Wal-Mart Sues Brain-Damaged Worker

So Much for ‘Remaking’ Its Image: Wal-Mart Sues Brain-Damaged Worker

by James Parks, Nov 21, 2007

Wal-Mart has spent millions trying to convince consumers that its critics are wrong about its anti-worker actions and that it is a good company that cares about its employees and the community. But the way the company has treated Deborah Shank shows the retail giant’s true colors.

The company, which earned $2.9 billion last quarter, sued a former employee who suffered permanent brain damage in a car accident to get back $470,000 it spent on her medical bills.

Here’s the story. The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) reported yesterday that Deborah Shank, 52, who stocked shelves in Wal-Mart’s store in Cape Girardieu, Mo., was broadsided by a tractor-trailer seven years ago, causing permanent brain damage. Unable to walk without help or communicate meaningfully with her family, she now lives in a nursing home.

Wal-Mart’s health insurance plan paid about $470,000 in medical expenses. But after the Shanks sued and settled with the trucking company, Wal-Mart sued the couple and demanded its money back, plus interest and legal fees—more than the $417,477 the settlement had placed in a special-needs Medicaid trust fund for Shank’s future health care expenses.

A federal judge ruled that Wal-Mart’s health care plan gave them first dibs on any money gained by an injured employee. Such provisions aren’t uncommon in health plans, and Wal-Mart isn’t the first to enforce one.

To add to the tragedy, shortly after the judge ruled against the Shanks, their son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq. The Shanks have two other sons.

Deborah Shank, who receives Medicaid, is not the only Wal-Mart employee receiving public health care. More than 60 percent of Wal-Mart employees—600,000 people—are forced to get health insurance coverage from the government or through spouses’ plans or live without any health insurance. Last year, the AFL-CIO released a report showing how Wal-Mart shifts health care costs to consumers and a bunch of studies showing how Wal-Mart profits from taxpayers.

In the “it’s legal, but is it moral” category, Wal-Mart’s lawsuit shows its unrestrained greed. As the Los Angeles Times points out in an editorial today:

Doing what the law allows isn’t the same as doing the right thing, however. The company made itself whole at the expense of a helpless former employee who will never be whole again. Instead of having some resources to improve her care, Shank will receive only the basic services afforded her by Medicaid and Social Security. Nor will the trust fund be in a position to reimburse Medicaid (i.e., taxpayers), which stood to collect any unspent money upon Shank’s death.

Wal-Mart has spent the last few years working hard to rebut health care reformers, labor unions, anti-globalization groups and other critics who’ve argued that it puts profits ahead of humanity. While its advertising campaigns try to put a friendlier spin on the company, its behavior toward Shank tells a different story. If Wal-Mart can’t restrain itself, perhaps Congress should prevent health plans from draining settlements won by injured workers with more bills to pay.

Wal-Mart’s anti-worker actions could fill (and have filled) books.

Earlier this year, a New Jersey court ruled a class action suit could proceed on behalf of 80,000 current and former Wal-Mart employees who say they were forced to work off the clock.

Human Rights Watch issued a report showing how Wal-Mart systematically thwarts workers’ efforts to form unions. Recent reports also reveal how the retailers’ reliance on goods made by cheap labor in China threatens public safety and costs nearly 200,000 jobs.