ADN

Brain-damaged woman at center of Wal-Mart suit

* Story Highlights
* Debbie Shank, 52, suffered severe brain damage in a traffic accident
* Wal-Mart's health plan sued Shank and her family to recoup what it paid out
* The Shanks got money in suit; Wal-Mart says policy means couple can't get benefits
* Couple's son was killed in Iraq after they lost lawsuit to Wal-Mart

By Randi Kaye
CNN

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.

The 52-year-old mother of three attended her son's funeral, but 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 and later sued for the same amount. However, the court ruled it can only recoup what is left in the family's trust.

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. VideoWatch 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."

© 2008 Cable News Network

Wal-Mart has now dropped their lawsuit.
They claim it has nothing to do with the bad publicity and public outrage the story has aroused.
They are "only concerned with fairness" in this case.

Excuse me, I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

:(

I usually spend extra to avoid Wal-Mart...I just can't justify spending money there in mass anymore...I got there to get knick knacks I can't get anywhere else because I live in a smallish town, but I limit those purchases to the point of necessity...Fucking sharks...

First and foremost, this woman, and many in her situation be in my daily meditations...

now, the tirade:

This is my problem with health care programs and notions of security. How the hell can't this woman collect on social security? Why won't her employer take care of her the way she paid into her medical program to do so, or her government? and her husband had to divorce her to cope with financial stress... this is sickening.

This is why I hate the notions of taxes paying for everything, or mandated "insurance" of any kind; because when all is said and done, you have to be able to do it yourself. The people who think they should be paid to decide how to spend our money... all they want is their cut, and their power. How much tax money did they take from her in her years of employment? How much social security she got racked up?

Against everything I was raised to believe in or do... why I simply do not shop at Wal-Mart.

Nothing there worth the dent it makes in my soul to even go in there.

I have shopped at a Wal-star-Mart in Texas and another Wal-star-Mart in California on business trips because my US distributor-associate insisted on it "to save time and money" getting minor goods for tradeshow setups (packing tape, scissors, etc.).
"Hey, there's a Costco across the street... " had no effect on the hypnotic draw of smiley faces.
Wal-star-Mart is a huge contributor to conservative political causes and is a top Bush backer. Of course they treat their employees like crap.
Costco is a supporter of liberals and contributes to the Democratic bunch of corporate goombahs. They treat their employees much better.

The Wal-dash-Mart at home (the Waltons finally removed the stars and US flag paraphernalia after five years of failing to realise they were not in Kansas anymore) has never taken a Looney from my pocket.

:)

I personally am not aware of Wal-Mart backing Bush specifically, but they do back the Republican party, and the office of the president, whomever is serving in that capacity. I just saw the CEO does donate directly, and I bet more money comes in from elsewhere.

HOWEVER, their ties to the Clintons, particulary Hillary who was on the board of directors for six years until her husband was elected surely outweighs any support they might have given the President. And they never replaced her... What was she doing as a paid member of the board?

Regardless, it has been hard to respect anything about Wal-Mart, for a long time.

Are similar signs available for purchase?
I can think of a few prime locations where I would pay to set them up.
:(