Some folks may have heard of the lady named Debbie Shank, who was injured in an accident a few years ago that left her with brain damage. She is now confined to a wheel chair and lives in a nursing home.
She was an employee of Wal-Mart. She had their health insurance.
Ms. Shank and her husband sued the trucking company responsible for the accident, and they won about a million dollars. After legal fees, she ended up with about $417,000. It was placed in a trust for her long-term care.
Wal-Mart paid about $470,000 for her healthcare after the accident. Since she won the suit against the trucking company, Wal-Mart sued Ms. Shank for the $470,000. Wal-Mart won. Wal-Mart also won the appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case. So, according to the courts, Wal-Mart is legally justified to recoup their money.
The court of public opinion may see it differently.
About a week after the Shank family lost their appeal, they were notified that their 18- year-old son was killed in Iraq.
A happy ending to this story would have been for Wal-Mart to say, “As a loyal employee, and one who has suffered so much, we will forgive this debt.”
Wal-Mart made $90 billion in net sales in 2007, while Debbie Shank lost almost everything. To take $470,000 from this lady after all she has gone through is just downright pathetic and greedy.
In closing I say, “Come on Wal-Mart executives, you’ve created a public relations nightmare for your corporation. Let’s change your bloodsucking attitude and return the money to Debbie Shank. You’ll sleep better, and be able to look at yourself in the mirror again.”
The Western Word 
Thanks Geeguy. I was hoping you had some comments to clarify the legal side of the issue. I just see this as a PR nightmare for Wal-Mart. It was on Countdown with Olbermann tonight (again) and the CEO or Chairman of Wal-Mart was one of Olbermann’s “Worst Persons in the World.”
It’s called subrogation.This probably wouldn’t have happened in Montana. Subrogation rights here generally (depending on the policy) require the injured party to be made whole. Since she collected 400k and change after paying expenses, she wasn’t made whole and, in Montana, no subrogation.Now, outside the Court of public opinion, though, there is a reasonable argument for subrogation whether you agree with it or not. When a health insurer chooses to underwrite a risk, it does so and sets the premium based on illnesses, etc. (At least in theory) It does not underwrite the possibility that a 3rd party might injure you and most health insurance policies provide that if your medical bills are paid by the health insurer <>and<> the third party tortfeasor, the health insurer is entitled to be repaid for the medical bills it paid.Otherwise, the injured party would be allowed to double recover his or her medical bills.