It's not like Wal Mart needs the money!

[Meriem_DZ 37]

Brain-damaged woman at center of Wal-Mart suit

JACKSON, Missouri (CNN) -- Debbie Shank breaks down in tears every time she's told that her 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq.

Even though the 52-year-old mother of three attended her son's funeral -- she continues to ask how he's doing. When her family reminds her that he's dead -- she weeps as if hearing the news for the first time.

Shank suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident nearly eight years ago that robbed her of much of her short-term memory and left her in a wheelchair and living in a nursing home.

It was the beginning of a series of battles -- both personal and legal -- that loomed for Shank and her family. One of their biggest was with Wal-Mart's health plan.

Eight years ago, Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart's health and benefits plan.

Two years after the accident, Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank's long-term care.

Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank's medical expenses, but in 2005, Wal-Mart's health plan sued the Shanks for the same amount.

The Shanks didn't notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart's health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit.

The family's attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money. Watch this couple's story »

"We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to," Graham said.

The Shanks lost their suit to Wal-Mart. Last summer, the couple appealed the ruling -- but also lost it. One week later, their son was killed in Iraq.

"They are quite within their rights. But I just wonder if they need it that bad," Jim Shank said.

In 2007, the retail giant reported net sales in the third quarter of $90 billion.

Legal or not, CNN asked Wal-Mart why the company pursued the money.

Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, who called Debbie Shank's case "unbelievably sad," replied in a statement: "Wal-Mart's plan is bound by very specific rules. ... We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank's case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan."

Jim Shank said he believes Wal-Mart should make an exception.

"My idea of a win-win is -- you keep the paperwork that says you won and let us keep the money so I can take care of my wife," he said.

The family's situation is so dire that last year Jim Shank divorced Debbie, so she could receive more money from Medicaid.

Jim Shank, 54, is recovering from prostate cancer, works two jobs and struggles to pay the bills. He's afraid he won't be able to send their youngest son to college and pay for his and Debbie's care.

"Who needs the money more? A disabled lady in a wheelchair with no future, whatsoever, or does Wal-Mart need $90 billion, plus $200,000?" he asked.

The family's attorney agrees.

"The recovery that Debbie Shank made was recovery for future lost earnings, for her pain and suffering," Graham said.

"She'll never be able to work again. Never have a relationship with her husband or children again. The damage she recovered was for much more than just medical expenses."

Graham said he believes Wal-Mart should be entitled to only about $100,000. Right now, about $277,000 remains in the trust -- far short of the $470,000 Wal-Mart wants back.

Refusing to give up the fight, the Shanks appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But just last week, the high court said it would not hear the case.

Graham said the Shanks have exhausted all their resources and there's nothing more they can do but go on with their lives.

Jim Shank said he's disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case -- not for the sake of his family -- but for those who might face similar circumstances.

For now, he said the family will figure out a way to get by and "do the best we can for Debbie."

"Luckily, she's oblivious to everything," he said. "We don't tell her

what's going on because it will just upset her."

link to cnn story

link to video

Edited March 25, 2008 by Meriem_setif

[boardashell_2000 0]

F***ing Wal-Mart......I HATE those bastards!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I just read that. Unbelievable. By the time they paid their lawyers to get the money back and the PR folks to do the damage control that this story will necessitate, they'll be out more than what they recouped. Everyone loses except the lawyers.

[Kazan' Tiger 1]

Pretty much sums up my feelings for this retail trash outlet!

F***ing Wal-Mart......I HATE those bastards!

[Meriem_DZ 37]

I sent walmart corporate headquarters an email letting them know the reason I wont be shopping there anymore. I would rather shop at a family owned grocery store and put money in their hands instead of WalMart's.

Meriem

[Kazan' Tiger 1]

Amen sister!

I sent walmart corporate headquarters an email letting them know the reason I wont be shopping there anymore. I would rather shop at a family owned grocery store and put money in their hands instead of WalMart's.

Meriem

[sereia 0]

I sent walmart corporate headquarters an email letting them know the reason I wont be shopping there anymore. I would rather shop at a family owned grocery store and put money in their hands instead of WalMart's.

Meriem

excellent, meriem! i'll do the same and i hope others follow..!

[GaryC 7]

I hate to break this to you but almost all insurance companies have the same fine print. This isn't Walmarts doing, it's the insurance companies. As some of you know Luz was in the hospital last month. I just sent off paperwork that they asked for. It was requesting information as to whether she intended to sue someone or make a claim on another insurance. If the answer was yes then they were going to reduce her benifit by that amount.

But I know hating Walmart is a pass time for some of you, carry on. I will continue to shop there every week and love it.

[sereia 0]

i already hated it there anyway. i try my best to seek out mom and pop stores and restaurants when possible. but yes, you're right, gary!

[Cassie 8]

Wamart disgusts me.

[Marilyn. 340]

I hate to break this to you but almost all insurance companies have the same fine print. This isn't Walmarts doing, it's the insurance companies. As some of you know Luz was in the hospital last month. I just sent off paperwork that they asked for. It was requesting information as to whether she intended to sue someone or make a claim on another insurance. If the answer was yes then they were going to reduce her benifit by that amount.

But I know hating Walmart is a pass time for some of you, carry on. I will continue to shop there every week and love it.

that is interesting... but I know most Walmart haters won't see it that way..... they let to think of Walmart as a big bad meanie..

that really sucks what happens to this family but like Gary said it is more the insurance company fault....

that being said you all can hate Walmart, I don't care.... but don't try and put down the people who like to shop there

[Cassie 8]

Marilyn, I never put down anyone who shops at Walmart -- heck I still shop there, albeit only when I absolutely have to.

I just have a problem with their business practices, this case being the latest in a long list. Call me a hater if you must label me.

[hoosier 0]

I sure like how everyone is blaming Walmart here. I'm trying to figure out how out of a million dollar lawsuit those poor people only end up with 400k ?

I thought the typical personal injury lawyer charged 33% of the award on lawsuits ?

I'm sure on the subsequent lawsuit between walmart and these folks a bunch of lawyers made another pile of cash

It seems to me the only winner in this whole story was the lawyers !

Actual studies have been done and basically Walmart saves the average American family $2500 a year. Even if you don't shop there you reap the benefit of Walmart's existence because they have forced every retailer to run more efficiantly to compete.

[DeadPoolX 9]

As much as I feel for the family in this story, I can't say I really blame Wal-Mart in this instance. The woman should have read the fine print before signing and since she didn't, that's her problem -- not anyone else's, including Wal-Mart. They didn't force her to sign it and it's common knowledge that you should always read a binding contract before attaching your name to it.

To make matters more complicated, Wal-Mart can't realistically bend the rules for this woman and her family. They're such a huge company that whatever they do puts them in the spotlight. So if they were to make a "special exception" for this family, all sorts of people would come crawling out of the woodwork, expecting the same sort of treatment. If they didn't get it, they'd claim some sort of "discrimination" and sue Wal-Mart.

So in the interest of being fair to all (even if it means sometimes being unfair to an individual every so often) and preventing further legal trouble for themselves, Wal-Mart needs to stick their rules and regulations. That may not be seen as the nicest thing to do, but it is the most intelligent.

[Fuzzness 2]

Doesn't Walmart have their own health care plans rather than a third party insurance company?