Employers grab accident victims' cash

[mahatmakanejeeves]

I don't know how old this is, but it's no doubt still policy.

Employers grab accident victims' cash

Wal-Mart's health plan sued an ex-worker, brain-damaged in a crash, to collect money from a settlement she'd received. It's part of a trend in which companies aggressively try to recoup insurance costs.

By The Wall Street Journal

A collision with a tractor-trailer seven years ago left 52-year-old Deborah Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a wheelchair. Her husband, Jim, and three sons found a small source of solace: a $700,000 accident settlement from the trucking company involved.

After legal fees and other expenses, the remaining $417,000 was put in a special trust. It was to be used for Deborah Shank's care.

Instead, all of it is now slated to go to Deborah's former employer, Wal-Mart Stores.

Two years ago, the retail giant's health plan sued the Shanks for the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care. A federal judge ruled last year in Wal-Mart's favor, backed by an appeals-court decision in August. Now, Deborah's family has to rely on Medicaid and her Social Security payments to keep up her round-the-clock care.

[Miss Chybil]

1. And once again, I wonder what country this is. nt

[MadMaddie]

2. Then what is the point of Health Insurance if the company

sues to get it back?

Fuck WalMart! They destroy small and large communities, they barely pay a livable wage and now the insurance they provide they try to recoup.

This is another reason to support some National standardized Health care for every American. And you know what each company should pay into the system somehow. Fucking Bastards!


They went after a brain damaged woman....and now she is on Medicaid are you kidding me?

[SharonAnn]

5. Wal-Mart is probably self-insured. Most big companies are. They're entitled,

according to United States law, to sue to get reimbursed in this kindof case.

Subrogation.

[bluestateguy]

3. What if they had hidden the money in a Swiss bank account?

Would that have worked?

[LeftyMom]

10. Only the rich get to do that kind of shit.

If mom works for Wal-Mart (or some other equivalently low status position on the economic ladder) than the law will fuck you. Every time.

[rwenos]

4. Something's Missing from this Story

The work comp carrier (or the employer, if it's self-insured), certainly has a subrogation claim against the third-party recovery for all the WorkComp benefits, and/or medical treatment, they paid out. But if the injuries are so severe, and the ongoing medical treatment expensive, it doesn't make sense that the case would have settled for $700,000.

There's something missing here. Why would poor Deborah's attorneys settle for $700,000 INCLUSIVE of the employer lien (i.e., the lien would be a charge against the settlement), in a case with such high damages?

Second question: Why wouldn't Deborah's attorneys negotiate a lower amount with the employer, to settle the lien? Usually the employer-lienholder will take 50%, or even less, to settle their subrogation claim. I've settled those employer liens for as little as 15-20%.

Something's being left out of this story. And believe me, I hate the insurance companies' guts. But something's missing.

[MadMaddie]

11. Maybe the link is the lawyer who could (speculation) be in cahoots

with WalMart.

[begin_within]

6. The judge should have dismissed Wal-Mart's claim and told them to sue the trucking company instead.

[rwenos]

7. No -- then the Tortfeasor Would Pay Twice

The subrogation claim is for payments already made -- i.e., from the employer or WorkComp carrier to poor Deborah. The employer could sue the third-party tortfeasor anyway -- maybe it did. Maybe that's what's missing from the story.

It still seems like the case was settled WAY TOO LOW. Something's still missing.

[santamargarita]

8. The Next Insurance/Employer Trick

Watch for a trend. These fascist pig insurance companies & employers will start suing victims and that goddamn little monkey in our White House will cheer them on!

[WillowTree]

12. Group medical insurance contracts

have included subrogation clauses practically since their inception. Such policies always stipulate that they must be reimbursed for their payments if the injured party collects for the same expenses from a "responsible third party", in this case, the trucking company.

I agree, this woman's attorney seems to have dropped the ball on this big time. If the driver of the truck was, in fact, at fault in the accident, I can't imagine why an attorney would agree to a settlement that wouldn't even come close to covering her already-incurred expenses and ongoing care, which is obviously what happened in this case.

To quote Dr. Henry Lee, "Something wrong".

[depakid]

9. That's what people get when pain & suffering damages are capped

Puni's too.

Insurers have the right to subrogation for money they paid out for medical bills. That's long established law.

The only silver lining is that Republicans are going to be hit hard by this as well.

[Triana]

13. THIS shit is why we need John Edwards...

....there ya go.