Wal-Mart Changes Its Mind

April 2, 2008 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (11)

Yesterday I asked readers to judge the fairness of Wal-Mart's reimbursement claim against former employee Debbie Shank, who had been injured in a car accident. Wal-Mart, through which Shank was insured, had paid out $470,000 in medical expenses. Shank later collected damages in a lawsuit related to the accident—about $700,000, or $417,000 after attorney's fees and other expenses—and Wal-Mart sought to recover its costs.

That's not uncommon. Many companies now attempt to recoup medical expenses they have paid out before someone wins damages in a lawsuit. The efforts are part of a recovery practice called subrogation. Wal-Mart told CNN that the money would be returned to the employee-subsidized health plan, not to the company itself.

Yesterday evening, however, Wal-Mart announced it had changed its mind. The company dropped its efforts to recover the money and said it would even redress its plan. From the AP:

Wal-Mart's Ms. Curran said the retailer was required by the rules of its plan to seek reimbursement from the Shank settlement. But she said the case has made Wal-Mart revise those rules to allow for flexibility in individual cases. "Occasionally others help us step back and look at a situation in a different way. This is one of those times," Ms. Curran wrote in the letter.

In yesterday's post, I intentionally left out two widely reported facts about Shank: namely, that she suffered brain damage in the accident and that her son was later killed in Iraq.

These facts made her case compelling, but if the law doesn't consider these factors, should we?

Perhaps I was wrong. Wal-Mart is the country's largest private employer and has obvious, ongoing recruitment needs. Couldn't bad press cause a slowdown in job applications to Wal-Mart or make shoppers less willing to spend money at its stores?

Wal-Mart is a public company, with a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. But if I'm a Wal-Mart shareholder, is it in my best interest to see Wal-Mart recoup its costs or let the case go?

Tags:
Walmart

Reader Comments Read all comments (11)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

A $700K settelment for someone that is brain damaged for life, and had already incurred $470K medical expenses? The lawyer wallked away with $280k plus expenses, leaing her with $417K. That amount did not even cover her already paid medical expenses, mush less future care. Shank settled for a LOSS. Seems like the only person not complaining is the lawyer.

Robert Ziegler of KY 4:22AM April 20, 2008

Well now the answer is right there, many thanks for the update Liz.

Two excerpts from the Wal-Mart statement...

"Our current plan doesn't give us much flexibility.." [Alrighty then]

"We have decided to modify our plan" [Um, but didn't you just say--no less than two sentences ago--that the plan wasn't flexible?]

Now that's an unapology to end all unapologies.

Disgusting corporate behavior.

Thank Jeebus I live in an area where Wal-Mart has virtually no presence in the local marketplace; it makes a boycott of their goods and services so much simpler.

YoungMC of PA 2:56AM April 05, 2008

Here is Wal-Mart's statement on the Shank case:

"Occasionally others help us step back and look at a situation in a different way. This is one of those times. We have all been moved by Ms. Shank's extraordinary situation. Our current plan doesn't give us much flexibility, so we began reviewing the guidelines for the trust that pays medical costs for our associates and their family members.

We wanted to understand the ongoing impact of any potential changes to the trust, and ensure that any action we take is in the best interests of our associates and their family members who participate in and contribute to our plan. We have decided to modify our plan to allow us more discretion for individual cases, and are in the final stages of working out the details.

Wal-Mart will not seek any reimbursement for the money already spent on Ms. Shank's care, and we will work with the family to ensure the remaining amounts in the trust can be used for her ongoing care.

We are sorry for any additional stress this has put on the Shank family."

Liz Wolgemuth of DC 11:42AM April 04, 2008

The Inside Job

You're taking a break from your job-hunting and job-hopping ways and have decided to stay put in your current position. Liz Wolgemuth’s careers blog will show you how to make the very best of your job, each day.

advertisement

advertisement