babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » Wal-Mart Changes Policy - Brain Damaged Woman Can Keep Settlement Money

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Wal-Mart Changes Policy - Brain Damaged Woman Can Keep Settlement Money
The Wizard of Socialism
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2912

posted 02 April 2008 03:29 AM      Profile for The Wizard of Socialism   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You all know the story, a former associate at Wal-Mart was badly injured when hit by a truck. When she settled with the company, Wal-Mart demanded the money their health plan already paid for her care back. The woman has no short term memory, and everytime she asks how her son is, and is told he was killed in Iraq, she cries because it's like she's heard it for the first time. Because of public pressure Wal-Mart has changed it's policy, not only for this woman, but for all their employees.

CNN Story

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: The Wizard of Socialism ]


From: A Proud Canadian! | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
triciamarie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12970

posted 02 April 2008 11:12 AM      Profile for triciamarie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Much as I enjoy and appreciate any opportunity to sling mud at Wal-Mart, it's my understanding that this kind of undercompensation is sadly, not unusual in catastrophic personal injury claims.

You will find subrogation of benefits in the fine print of a lot of insurance policies. It's supposed to prevent plaintiffs from recouping the same medical expenses from two different insurers. And in theory, it would actually probably work out ok, if not for the cost of administering this system through the courts.

That $700,000 she won from the trucking company's insurer was worth only $417,000 after deduction of her associated legal fees and "expenses" (disbursements, probably -- other legal fees). Then Wal-Mart was trying to claw back not just the health care benefits paid out under their plan, but also their own legal costs.

That's why Wal-Mart's claim initially amounted to more than her actual settlement.

http://blog.aflcio.org/2007/11/21/so-much-for-remaking-its-image-wal-mart-sues-brain-damaged-worker/

Who's the winner here?

[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: triciamarie ]


From: gwelf | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
triciamarie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12970

posted 03 April 2008 01:47 AM      Profile for triciamarie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In the AFL-CIO link posted above Wal-Mart claims to have changed its policy on clawing back benefits to the extent of being willing to exercise discretion in certain cases.

Discretion doesn't mean that they can't claw back benefits in tragic cases. It means that they may reconsider doing so. Frankly I can't imagine that happening very often though; they're probably going to have to strong-arm their insurer to get that degree of latitude, and it's going to cost them somehow. Maybe they will be paying the claim costs directly.

Even the fact that Wal-Mart responded to the shit storm is amazing though. It's given a big boost to the Wal-Mart activists:

quote:
Through the Shanks' story, we've shown America that everyday people can change the world's largest retailer. That's an amazing thing. Let's keep pressure on Wal-Mart to change and, hopefully, we'll see better things to come for Wal-Mart's associates.

http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/feature/wmt_drops_case/

[ 03 April 2008: Message edited by: triciamarie ]


From: gwelf | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Daniel Grice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7985

posted 03 April 2008 02:42 AM      Profile for Daniel Grice   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
One of the problems with having a country built upon private insurance. I'm glad WM changed their policy to at least add discretion, because this case certainly was sad. I wonder how many people fall through the cracks in the US when accidents happen where neither party has the resources or insurance to pay for the medical costs.

This lady has both a health plan and received a settlement from the injured and still barely was able to get by.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca