Wal-Mart Rethinks Its Move on Deborah Shank

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I think that walmart is a sinfully greedy company that should be shunned and put out of business.

effee of NY 2:41AM April 16, 2012

Subrogation deception begins with coercive demand for information not required by the contract.
Original subrogation investigation, "Kaiser Permanente Plunders Patients' Piece of the Pie," is posted on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0h7tUymj2Y and hmohardball.com

Jacquelyn Finney of CA 7:02PM March 29, 2011

Вот именно с этой статьи начинаю читать этот блог. плюс один подписчик :)

Nouloutuape of AL 8:27PM September 08, 2009

Chris of AZ said
> On a side note, what we get through employers is indeed not health > insurance, for if it were actual health insurance WE the PEOPLE
> would be paying for it and not employers, and it would portable to > other companies and across state lines.
Sorry Chris, but that's lame. Who pays for something doesn't change the thing. If my company gives me a car to drive, it's still a car and I still drive it, and I don't get to take it with me when I leave the company. So the "something" is both what it is, and a benefit contracted to me, the employee. Now if the company were to state that, under certain circumstances, I get to keep the car after I leave the company (let's say I get a percent of the car for each month of time I work there), then those rules would apply... And if there were state or federal laws about employees and car benefits, those would apply as well.
Essentially, Chris, your philosophy is simply "the biggest guy in the room always wins." Fortunately for us, most 1st world countries have laws that recognize there is a problem with this model. That doesn't mean there should be a philosophy "the littlest guy in the room always wins" either. Rather laws tend to recognize that there is a thing called "fairness" and that it applies to big and little people, and it isn't always simple to figure out.

A Ha of CA 4:35PM August 22, 2008

AMEN, Kristina! Thank you soooo much for your insight. It was worth scrollin this website. All is not lost!

Erika of CA 7:11PM June 09, 2008

Injuries and health belong in a nonprofit arena. If we had a Congress or a president with backbone we could have had a health system years ago that could care for people short term and long term without any lawyers or employers nitpicking about fault and cost. Why is the commercial market involved at all in a system that could be managed with a universal contribution and universal benefit, instead of adding financial misery to the physical and emotional misery of serious injury and illness?
All of you who are defending the status quo seem fortunate--no accidents in your lives, no unexpected diagnoses, no fine print going against your needs. I guess you think you are immune? A true insurance system works only if the membership is large enough to cover everyone, which would require that Americans make a social commitment to each other. Walmart is true to its commercial nature, while asking us to believe it is also a good citizen, but it is actually masking its perversion of good citizenship. Citizenship is not about philanthropy but about duty and responsibility.
If you want to live in a society that is all about money, then you have to accept the likelihood that you are also likely to die in a poor house or for lack of medical attention.

Kristina of OH 9:17PM May 21, 2008

Don't give me any BS intellectual justification about WalMart's 'legal' right to sue a brain-damaged person for health-benefits recompense. If you can't tell at a single glance that such an action is low-class down-and-dirty, you are morally and emotionally deficient. Just because you 'can' do something, legally, doesn't mean you should.
And as for WalMart's extensive charitable contributions, were did those come from? The wallets of customers.
Here's an idea: I need 10 million people out there to send me $1 each. In turn I promise to do a WalMart and make a $9 million donation to charity.
And what did Deborah Shanks have before her attorney had at it? A whole lot of nothing. More than nothing, a whole lot of current and future bills.
Way to go Disabled Veteran Jim of AZ, you hit the nail on the head.

dom of OH 6:47PM May 11, 2008

1. Only a few of you have commented on the attorney - let's do the math.....
1,000,000 - 417,000 = $583,000 to the attorney for what appears to have been a cut and dry matter. hmmmmm how much is that per hour Ms.Graham Shrum-Hiatt?
2. If every self funded Medical insurance company paid claims that auto and liability insurance were responsible for like Walmart did where do you think your premiums would be.
I am not a fan of Walmart but this is not exclusive to them - all your other store chains do it too - all other businesses do it too - it's a fact.

EB of MN 2:55PM April 21, 2008

I have read how some people believe the Walmart is the scape goat and a wonderful things about them, as well as the negative. Why are people going after them? The answer is simple. Other companies look at them. If you go after one company and take a stand, the other companies will take a look and know how far they can draw the line. This wasn't totally about Walmart, but about how companies are digging more and more into our pockets and just don't care. Their CEOs, CEF, CEA and so on are getting richer, while people like us, can barely afford to feed our children. This was sending a message to all companies, that enough is enough! We are getting feed up with all the greed.
To the person asking about the oil companies. How long can you go without putting gas in your car or heating up your home. Unfortunately, that is a commodity that we can not do without. If so, I would be one of the first persons in line to not shop there. Walmart on the other hand is something I can go without. I can choose to spend my money else where. To find a company that says, "Hey, in these trouble times, I am standing with you. It won't be about the money for us, but about pulling together." I would be more than glad to spend my money at a company like that.
I agree that the health care insurance laws need to be changed, but if Walmart had shown some compassion for this one case, just maybe I could have over looked others. This lady couldn't return to work. If you would have been able to, than I would be in full support of Walmart's right for recovery.
There was period in time that company's cared about their employees. Now it's all about the bottom dollar.

Sandy of MD 5:27AM April 14, 2008

Don't blame Wal Mart they are just doing what they have a legal right to do. like it or not this is done daily by all major corporations and insurers it is a little boutique industry that claims to save employers $1M annually for a typical payroll by going after small and large settlements. Wal Mart is a scapegoat in this reporting.
Blame our legislators who permit this to happen. The laws need to be changed to require the insurer to sue separately and to be second in line to the injured party.
The claims of the parties are entirely different:
The injured parties claim should be for future care and pain and suffering. The injured party worked for/paid for health insurance to cover any such eventualities.
The insurer's claim is " if you had not injured our client we would not have had to pay these extraordinary claims" we want our money back.
Blame the people you elected.....

MMC of OH 9:00AM April 11, 2008