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.
        • ubuwalker31, on 11/21/2007, -1/+4I agree, to an extent, so long as the person did not agree to indemnify the insurance company. I think the point of this article was that the insurance companies have changed their contracts so that they can get their money back if there is a suit...and that people aren't aware of this new provision that was snuck into their contracts.
          • kingraoul3, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3And if they were aware, they would not bring the suit at all, as they assume all of the risk and derive no benefit.
      • gernblansted, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2A 'better' position? WTF?
    • 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....
      • kingraoul3, on 11/21/2007, -1/+6Right. Won't someone think of the executives?
    • 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.
      • bulkhater, on 11/21/2007, -1/+5Don't forget the people who just plain don't CARE about Wal-Mart's practices as long as they get a good price. Self Centered bastards make up a shockingly huge percentage of Americans.
        • Lyph5, on 11/21/2007, -2/+3So because I want to get the best value for my buck I'm a self centered bastard?
        • Stevo23, on 11/22/2007, -0/+5Yes. Exactly. Thinking about your wallet rather than other people's lives is pretty much the definition of a self-centered bastard.
          • bugsy187, on 11/22/2007, -0/+3In all fairness, most people probably don't see that the low prices come at a cost. They don't see the sweat shops in china or whatever. Activists try to put the squeeze on Wal-Mart to get them to play fair, but you start hearing all of these "communism" criticisms.

            A relative works as a manager at Wal-Mart and is bound by contract that he can't meet with co-workers outside of work. Do you believe that? If his best friend starts working there sweeping floors, they can't hang out anymore. It must be some creepy anti-union strategy. How messed up is that?
        • G-RaZoR, on 11/22/2007, -1/+1So what you are saying is. If I throw my money around to care about other people's lives, then I wont become a self-centered bastard. But when iI'm done throwing my money around, I will not have any money left. I will be the one working at Wal Mart because I wouldn't have any money.

          I will stick with being a Self Centered bastard!
        • cjhowe, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1@Stevo23
          I'm sure that Mrs. Shank cannot wait to see your very generous donation to her medical fund.
        • crobathias, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1you are kinda missing the point here, imagine Wal-Mart was run by, oh lets say terrorists. would you shop there then, knowing that every dollar you spend there will go towards those who are killing our troops?
          its the same basic principle, except the metaphorical terrorist just hides himself behind a suit and calls himself a good businessman
    • FutureGuy, on 11/21/2007, -2/+3There are nice companies that are nice to their employees, or at least there were nice companies before Wal Mart stomped on it.
      • kingraoul3, on 11/21/2007, -0/+4That's why you cannot have nice companies in a Capitalist mode of production: they get outcompeted, by virtue of their niceness.
        • kuzotz, on 11/24/2007, -0/+1well usually through corruption and someone on the inside screwing them over. Selling out is a human element not a capitalistic element.
    • gernblansted, on 11/21/2007, -0/+5This story is the perfect kind of ammo needed at city council meetings to help keep Walmart from consuming every small town in the United States.
    • madman4eva, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2She will have escalating medical costs for the rest of her life. That 400K was put in a special trust by the court for that specific reason. I dont understand how the insurance company is justified in getting its money back.
    • StaticThunder, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1In this case, Walmart should pay the legal costs involved in suing the trucking company, since they are trying to claim the settlement. I don't see THAT happening. AND they become responsible for her long term care.

      Only under those circumstances can I see this being right, in any way shape or form.
    • raymore, on 11/22/2007, -0/+3The income of one Wal-mart store per week alone is high enough that the clause in the medical contract should be non-existent.
    • spacecoyote1966, on 11/22/2007, -1/+1I hope some Walmart CEO gets run over by a semi.
  • ChickSplatt, on 11/21/2007, -249/+163 diggs to far? What the hell is wrong with you people? Seriously.
    • CaptainNoPants, on 11/21/2007, -18/+83buried for whining.
    • krabat, on 11/21/2007, -12/+64Shut the ***** up.
    • bimtott, on 11/21/2007, -12/+74I initially dugg your article, but after reading that, I've changed my mind. Get over yourself.
    • DelSolid, on 11/21/2007, -11/+44Dugg 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.
    • rockjunky116, on 11/22/2007, -3/+4Only -193 diggs?
      • wastedlife, on 11/22/2007, -1/+2you left out "What's wrong with you people!?"
  • chrisk9, on 11/21/2007, -34/+138If 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.
    • 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.
      • Wiini, on 11/21/2007, -12/+9Because that's not their responsibility. that's the ladies responsibility.
        • kingraoul3, on 11/21/2007, -0/+4To get them their money? No offense, but F that.
          • CiXeL, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2im not sure you guys realize exactly how evil some rich stockholders are.
            ive worked for movie studio lawyers
            the experience strengthened my faith because i know satan and evil truely exist now.
            sociopathic i believe is the word. they are so selfish that if they could get away with it they would kill you for the slightest infraction.
            to get a better picture think "worse than devil wears prada"
      • nihilite, on 11/21/2007, -1/+6they do not hold an insured interest so they had no legal basis to sue. Now if she had been hit while at work on their property, then maybe....
      • m3t00, on 11/21/2007, -0/+5Why do we always have to pay lawyers to get health care? Them and insurance companies drive up everyone's costs. Now anyone who has a crappy plan like this will need to sue for enough to cover the reimbursement which drive up the cost to some other insurance company who will no doubt raise their rates. Sicko is right.
      • moush, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1the trucking company already gave the 470,000
    • signal15, on 11/21/2007, -0/+7Insurance companies CAN and WILL sue trucking companies/gyms/etc to recoup accident costs, but now they are lazy and have resorted to subrogation. Subrogation should be illegal and this should be the requirement instead of putting the legal costs and hassle on the victim and then benefiting from their hard work.
    • dukeochutney, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2was this penal damages and not covering the medical expenses?
    • osko2052, on 11/21/2007, -0/+6They didn't get to be 5 of the top ten billionaires in th world by being charitable and human.
      • sherrife, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1You're exactly right, it's corporate Darwinism in action.
    • moush, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1i'd be proud if i was a shareholder, my money in action to make me more money
  • weebit, on 11/21/2007, -29/+19Why the hell do the employees have insurance at Walmart for? I know a few that work at Walmart and none of them have insurance there. They are cheap to pay them, sell defective toys, and now they are screwing their employees in the most foul of ways they ever could. If I was this guy I would sue Walmart. He had to divorce his wife in order to be sure her bills could be paid. That is clear negligence from Walmart. They have no heart, only their full wallets.
    • 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?
      • TheSabre, on 11/21/2007, -5/+7Exactly! The woman that got hurt sued for medical expenses. The husband says that the woman needs the money more than Wal-Mart does. But she does not - her expenses WERE paid by Wal-Mart. The husband is saying that she needs the money under the assumption that it's free money to be used for a vacation house or remodeling their kitchen. The woman should receive compensation for not being able to work, and perhaps for the trucking company basically taking the fun out of her life... but money given to her for medical expenses goes to pay for medical expenses. Since her's were paid for, the money should be reimbursed to the company that paid the expenses to begin with.

        FTA: "The reason is a clause in Wal-Mart's health plan that Mrs. Shank didn't notice when she started stocking shelves at a nearby store eight years ago."

        Well, that just about sums it up. "I didn't read what I signed so now I'll complain about it." It's her own fault for not noticing what she was agreeing to.
        • natdowner, on 11/21/2007, -0/+4I'm not disputing the fact that yes, WalMart is entitled to the money it paid out because the woman won her case. I do however have a problem with the notion that the money they won from the lawsuit was going to go to remodeling the kitchen. I have a hard time believing that her husband and children are concerned with redoing their kitchen counter tops when they have to figure out a way to provide the healthcare this woman needs for the rest of her life. WalMart only paid for the care up til now, who's gonna pay for it for the rest of her life? .... the answer apparently is her family...She should have been awarded enough to pay back WalMart, plus more to live on...
          • TheSabre, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1I agree. And while she may not wish to remodel the kitchen, her award was a settlement. Her husband, on her behalf, did not seek to take the case to trial. How long was he expecting $400,000 to last in the long-term, when Wal-Mart dished out over $400,000 in 5 years?

            If Wal-Mart was smart, they'd drop the suit because it's negative publicity. But if her husband was smart, he would have taken it to trial and sought in the millions to provide future care.
          • Double0Doug, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3The lawyer should have sued for future medical costs or costs beyond what the insurance covered. By failing to use language specifying what they were suing for they left the door open to subrogation.
            I’m not saying they should have done this to avoid subrogation, but they should have known the liability limitation on the part of the defendant and crafted a lawsuit to meet the future needs of the client before trying to sue for expenses that had already been paid.
            I would be looking at the lawyer.
          • kingraoul3, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3@Double0Doug
            You mean a family who's primary breadwinners work at WalMart and as a maintenance worker might not be getting first rate legal representation?
        • thebaron2, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3And that's an issue that her ***** lawyers should have taken into consideration. The title should be "Final Proof that LAWYERS are Pure Evil." They took around 40% of the settlement, and probably didn't ask for enough in the first place. The simple fact that can't be ignored, though, is that only one insurance company should foot the medical bills, not both.
    • pendrachken, on 11/21/2007, -1/+6Except the fact is she did not receive money for her _PAST_ medical care. The big kicker here ( and if it does go to the supreme court, with a good lawyer) is the original judge specifically said that the money she was awarded was for _FUTURE_ medical care.
      • Double0Doug, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2If that is the case, the insurance company has no claim on it, period.
        I have worked as a medical claims adjuster. The article is right in that claims are systematically identified by diagnosis code and the adjuster is prompted to obtain accident information for subrogation.
        Most of the time, all it takes is a court decision saying that the monetary award is somehow above and beyond what the insurance company paid (such would be the case of future medical expenses) or for non-medical damages (such as pain and suffering etc).
        I wonder if she bothered to get long term disability coverage…
  • 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, -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.
      • NinjaBoy, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2Same here! Sadly where i live the CD and video game store just went out of business...thanks to walmart. Now their prices are way up and i HAD to buy rockband there :(
        • superdoofus, on 11/22/2007, -0/+3you know you can buy stuff online now, right?
      • liquidpele, on 11/21/2007, -8/+3Around here (Atlanta), not many people shop at wal-mart except Mexicans.
        Everyone else goes to Target... Not because they hate wal-mart, but because trying to shop around a bunch of people that don't even speak spanish is just annoying. Plus wal-mart NEVER has enough cashiers working. I hear the wal-marts up north sell liquor though, so maybe they are nicer up there.
        • Dumbledorito, on 11/21/2007, -0/+8"That don't even speak Spanish?" What do they speak, then? Ancient Egyptian?
      • Eska, on 11/21/2007, -4/+2I watched it awhile ago, but was not that horrified by it. I remember them concentrating on how they "forced" other companies to sell their product to them at a loss. But the factories always had the right not to sell to walmart. Everyone always has a right not to do something, you can not blame walmart for the factories weakness.
    • 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.
      • 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.
        • 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.
      • emmeron, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1I am confused: wouldn't they have spent money on insurance? I mean, did walmart pay out of pocket to the hospital, or is this insurance money? I know walmart is a bit... er... different, but don't they have medical insurance?
    • 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?
      • EarlOfLade, on 11/21/2007, -2/+5Well, what will happen now, is that the amounts sued for will increase, you take the cost you will have to pay back, then add the cost of future care + cost to law firm and in the end, insurance will increase.
        • thebaron2, on 11/21/2007, -3/+7She SHOULD have sued for more in the first place, that's part of the problem here. As long as the insurance company gets its money back in the case that a third party is found at fault and a payment is made, insurance won't go up because of this.

          What shocks me is that Wal-Mart even PAID her out of their insurance! She got injured on her day off while doing something COMPLETELY unrelated to work. That should be the real story here. After reading the article I was blown away that they even paid at all. How someone could read this and come away with "OMGZ W/M IS EVILZ" is absolutely beyond me.
          • pendrachken, on 11/21/2007, -2/+3do you not understand what insurance is? I hope you pay $60+ a week and are too stupid to go to the doctor unless you get sick at work. Die please.
          • thebaron2, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2Wow....

            Well you are right - I was thinking workman's comp for some reason so my bad - but god damn, what's with the hostility?

            Grow the ***** up or go get laid - do something to get rid of that pent up aggression.
          • mrurc, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1Either pendrachken is also confused about what insurance is or Wal-Mart has become an HMO.
      • EarlOfLade, on 11/21/2007, -0/+4
      • Fozefy, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1or move to Canada. ;)
      • mattewood, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1thebaron2: I don't even know what your health insurance prices are.. I live in Canada, it's pretty cheap up here! Lmfao.

        In Canada, you would get free medical care, plus you would get compensation from a lawsuit. That just seems reasonable to me, but hey, that's just me. It's not about getting paid twice, it's about getting treated properly and having proper compensation. This situation was has arisen, seems completely unreasonable to try and claw back money from a stricken person.. not to mention it's some kind of multi-national multi-billion dollar company doing the sleazy claw-back! SLEAZY!
      • CleoQKazoo, on 03/26/2008, -0/+0Dude, medical costs wont go away. she's in anursing home so they gotta pay for that, and she cant work so her half of the bill paying is now gone so much more than the injury is being paid for
  • jeffgtr, on 11/21/2007, -37/+76Just when you think your opinion of Walmart couldn't sink any lower.
    • aliengoods, on 11/21/2007, -9/+12Wal-Mart is like the government. A large, bureaucratic organization that professes love for you while screwing you every chance they get. Don't give either the chance.
      • 16777216, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3First you will be baked, then there will be cake.
    • DangerCollie, on 11/21/2007, -8/+5Don't blame wal-mart. Blame the Bush appointee judges. If you feel trampled on by corporate Amerika, thank a Republican.
    • raynar, on 11/21/2007, -1/+4Walmart doesnt care about black people.
      Wait, wrong bash...
  • asancho, on 11/21/2007, -21/+12Thats thats some pretty ***** greasy *****. I hope Lionel Hutz is the attorney representing wal-mart...
  • 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.
    • darkstar949, on 11/21/2007, -1/+8It sounds like the accident happened off the clock so Wal-Mart is not directly responsible for the care of the individual. As noted in the article, when you sue the other driver you can be limited to the maximum converge under their insurance policy unless you can go after then directly.
    • TheSabre, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1Did she pursue other compensation? It seems as though she was awarded 700k for solely medical expenses, not lost wages or anything else. I'm curious as to whether or not she actually sued for anything else and was denied or if that's all she went after.
    • 6502programmer, on 11/21/2007, -0/+4The trucking company only carried $1MM in liability. They paid, if not the max, pretty close to it.
    • LetsGoHawks, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3Welcome to the world of settlements.
      "Here's $1,000,000 right now or you can take us to court and maybe win more than that but then you have to collect it so it could be years before you see 1 red cent"

      Wal Mart are definately scumbags in this case. If the lady were back to normal and wanted to keep the money, that would be different. But she isn't. She'll need care the rest of her life and that money would have been very useful.
  • Wiini, on 11/21/2007, -35/+9Wal-Mart is stupid! Hilary Clinton would've gotten them twice that much!
    • miketherazor, on 11/21/2007, -1/+7No she would have screwed both parties to get more fees and then she would have had anyone who threatened to go public murdered and made to look like a suicide.....
  • Wiini, on 11/21/2007, -83/+342To 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.
    • EXreaction, on 11/21/2007, -17/+20Yep, buried as inaccurate.
    • PeppermintPig, on 11/21/2007, -11/+3I consider it kind of scandalous that Walmart would take money when they didn't actually put an effort in to recoup the money from the trucking company, but it says they can in the contract to cover any expenses they're out on, and apparently she's taken advantage of their health care program, so I don't really see what else can be said.
      • Wiini, on 11/21/2007, -1/+4What?
      • thebaron2, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2Wal-Mart isn't taking the money - they aren't even involved in the law suit. The INSURANCE CARRIER is suing for the money that they paid out for medical bills. Money that the trucking company has also paid.
        • RockJohny, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3one last time WAL-MART IS THE CARRIER
    • shotgunefx, on 11/21/2007, -9/+17I hate walmarts practices but I'd have to agree
    • Scien, on 11/21/2007, -6/+4Yes I have to agree. The article seems to be skewing something. Multiple courts upheld the original ruling, and that should mean Wal-mart's insurance payed for some/all medical, and then the family sued the trucking company.

      I think Wal-mart is just trying to recoup the insurance money since the lawsuit would have covered medical costs. As said above, even the head of the family thinks that Wal-mart should get some of that back. So the family and Wal-mart don't seem the villians to me. This seems like another case of media overhype.
      • RockJohny, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1they only agree since there is a contract with buried language that she signed.....it's not a case of 'should'......it's a case of there should at least be some middle ground

        Wal-Mart bastards screwing the little guy.........again
      • StaticThunder, on 11/22/2007, -0/+0Fine, is the insurance company going to pick up her long term care? Because thats the only way I see they are entitled to the settlement. Her health care was covered by her and others insurance premiums.
    • JosefK88, on 11/21/2007, -8/+5Nope...not Wal-Marts fault.....they are in no way related to the carrier they use....have no authority or say in the insurance provided their employees...they are totally and completely blameless and have no input regarding the monetary recoupment. Legal = ethical.

      Fine...they didn't do anything wrong. I would honestly agree with that but why is that the standard we hold them to? Instead of 'not doing anything wrong' why can't they 'do something right'
      • tas08, on 11/22/2007, -0/+2Why are people giving thumbs down to this comment, it's exactly right. The first 2 lines are sarcasm and his last sentence is spot on.
      • JosefK88, on 11/23/2007, -0/+0Thanks tas08. I didn't realize that a /sarcasm tag would be necessary...glad you caught it. If they did catch my tone, maybe the really do think legal = ethical. sad.
    • 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.
      • houckdigga, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2She got money to cover her medical expenses, but she didn't pay for the medical expenses the insurance company did. Why should she get the money?
    • notmark, on 11/21/2007, -4/+9You're lying. Title of the case: "Administrative Committee of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Associates’ Health and Welfare Plan v. Shank" Wal-Mart is so big that they're their own insurance carrier.
    • Bodhinature, on 11/21/2007, -2/+9"all of it is now slated to go to Mrs. Shank's former employer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc."
      "Two years ago, the retail giant's health plan sued the Shanks for the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care."
      Why is Wal-mart collecting?
      • RockJohny, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2they shouldn't be, she paid insurance premiums just for that reason......the rest of the $$ was for her care in the future and pain and suffering.......Wal-Mart is way off base here
    • 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.
      • Arcotik, on 11/21/2007, -3/+3Incase you didn't read, she owed them money. They got their money. Sorry she needed it for help, but once you have the money to pay off a debt - it's taken.
    • mudojo, on 11/21/2007, -1/+4So basically what you are saying is that if you have health insurance through your employer (whoever it is) you don't want them to cover your medical bills if you get in an accident or injured? Come on! It doesn't matter if it happened on the job or not. If it was on the job, that is what workers compensation is for. I agree that because this is wal-mart it has more publicity, however the principle behind this article is that what they are doing is very demeaning for any company and just further illustrates why wal-mart's practices are under so much scrutiny.
      • laserdisc, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2Well technically speaking the Truck Company's insurance should have been paying her medical costs. It baffles me that her own provider isn't going after them. When you're injured because of someone else's mistake, it's that "someone else"'s responsibility to cover the costs. I'm thinking the Truck Company is dried up and now are going to pay MORE lawyers insane amounts of money to recoup her medical costs when in the end only the lawyers get PAID.
    • 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?
    • jj2me, on 11/21/2007, -0/+4@Wiini:

      Technically you're right, using the plan's definition of medical costs. But until we see the lawsuit details, we can't be sure that the settlement was for the strictly-defined "medical costs," or for overall care.

      Walmart made a publicity mistake. Subrogation is intended for double payments. It's clear that her accident-related problems weren't "fixed" once the insurance payments were made, and that she's using the money for those continuing accident-related expenses, which may be defined as "aftercare" rather than strictly "medical costs."

      They sued on the technicality, not on the principle. Greedy or stupid or both.
    • 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?
      • JosefK88, on 11/23/2007, -0/+0Very nicely stated. I hope that is simple enough Wiini.
    • jwgjr, on 11/21/2007, -0/+4Wal-Mart is self insured. It is an employee benefits plan and covered by ERISA. I'm surprised that WalMart got all of the money... some of that was clearly for non-economic damages, both in the past and future.
    • signal15, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3Isn't Wal-mart self insured?
      • RockJohny, on 11/21/2007, -0/+0yes they are! this Wiini is totally uninformed.......buried for being Pro-WM pumper

        who are the bozo's that dugg him?

        LUDICROUS
    • dukeochutney, on 11/21/2007, -0/+4i would expect my insurance plan to cover it since i'm paying for it out of my paycheck everyday. that is the agreement i entered when i pay $200 a month or so for medical insurance. not just for 'work related' injuries so my employer can cover its ass. again i don't see how this isn't both of the orgs' fault. wal-mart doesn't give a ***** about their employees (big surprise there) and medical insurance is stingy with retarded rules (another big surprise). i'm not surprised by this at all and they won't get the money back just proving how ***** this civilization really is.
    • Deanblackoak, on 11/22/2007, -1/+4Huh? You're kidding, right? Any health plan I've been involved in has paid for injuries that didn't take place at work. If I break my arm at home, yes indeed a health plan will and should pay for it. Are you guys from another dimension. Or people who've never held a job with a health plan. You obviously do not know how it works.
    • raymore, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1And Wal-mart doesn't have control over their "carrier"? bs. By pure monetary momentum, Wal-mart rules what they want to rule. Directly attached to Wal-mart not wanting to control the situation.
  • 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.
    • hydrodev, on 11/21/2007, -8/+14why are you getting dug down?
      • niczar, on 11/21/2007, -2/+5Sockpuppet is being dugg down by Walmart's sockpuppets :)
    • CandidateZero, on 11/21/2007, -2/+5I was wondering the same (the getting dug down).

      Either Wal-Mart has a covert internet team, or diggers just caught some key terms in the post like "Corporate America," "soul," and "out of control" and assumed it was a liberal rant of sorts. Even if those are overused, he's right.

      Also, "The Corporation" is well produced, so it's easy to watch and easy on the attention span.
      • jj2me, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2Are there bots that can find a username and digg them? At some point in time, I began to always get dugg down to 0 almost immediately after my post. I never seem to go up without first going to 0.
    • audioslavery, on 11/21/2007, -8/+7He's getting dugg down because he sounds like a ***** communist. This is a capitalist country and has been for hundreds of years.
    • SkittlesUSA, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3How do you suggest disempowering them? Through government control?
    • naturemade, on 11/22/2007, -3/+1Before you begin your rant against big corporations you might want to spend a little time studying economies of scale. Sometimes, like it or not, they are the best option.
  • degaz, on 11/21/2007, -38/+41Walmart is the worst. They take over all the small towns by pushing out the competition with low prices then raise prices once the doors are boarded up. They go to third world countries and use unpaid teenager labor. They squash labor unions by firing entire departments and they.... Hey, that screwdriver set is only $3.99! What a deal!
    • patrickxbateman, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3While I would much rather see small businesses thrive than companies like Wal-Mart, I also understand that we have a capitalist economy. The consumer is the one that buys the product and supports Wal-Mart. Blame the consumer, not the company.
      • turtled28, on 11/21/2007, -1/+0That isn't a complete argument either- you can't solely blame the company OR the consumer- it is a brutal cycle: Wal*Mart swoops in (sometimes even when the entire community is against having them there *ahem* Longmont, CO) and "Lower Prices" cause customers to flock. Smaller markets, mom & pop's, boutiques, specialty stores, etc. can't compete, and end up closing. People lose jobs, and can't afford to shop in other stores, and Wal*Mart thrives. Repeat cycle.
    • MioTheGreat, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1The trick is to go in back by the electronics section and find a small mirror, and break it.
    • foofoo, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1This happened in my town. When Walmart bought Woolco stores in Canada, they didn't buy two because they were unionized.
    • moush, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1unions are pretty stupid in this day and age
  • Wiini, on 11/21/2007, -56/+235Here'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.
    • teh_techie, on 11/21/2007, -9/+14Yep. Agreed. Going over and above is no longer the norm.
    • Ryancwa, on 11/21/2007, -15/+6I dugg your comment, because yes, I did chuckle to myself at the thought of Mrs. Shank getting Shanked.
    • biogears, on 11/21/2007, -15/+26Dang, those facts getting in the way again!!!!
    • Lugano, on 11/21/2007, -14/+18Exactly. It's easy to just say OH WALMART IS EVIL! and ignore the fact that Walmart has nothing to do with this.
    • 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
      • obelisky, on 11/21/2007, -5/+2calling out digg users at random is so last week...
    • freezerburn666, on 11/21/2007, -17/+5thats *****. sue for more? then the insurance company is going to ask for that as well....
      • Wiini, on 11/21/2007, -5/+5.... Again... did you read the article? They're only trying to recoup what they paid out. Tard.
      • jakeson2, on 11/21/2007, -2/+5They the insurance company is ONLY entitled to the money they put out to help the woman, NO MORE.
    • hydrodev, on 11/21/2007, -12/+8what is the point of paying for your insurance? So that at any point they can take money back when they find out you have enough to pay your medical bills on your own? I know that i pay out to my insurance 10000% more than i use in any given year. This is the business they have chosen, when someone uses the insurance to pay their medical bills(even if they have, or get the money on their own) they certainly have earned the right to use the money they have payed out the insurance company. THATS THE BUSINESS THEY ARE IN, they make plenty to pay out once in a while.
      • Wiini, on 11/21/2007, -2/+4Well I don't know about you... but your 10000% more must've covered me.. because this year, between my employer and me I paid 9,600$ in Insurance.. but between my new baby and several other health occurences... they paid my doctors office $20k+.. so i guess I should be thanking you.
        • hydrodev, on 11/21/2007, -2/+5you are welcome.
        • hydrodev, on 11/21/2007, -5/+4Oh Wait, Can i have some of that back then? It is my right isn't it?
        • hydrodev, on 11/21/2007, -2/+3Congratulations on being one of the 3 percent of their valued customer base that used more than they payed in. Im still waiting for you to pay me back now though.
        • Wiini, on 11/21/2007, -3/+4Oh HydroDev - "It is my right isn't it?"

          Goood call! Despite you and I going back and forth on this, I conceede. That is the most intelligent comment Digg has ever seen. Well played. I'm digging you up, despite being your rival!

          Again, well played!
          • hydrodev, on 11/21/2007, -7/+2Yes i already knew that. You didnt have to tell me.
      • jakeson2, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2You are paying for protection. Most times from people who will sue you for more than the damage you "might" have cause them. Protection costs money. Would you insure me in case I do some damage to someone who "might" get a court to give them millions of dollars? Ask any insurance agent you may have, car, home, business liability and ask them if the same is not true with their coverage.
      • moush, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1did she pay 300k for medical bills? no, her insurance did, she just didn't get bonus free money
    • 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!
      • thebaron2, on 11/21/2007, -8/+4Ummm... no.

        They covered the medical expenses and that's what they're trying to get back. And it isn't even Wal-Mart, it's their insurance carrier! Wal-Mart has nothing to do with this other than that they use this particular insurance carrier. Tell me why two different entities should both fully pay the same doctor's bill.
        • NormalVisual, on 11/21/2007, -0/+8How about because it's NOT the same doctor's bill?
          • redmaxx, on 11/21/2007, -1/+4I don't know why you're getting dugg down. Most people here are overlooking the fact that the money was designated by the court for FUTURE medical expenses. As in, NOT the same doctor's bill.
        • emmeron, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1Because -- suing isn't saying "pay us for medical." They sued to afford life since it was changed.
          Medical is the job of the insurance co -- they should have gone after the other insurance for medical coverage as a separate suit first, then let the injury get some cash for the family effected. That is how these things are set up to work. I'm not saying it works, I'm saying this is how it has been done for years.
    • shotgunefx, on 11/21/2007, -3/+2Yeah, seems like low hanging fruit for a lifetime of care.
    • 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.
    • JosefK88, on 11/21/2007, -7/+5Sometimes it takes an 18 wheeler to show a trickle-down-tauting-profit-is-the only-thing-corporate-scandal-&-insurance-company apologist that there is something to be said for compassion. Look both ways before crossing the street Wiini.
    • sanotaan, on 11/21/2007, -12/+2Wiini, you represent to me everything that can be good about Digg.

    • DashingLeech, on 11/21/2007, -8/+8You are entirely correct. There is one or two potential missing pieces though:
      1. The woman's lawyer is arguing that since she didn't get all of her medical costs covered in the settlement, the insurance company should also only get partial reimbursement. They have a point, but personally I disagree. Her insurance company (through Wal-Mart) should only cover her medical expenses that are not paid for by somebody else. She got $470K (net) for medical expenses from the trucking company and this should go to reimburse her own insurance. Anything above that should be covered by her own (through her Wal-Mart employment).

      2. The story says she relies on Medicaid now. Why doesn't her own insurance company cover her current medical bills? Perhaps it's because they haven't paid back the $470K, which it doesn't sound like they have anymore.

      3. This isn't as clearcut as who owes what. The system is FUBAR, with a mix of laws all over the place, many cases in court to clarify, and it's unclear who owes what and when, so you can't know if you're allowed to spend money you won even if you need it today to pay for medical needs today. If there was an instantaneous understanding of where all the money goes and what's available for medical coverage, people wouldn't be caught in this mess over many years. Reform is needed. How about universal healthcare. Countries with it don't have this problem.

      4. This all seems to be a symptom of a health care industry that is starting to go bankrupt. See #4 above.
      • banana234, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2I am not positive, but wouldn't the answer to you number 2 question be, that once she was injured she could no longer work at Wal-Mart, and was no longer covered under their insurance? I would assume then that no other insurance agency would cover her since she would cost so much
    • xfTwitch, on 11/21/2007, -1/+6You are 100% right. What I'm wondering though is why her insurance was billed AT ALL? If a truck hits you, then they should be paying any/all medical bills for your troubles. She's been disabled for life, then it's the trucking companies responsibility to pay for any of her disability expenses.

      The sadness here isn't that Walmart stepped in to pay her medical bills, then asked to be reimbursed, it's that her lawyer screwed her over by getting her such a crappy settlement from the trucking company.
      • laserdisc, on 11/21/2007, -1/+6What's sad is people automatically point to Wal-Mart regardless of the situation. What burns me is that her insurer shouldn't be going after HER, they should be suing the Truck Company's insurer. And if they don't have insurance than back to the Truck Company it goes.
    • 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?
      • mrurc, on 11/21/2007, -3/+1Yes, actually, we do. We also know that whether or not Wal-Mart was liable determines whether or not they should get reimbursed out of the settlement money.

        "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,"

        It's the trucking company's responsibility, thus the trucking company settled the case. Wal-Mart should not have to pay for medical expenses for which money was given to the woman by the trucking company, because Wal-Mart is not liable.
    • sagefool1975, on 11/21/2007, -0/+4At the end of the article you see that the health plan didn't cover all her medical expenses, so in any case you can imagine that X amount of her settlement is going to uncovered medical expenses that walmart/insurance shouldn't be able to recoup from since they didn't pay them in the first place. The family tried to negotiate with walmart based on that "You didn't cover everything, so we aren't going to give you all our compensation money" but walmart wasn't having it. The article also doesn't say what the breakout of the settlement was in terms of medical expense compensation vs pain and suffering vs future medical expenses (which I think is a fairly common distinction when awarding these kinds of things, but IANAL) so arguing about what they can and can't go after seems a bit moot. I think Quaterni0n had a good point about Walmart standing by their employee against the carrier.
      • laserdisc, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3If her insurance company insists on suing her, it's really simple, compute how much it's going to cost to maintain her medical costs for life then whatever is left they can have.
    • notmark, on 11/21/2007, -2/+7You're still lying. "Administrative Committee of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Associates’ Health and Welfare Plan v. Shank" It is Wal-Mart. It is Wal-Mart. It is Wal-Mart. Keep repeating it with me, Wal-Mart shills.
    • smcnow, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2Yes, those facts are getting in the way. The trucking company was sued for all it had. Suing for more would have netted the same. The article does not give the total estimate of health care costs, but the number cited would consume the Shank's net. Unfortunately her costs are continuing so to give her settlement away would leave her with a big goose egg. Bottom line, her insurance did not cover costs because her costs continue long after the insurance stopped paying.
    • 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".

      • lflimon, on 11/21/2007, -0/+6I actually signed on my account (for the first time in months) to Digg you. In any case:
        You are right. Wiini is wrong.
    • gannina, on 11/21/2007, -7/+0She's brain dead how can "she" start a lawsuit?
    • LetsGoHawks, on 11/21/2007, -1/+6Wiini, you are either a moron or a Wal Mart spokesman.

      While Wal Mart may "technically" entitled to the money, the right thing to do here is to let the family keep it because she will need it for her long term care.
      • moush, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1why should wal mart give her money? i dont see walmart giving out money on any other days
    • JB449, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2It just doesn't make any sense. If she never pursued legal action she would still been in the exact same situation she is in now. Also, what if her lawsuit never mentioned medical expense as a justification for compensation? That she should only be compensated because of her suffering and life long debilitating condition. Would the insurance company still have the right the settlement money?
  • HarryBauzonia, on 11/21/2007, -20/+25Waaaay back in high school I learned about the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law.
    The letter of the law says that doing 37 mph in a 35 mph zone is breaking the speed limit, which should result in a fine. The spirit of the law says that 37 mph isn't enough of a violation to warrant that punishment.

    What I see here can be described that way. According to the terms of her health care plan that she agreed to, she does owe that money back to Walmart because they did pay her medical bills and she did agree to give them any settlement money. When talking about large sums of money, that's completely right and fair.

    In this case, Walmart needs to have a heart and think a little bit. It's not like they would just be out of the money. They could write it off on their taxes as a loss and get it all back. $470,000 is what would be spent jetting a group of their executives across the country for a golf game, and they won't take the time to shuffle a few papers so that she and they won't lose any money.
    • Wiini, on 11/21/2007, -8/+3So should they do that every time this occurs (which honestly is probably ALL the time)?
      • HarryBauzonia, on 11/21/2007, -4/+3No. Individuals can be just as (if not more) abusive towards corporations. If they did it every time, every lazy ass they had the misfortune to hire would find some way to have an "accident".
        These things have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. From the information supplied in the story, it appears that their policy was being followed to the letter, and the conditions of the case were not considered. That could be incorrect, but that's what the story implies.
        • Wiini, on 11/21/2007, -2/+3Harry, your theory may be well intentioned... but what do you think would happen if Wal-Mart selectively, 'case by case' chose who to let go, and who to keep? They'd be sued left and right until the end of time. That's why they can't do a 'case by case' evaluation.
          • HarryBauzonia, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2I believe my points are valid and I believe the the points being used by those of you arguing against me are valid.
            That means we need to start shooting lawyers.
    • jakeson2, on 11/21/2007, -3/+1They CANNOT, do as you suggest that "one" time, since that would set a precedent for the insurance company to refuse to pay since Walmart paid and the same would be true of any other company in like circumstances. They could just stiff you.
      • buckrogers1965, on 11/23/2007, -0/+1
        Out of court settlements do not set precedence.
    • ceoblues, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1"They could write it off on their taxes as a loss and get it all back." - Did you ever see the Seinfeld about writing things off?... I'm not a tax expert, and I'm from Canada, but I'm pretty sure that "writing it off" doesn't mean they get it all back. They would just save the tax they would have paid on the 470K if it had been profit.
  • Gotno, on 11/21/2007, -19/+9That's state insurance law, folks. Walmart's workers compensation policy plays by the same rules as everyone else--she broke the law, and the insurance company followed the law to the letter.
    • teh_techie, on 11/21/2007, -0/+7You're right. Insurance companies DON'T make money by leaning on the law... they follow that ***** to the TEE. The only time they'll bend is when they stand to profit.
    • mrurc, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1When did she break the law? When she got hit by the truck? When she won a court settlement? When Wal-Mart asked for her money?
    • LetsGoHawks, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2This wasn't a workman's comp case, dumbass.
  • GeneralFailure0, on 11/21/2007, -15/+54Having read the article, I am somewhat less than outraged.
  • FeartheKnighted, on 11/21/2007, -14/+69Well, at least we can trust diggers to submit stories with totally unbiased headlines.
    • ronaldinho, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3I don't see what's wrong there. I always think it's the worker's responsibility if he/she did not read the fine print of whatever was in their employer agreement......and why should Wal-Mart and its insurance plan cover for her if she got hit on an off day? It's not the company's responsibility to be their workers' parents (nor do we want them to be). What Wal-Mart did made sense (recoup unnecessary expenses back), but I will say that you can't just take every penny away from the family, especially when they are in such dire need.
    • ronaldinho, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2Sorry should have added that the Shanks understood that Wal-Mart should be reimbursed, but only partially, not completely. That's the whole point of debate here.
  • Noiremorte, on 11/21/2007, -19/+11Never shopped at Wal Mart and I never will. Wal Mart is the epitome of America, imo.
    • miketherazor, on 11/21/2007, -1/+5So what exactly are you trying to say? I think you are stretching just so you can use the word epitome. You just learn that at school or something? Do you even know what it means? Translated to lay-men's terms, you are saying that Wal Mart is an example or abstract of the entire United Sates. How so? Your statement is to vague, imo.
    • pcpimpster, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2Where are you from jackass, whats the epitome of your country?









      • mrurc, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2If you had checked her profile, you would have noticed that she lives in California. I'm thinking Wal-Mart is the epitome of her country. I mean, according to her argument.
    • opticsnake, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3I agree. Had you said something like "is the epitome of American greed" then that would have made sense. imo
  • uziko, on 11/21/2007, -18/+9It is their money. Does she expect Wal Mart to just hand over $800,000 of their money to her. If she thinks it is her money then why did she sign the agreement?
    • CatsAreGods, on 11/21/2007, -2/+7Because she thought she was paying for health care.
    • LetsGoHawks, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2She didn't have a choice. This is the health care benefit package. You agree to all of it's terms or you don't get to take part. Period.

      Obviously she needed the health insurance or she wouldn't have signed up for it.
  • 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.

    • 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?
    • jakeson2, on 11/21/2007, -3/+7They did pay. They paid for the woman's recovery. Hundreds of thousands of dollars. The woman sued and recovered that money from the truck company. That recovery money belongs to Wal Mart. All that is owed the woman is the cost of her recovery. If she had sued for 50 million and got it. Wal Mart insurance could have only recovered the amount they spent on the woman's care. THATS ALL.
      • redmaxx, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2This woman will have medical expenses for the rest of her life and this money is for...medical expenses! How can Wal-Mart expect money to cover something that they haven't paid out on?

        It says right there in the article that the money is in a court designated trust fund to pay for ongoing medical expenses. If Wal-Mart wants money, they should sue the trucking company. Not try to get another court to say the first court screwed up by designating the funds for ongoing care.
        • ckSubs, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3Walmart payed for the medical bills right after it happened, sum A.
          Truck company gets sued months later for medical bills plus compensation, sums A+B=C
          Walmarts wants their A back, family won't give it to them. They are sued for the money.
          Family is left with sum B, which was designed by the court to pay for ongoing medical bills and etc.

          Walmart's insurance shouldn't have covered this, the truck company's should have (and did). Walmart just gave a "loan" on it while the case was proceeding, and now should recieve payment on that loan. It's not their fault if the family squandered or didn't get enough of the "sum B" payment. It's not that ***** hard to understand.
        • RockJohny, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2ckSubs, that's just plain wrong.....she paid premiums for Wal-Mart to pay for her medical expenses. They did and that's great. If they are going to continue to pay her expenses then fine but they apparently aren't.....so how in the world can they have a reasonable claim on her settlement.......they should take this to the Supreme Court. She never 'recovered' from her injuries and this should be taken into consideration.
  • CraigJ, on 11/21/2007, -26/+30Buried for inaccurate. WalMart may be evil, but this is not one of the reasons why.
  • Wolfie351, on 11/21/2007, -14/+9Blame the incompetent lawyer, not Walmart
    • lightinggod, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1Read the whole article. The trucking co. only had a mil in liability insurance. The combination of what the woman won and what her husband won was that amount. You can't get blood from a turnip
  • PHiZ187, on 11/21/2007, -20/+16WalMart thinks that they recovered $470,000. I intend to make it worth $470,000 in bad publicity for them this holiday season.
  • Totalyraddigs, on 11/21/2007, -11/+3first they lie about there prices now this? come on walmart stop being so ***** to us
    • uziko, on 11/21/2007, -2/+3Yea they sell you things cheaper than anyone, those bastards.
      • spudhead, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1It's far more expensive than you think.
  • chesscat, on 11/21/2007, -11/+10Subrogation? Lawyer speak for bend over and grab your ankles.
    • sanotaan, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2when i was hit by an underinsured motorist, i filed a claim with my insurance company and paid my deductible. they then subrogated and got money from the underinsured motorist, and returned me my deductible.

      subrogation is not what you say it is! you'd know that if you'd ever spent a day in your life.
  • LeRenard, on 11/21/2007, -17/+8WalMart continues to do a fine job of recouping losses such as this one and increasing shareholder value, which is *always* a good thing. It's exemplary actions such as this one that makes WalMart the worldwide symbol of beloved American Capitalism it is today, and why I will continue to shop there as frequently as possible.
    • uziko, on 11/21/2007, -3/+3ditto, you took the words right out of my mouth, wal-mart gets more of my business, keep up the good work Wal Mart!
    • PistolSO, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3you forgot the /sarcasm tag
    • sanotaan, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2i was going to commend you on your sarcasm, but instead i noticed you've clearly misunderstood capitalism
    • kingraoul3, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1The only question is where will you pout the tattoo?
  • Dragonrider666, on 11/21/2007, -16/+9Pretty ***** disgusting. "We're obliged to recoup our losses,' absolute ***** vultures, why can't the interviewer speaking to the wal-mart representative ask the question on everyone's mind, "how aren't you personaly disgusted with the knowledge that you are guaranteeing a poorer quality of life for a BRAIN-DAMAGE-CONSTANT-CARE-MOTHER-OF-THREE, in short, how do you sleep at night?"
  • Wiini, on 11/21/2007, -19/+19I love this. Articles over and over talking about the rising costs of health care... and then "outrage" when a company does something to keep them down.
    • Drax0n, on 11/22/2007, -0/+3I think the outrage is the high cost of health care coupled with the incredible profits the health insurance/pharmaceutical companies are making.
  • rossifer, on 11/21/2007, -12/+12Disgraceful! What a caring bunch that corporation are... Makes me sick to my stomach...

    They may have been legally entitled to do this but did they need to? Where is the human element in that decision?
  • 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.
  • joyfulrebellion, on 11/21/2007, -2/+8I can understand both positions, and i can understand why that money was taken away. But you shouldnt always follow the law to the letter. The company should have shown that they care about their employees, and are willing to let some money go to help them. That would be a smart move, since people dont generally have a good opinion of Walmart to begin with.
  • Tigrou, on 11/21/2007, -11/+6If they signed the papers, they signed the papers. Move to a country where health care is considered a right not a privilege. Where you ask? Try any of the other OECD countries.
  • compgeek, on 11/21/2007, -5/+9this is pretty sleasy on the insurance company's part I can see that yes these people were bound by the terms of the health care agreement but for god sake someone representing them should have been able to say holy hell this woman is brain damaged requires round the clock care and the money they won is all being used for that they aren't "profiting" at all they did make a perfect point (They being the shanks) that all the money went to a trust that is used for mrs shanks care not for just money for them. dugg in support of the shanks
    • sagefool1975, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3IANAL but you can put anything into a contract, but that doesn't mean it is legal or enforceable just because you signed it. (Though that never stops the lawyers from trying to bully you into doing things that you don't legally have to - lots of rental contracts include unenforceable claims about how the apartment building could fall down at any second and maim you and it isn't their fault, even though it is) It is only recently that this kind of language in the contracts has been at all useful for suing employees, from the article:

      "Until recently, many employers didn't vigilantly enforce the provision, and some states and federal courts didn't think the claim held water.... A Supreme Court ruling last year also has given them a clearer legal map to suing employees and winning."

      So maybe we should all just blame bush.
  • iamthearm, on 11/21/2007, -16/+9If it's in the agreement then SHUT YOUR MOUTHS!
    • buckrogers1965, on 11/23/2007, -0/+1So the choice is either sign the agreement or get zero health insurance for her and her kids... Seems like the two sides bargaining power is a weeeee bit out of balance with each other.
  • iblaine, on 11/21/2007, -4/+11buried...the lawyer should have had the foresight to collect enough damages to cover her medical care. Her insurance company provided no value here.
  • 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?
    • Wiini, on 11/21/2007, -8/+15Yes... Digg Hates Wal-Mart. And Republicans.
      • KyjL, on 11/21/2007, -5/+3NUH UH WE DIGGARZ WUV RAWN PAWL HE IS DEH TROO REPOOBLIKAN
    • theutopian, on 11/21/2007, -6/+11Your missing the fact that the woman has to live in a nursing home for the rest of her life. She needs a full-time nurse to take care of her and the awarded money was put in a trust to pay for that care. It's not like she was going to go shopping with the money. Now they won't have the money to pay for that care cause wal-mart cares more about it's shareholders.
      • sanotaan, on 11/21/2007, -3/+3you missed the part where the money didn't go to wal-mart.
    • skiddles, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3She should sue her attorney for incompetent advice. There are plenty of attorneys around who just want to broker a settlement. They want to be the middle man (or woman). How can anyone think that 450K is going to cover a lifetime in a nursing home plus medical expenses. Take the case to trial. Let a jury decided. But that would take to long and besides there are 5 people in the waiting room with "back pain"
    • smcnow, on 11/21/2007, -1/+4Yes, you missed the part about her bills still piling up. At this point instead of Mrs. Shank using the settlement to pay continuing bills, you and I are paying her bill. Subrogation clauses were intended to cover cases such as the other situation in the article -- $75,000 bill and $750,000 settlement with no ongoing costs. The only parties benefiting are Wal-Mart and the insurer.
  • WilliamDecker, on 11/21/2007, -8/+16People need to read the article. My jaw dropped when I read the title, but after reading the article this needs to be buried as "Inaccurate". Case in point...Walmart pays the employees medical costs. Lady doesn't sue. Walmart eats the costs (or the insurance companies do). They don't sue her if that was the case, but if the lady does receive money to pay for her compensation then it makes sense to pay back Walmart. It's a sensible clause to have. It's not trying to be sneaky. If she only sued for her pain and suffering this would be a much different scenario. She sued for both medical costs (which she didn't incur) and pain and suffering. When Walmart gets wind of this they say...wait a god damn second it's in our contract with you that if you sue someone for medical costs which you didn't incur that's our money!

    The problem is not with Walmart...it's with her settlement from the other company. I know of people in a similar situation to this. All I have to say is that they're covered for life. She can't go back and sue again. She's retarded for thinking that $700K would cover everything. Bad council on her part.
    • lightinggod, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1Read the whole article. The trucking co. only had one mil in liability coverage. Between the woman and her husband they got the whole amount of the liability policy. You may also note that the settlement was placed in a trust for the future care she would require. I didn't read anywhere in the article that the settlement was specifically for the past medical portion of her injuries.
  • plexxer, on 11/21/2007, -6/+11Basically 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.
    • thebaron2, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3Totally wrong.

      The article is saying that the insurance company WILL be liable for your medical care as long as someone else ISN'T liable for it. A great example in an earlier comment - you wreck your car. Your insurance company pays for a new one. Later on a judge decides that the guy who hit you was responsible, so HIS insurance company pays you, AGAIN, for your car. Why should you get to keep both payments?
      • plexxer, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1Well, then the insurance company should be liable for its own time and money going after the money, not rely on any settlement you receive. It may also be the way the article is written, it seems like any settlement that is received is available to subrogation, regardless whether the money is for medical expenses or pain and suffering. It sounds like lump-sum settlements are being raided, and I bet this will probably alter future settlement cases to further specify how damages are specified.
        • ckSubs, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1Walmart('s Insurance) is only suing for the mony they payed out for medical aid. The rest, which doesn't seem to ammount to much because she had a piss-poor attorney, is hers to keep.
    • mrurc, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1Did you miss the part where the money was paid to her out of the trucking company's insurance?
  • Suzilla, on 11/21/2007, -3/+10No, just more proof that we need single-payor medical insurance in the US.
    • sanotaan, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1not proof in the slightest--who's to say that this single payor [sic] wouldn't subrogate just as walmart's carrier had?
      do you mean to suggest that the government is above such actions?
    • 6502programmer, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1Single payor would subro, just like every other health insurance company. Hell, it was SOP at the self-insured plan I worked for FIFTEEN YEARS AGO to send out a subro agreement. We would pay for motor vehicle accident claims only after we had an agreement, signed by the insured, that if they filed suit, agreed to a settlement, or otherwise received money from someone deemed at fault, they would pay us what we paid out on their behalf. We never, to my knowledge, pursued anyone vigorously for subro'ed funds, but this is SOP in the insurance industry.

      Don't hate the player, hate the game.
  • ArrakisDune, on 11/21/2007, -2/+9Buried for inaccurate title.
    Read ALL of the story before people comment on the first few lines. While she should have been paid MUCH more money for the accident IMO (never mind the legal fee's) the Wal-mart statement is just wrong.
  • 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 t