BREAKING NEWS: Wal-Mart backs off Shank family

[Fridays Child]

Source: From David Nassar, Wal-Mart Watch (vial email)



After years of hounding Debbie Shank and her family, Wal-Mart says it will finally do the right thing.

Today, Wal-Mart agreed to allow the Shank family to keep the money they won from the trucking company responsible for Debbie's injuries.

Finally, the Shank family can put their fight with Wal-Mart behind them and focus on taking care of Debbie.

This was all possible thanks to the tremendous support from people like you.

Jim Shank released the following statement today thanking you and the rest of Debbie's supporters:

"I am grateful that Wal-Mart has seen their error and decided to rectify it. I just wish it hadn't taken them so long, this never should have happened. I sincerely hope no other family ever has to go through this.

"My thanks go first and foremost to my lord and savior Jesus Christ for the strength to bear up under all this. Thanks also to the citizens of the United States - it wasn't me who made this happen, it was the outcry of the people, and if there's a lesson in this story it's that 'we the people' still means something."

You showed Wal-Mart that we will not sit back while the retail giant takes advantage of a working family in need.

And Wal-Mart showed that it will never do the right thing unless we stand up, express our outrage, and force it to make the moral choice. That's why we need to continue to pressure Wal-Mart to do right by its 1.3 million American employees on issues like health care, discrimination, and working conditions.

For the Shank family, this is a bittersweet victory. Debbie's injuries will last a lifetime, and the emotional toll of this ordeal won't go away easily. But now they have one less obstacle to overcome -- and you helped make that happen.

On behalf of the Shank family and all of us at Wal-Mart Watch, thank you for your support.

Sincerely,

David Nassar
Wal-Mart Watch


No link yet.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. :-0

:applause:

[tridim]

2. Saint KO.

You rock Keith!

[Spiffarino]

28. Making Wally World "WPitW" helped take them over the top

Wal-Mart should regularly rank as Worst Persons in the World, but I'm sure KO will dial it back now that they've responded to a moral challenge in the proper fashion...for once.

They don't fool anybody, though. This was not doing right for its own sake. They were forced to do this or risk watching their stock plummet. Money is the only thing that will move a corporate monster in the right direction.

[CC]

3. You can find a link in this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3091211&mesg_id=3091211

[WildClarySage]

4. I know they wouldn't have done it without pressure from consumers,

nevertheless I'd like to thank Walmart for FINALLY doing the right thing... for whatever reasons. Bless that family! May Debbie and Jim finally have some peace in their lives.

[tavalon]

45. And I will immediately start shopping at WalMart again!

Not!

But really, that isn't a change. I've refused to shop in a Walmart just as long as I have refused to buy gas from Exxon. Remind me, when did the Valdez crash? That's how long ago I stopped shopping at both. They aren't related (any more than any corrupt corporation is related to another. They're all similar much the same as cancer is similar throughout the body) but I remember I decided not to shop with them very soon after the Exxon Valdez crash.

[MaineDem]

5. They'll come off "Worst Persons" List now

KO, you're awesome!

[clayton72]

6. Confused

I was in a car accident back in 97. It was the other guy's fault. My insurance company covered the medical costs until I reached a settlement with the other party. Once I got the settlement the first thing that happened was my insurance was paid back. I knew from the git go that that would happen.
So what's different in this case? She was in a traffic accident, right? Was it on company time? If her work insurance was kind enough to step up to the plate, shouldn't they be paid back? If they only got enough from the truck company to cover the initial bills did they not win enough from the initial suit? I'm confused. Can someone please explain why her work insurance shouldn't have expected to be paid back for something they didn't have any responsibility to cover in the first place?

All that said, Wal-mart is the devil and I have no love for insurance companies in general.

[angrycarpenter]

7. they were suing her for more than the settlement.

And yes, Walmart is the devil and all insurance companies are crooks who sue people into the poor house and let them die every day.

[xxqqqzme]

8. After attorney's fees

she was left w/ $417,000; malwart sued to recover $470,000 - her insurance costs. She also suffered permanent brain damage resulting in 24 hour care. The $417,000 was ordered into a trust fund for her future care - not unusual. So malwart wanted $53,000 more than she was awarded - That is one reason Keith Olbermann showcased this matter & said he would not stop until malwart did the right thing - let5 her keep all the money for her care. KO also pointed out that malwart's profits last year were 11 billion so really they could afford to let her keep the $417,000. W/o the trust fund there was no way to pay for her care.

KO will include this in tonight's program without a doubt.

[barb162]

36. Anderson Cooper on CNN was showing this story too

[Lorien]

14. Regardless of custom, I think that the insurance companies are in the wrong

with this "policy". You pay for your insurance assuming that they will cover all costs if you are in an accident, regardless of whose fault it is. So does the other guy. I think that both the party responsible for your injuries AND the insurance company should hold up their end of the bargain in every case. It's really not a matter of "double dipping", it's more a matter of ethics and staying true to the corporations supposed intent. Rarely are ALL costs covered after an accident, and by making insurance companies pay out as they said they would when you signed the contract then just MAYBE the insured will have a chance of not being burdened with excessive financial losses as the Shanks are.

[TiredTexan]

35. As a in-house lawyer at an insurance company,

I've seen this situation arise frequently. When injuries are serious and funds are insufficient to both pay the lien and take care of the needs of insured, it is a common practice for the carrier to negotiate the lien created by health-care expenditures, either by taking pennies on the dollar or by releasing the lien altogether, leaving all or most of the funds free to support the insured. That Wal-Mart refused to follow this standard practice says all you need to know about the company and its management.

Think about it this way: the insured paid premiums to the carrier for this coverage, and if the carrier is reimbursed for its payments, that means that the insured paid premiums for a benefit that they never received. This arrangement is okay if both the insurer and the insured can be compensated by payment from a third-party. However, if the insurer can take the funds away from the insured that are needed for her care and support, then the coverage provided is illusory and provides no benefit to the insured. In some states, an insurance policy that doesn't afford benefits in this context is considered unconscionable under the law, and courts will force greedy insurers to drastically reduce or release their lien. Sadly, the Shanks did not live in such a state.

And don't you agree that contracts that provide no benefit to one party after numerous payments to the other party should be declared illegal?

In the Shanks case, Wal-Mart tried to get a free ride after receiving full premiums, and tried to write a contract that afforded no benefits to those who were seriously injured. Only if the insured was not seriously injured, or where there was a huge settlement, could an insured expect to see a benefit. No court should allow this to happen, regardless of the terms of the contract.

Finally, if Wal-Mart had been allowed to take Ms. Shanks' trust fund set up for her care, who do you think would be paying for that care? Mr. Shanks would go broke, then the taxpayers would pick up the freight. In other words, "we the people" would be on the hook for health care costs that should have been paid by Wal-Mart. Thus, taxpayers would be forced to subsidize Wal-Mart, a company that not only received the premiums for taking the risk, but also made billions last year.

Do you want to pay for Ms. Shanks' care instead of Wal-Mart who got the premiums to do so? I sure don't.

[FormerOstrich]

42. Thanks, TiredTexan...

excellent summary and explanation. I appreciate you having taken the time!

[clayton72]

43. Thanks!

Thanks! Great explaination.

Forcing their employees to get healthcare at tax payer expense is par for the course with Wal-Mart. Just one of the many things that makes them the devil.

[Fridays Child]

52. Good explanation. Thanks.

:)

[northzax]

54. here's a question

I keep seeing "WalMart" as the litigant, does this mean that they self-insure? do they own a managed care organization?

[1776Forever]

9. Good news - Finally - This kind of stuff affects the entire family & she lost one son in Iraq

O8)
Blessings

[Kip Humphrey]

10. Hail to the Keith!

[Bozita]

11. Posted two hours before Olbermann's airtime.

Walmart blinks.

[katty]

12. give 'em hell, Keith!!

[Omaha Steve]

13. A big thank you to everyone that kept this story alive at the water fountain

I signed on the E petition. I told the story everywhere. DU had posts from several members. Public opinion can change the corporate world, one victory at a time.

K&R!

[L0oniX]

15. Kudos to KO worse person seg

[Born_A_Truman]

16. This is great news for the Shank family.

It is shameful that in this country a family is forced to break up (Jim divorced Debbie in order to get assistance for her) and then be victimized by the very insurance that you have to cover you in cases such as this.

Yes, I know it's their policy. My own insurance has sent me the form after I fell and broke my leg (my own fault, I missed a step outside at night taking out the trash in the dark) letting me know if this was an accident and I received anything from a third party, etc, that I would be expected to pay them back for their coverage.

IMO, WM should have gone after the other party since Debbie's settlement was for her ongoing future medical care, if they wanted their money back.

[JeanGrey]

40. It reminds me of the cob clauses in insurance. For instance, I

paid for long term disability insurance for years. I became disabled, the policy was to pay me 60% of my salary until I reached 65. What they DON'T tell you is as soon as six months has expired they phone you and force you to file for social security disability (they have a group that works for the insurance company to "help" you get it) and if you get it (I did) they take it from you!!

They take the 60% figure of your salary and reduce their payment to you by the amount of SS you draw. Doesn't that suck? You think that you can count on something and they snatch it away - they REALLY don't want you to be able to be above the poverty level no matter what the hell you pay.

Same way with two insurances some people are forced to carry - if your primary refuses to pay the secondary can refuse to pay based on the fact that the primary didn't!! I kid you not. You can pay out the ass for two coverages and get nothing.

[raccoon]

51. Thanks for sharing that. nt

[lancer78]

44. I agree

I agree with you. WM's insurance company should have sued the trucking company as well.

[VenusRising]

17. What wonderful news!

I'm so thankful to KO for keeping this in the public eye. He deserves a medal!

Congratulations to the Shank family.

[The Wielding Truth]

18. Getting the world to step in the human direction. Hooray!

[TheDebbieDee]

19. I hope this turns out to be true.............

I can't believe that a multi-billion dollar profit-making company could be that petty!

[Redstone]

20. First, the four-dollar prescriptions, then the offering of health insurance to

all their workers, and now this.

Wal-Mart may FINALLY be getting it. Let's hope so, anyway.

Redstone

[samdogmom]

21. The power of the press...once again revealed!

I cried when I saw her story on 60 Minutes and I was outraged by Walmart's heavy-handed tactics....I'm glad the backlash caused WalMart to "rethink" its position.

Bottom line...we need a free, unbiased press in this country!

[pacalo]

22. "I just wish it hadn't taken them so long, this never should have happened."

A hearty thanks to Keith Olbermann, who didn't allow this to go unnoticed.

[liberalla]

46. Wal-Mart has a black eye for pursuing this action, period.

"Wal-Mart showed that it will never do the right thing unless we stand up, express our outrage, and force it to make the moral choice."

or unless they are exposed, embarrassed, and shamed into it...
or unless the PR becomes so negative it's costing them too much in other areas.


Thank Goodness it's over for this family. And kudos to Keith, of course.

[George II]

23. Nice try...it was "BREAKING NEWS" about 3 hours ago...did you see it on "Countdown"?

[Hugabear]

26. Back off

If you can provide a link to where this has already been posted on LBN, then do so.

If not, then STFU. This is something that's been a long time coming, and kudos to KO for keeping the heat on Walmart.

[George II]

33. OK, SFB...........

The OP was posted at 11:16 PM, the FIRST post on this subject right here in DU was at 9:52 PM by Babylonsister ("Tue Apr-01-08 09:52 PM", and it's STILL on the DU homepage, maybe three stories below this one!!), and the news FIRST broke a few hours before that.

So, apology? I doubt there will be one, but my thought is that YOU should "STFU"!

[MaineDem]

47. If there is an earlier thread in LBN alert and tell the mods

They'll combine them and lock the later one.

I read it here long before Countdown aired. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

[George II]

48. What I'm trying say (not "trying", I DID say) is that the same story was posted..

...on DU about TWO HOURS before this one, and appeared on the home page of DU at the same time this "Breaking news" was posted, rendering this "Breaking news" no longer "Breaking news"!!

Just because it wasn't posted in the "Breaking news" forum doesn't change the fact that it isn't!

[MaineDem]

49. I don't read GD very often

I do read LBN. I got the news here a little after 7PM. From what I can see doing a search, this is the first mention of this news in LBN. It meets the requirements for LBN so there's no issue.

[George II]

55. Read the "rules" - if it has already been posted, it is NOT "breaking news"

You may not read GD very often, but certainly you log on to the DU homepage? The FIRST story on this issue appeared just 3 below this one. Ergo, not "breaking news", which was my point.

[Miss Chybil]

32. "Nice try... " what?

Latest Breaking News is for news that has yet to be posted on DU - not news that has never been written about or broadcasted anywhere on the planet! Jeez. Not everybody watches Keith O, you know?

Congrats to this family for winning their battle.

[George II]

34. WHERE are you folks heads? Can't you read? LOOK BELOW this post on the DU homepage!!!!

Damn, people sure are quick to jump but verrrrrry slow to read.

[ebt12]

24. Keith Rocks!

Two thumbs up for Keith Olbermann for making sure this did not go away! Wal-Mart earned the exposure they received. What they did, along with the clause in the health benefits they offer, was blatantly low and wrong. Billions in profits, and how much do they have in the bank? And they feel they should have the few hundred thousand dollars this woman got in a settlement? That is just outright evil.

I swear there are people who are addicted to money just like some people are addicted to crack or meth, and they will do anything, hurt and/or destroy anyone to get more. Wal-Mart's actions sound like a person with a serious addiction.

[my3boyz]

25. Thank goodness! nt

[rocktivity]

27. CUE THE VONAGE THEME!

And sue the party that actually CAUSED the accident from now on!

:woohoo:
rocknation

[rpannier]

29. Excellent news... But this work is much more than KO

I signed several petitions from various groups that were covering this tragedy before KO talked about it.

I also found several links provided by people on other wbesites as well.

This was a collective effort and to give the credit to KO diminishes the leg (and computer work) done by so many others.

[barb162]

37. As I mentioned above, CNN has been running this story too.

And CNN mentioned they got over a million hits on their web site and that was as of the middle of last week. lots of people wer outraged.

[YvonneCa]

39. So did...

...I. I agree the collective effort was necessary and paid off. But having KO as our voice is critical. Before Keith...they could ignore the petitions.

Kudos to ALL!

[hisownpetard]

30. Thanks, KO, for doing your part in scaring them silly. What a great outcome!

[VolcanoJen]

31. Wal-Mart is still Worst Person in the World for even attempting to bankrupt this poor family.

They're only backing off because of the shitstorm of bad publicity. Good, I say, and especially good for the Shanks, but screw Wal-Mart in perpetuity.

[YvonneCa]

38. Keith Olbermann is a ...

...true and courageous patriot. Thank you again, sir.

[kestrel91316]

41. Even if they had the legal right to go after the money, it was

SO PETTY AND SMALLMINDED of them to do so. I can't imagine what on earth possessed them to think there would NOT be consequences for pursuing this tack. Idjits. At least they finally saw the light.

[northzax]

53. some middle manager

who needed to make his numbers. easier to do this than explain to your boss where the $500 grand went.

I'm sure glad Jesus intervened though. you'd think he might have been a little faster on the draw?

[Ilsa]

50. It makes me feel better that people still have some power and that

we are not terminally pawns for the soulless businesses.