Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Wal-Mart health plan
#1
I read this story and I'm really shocked about it.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/walmart.insurance.battle/index.html?iref=mpstoryview


I really don't understand how Wal-Mart can go back and sue this lady and win.   She used her healthcare like anyone else would.   I'm sure that a portion of her earnings went to union dues & healthcare (like all Wal-Mart employees pay into).

If she didn't receive a settlement then Wal-Mart never expected repayment because it was covered under her medical plan.   As soon as Wal-Mart saw she won some money, they sued her for the medical expenses they paid!

If an employee does not use their medical benefits for an entire year, then can the employee sue their employer to receive their paid premiums back?   NOT!

Seems damn wrong that the employer can sue to get back medical expenses paid IF the employee ends up with a settlement like that.   If anything, Wal-Mart should be sueing the trucking company directly who caused the incident, not the employee.

Another reason why I hate Wal-Mart.


(now think how this could apply to a car accident & insurance)  
Imagine if State Farm covered your medical expenses, replaced your car, and then you finally got a settlement a year later from the person who caused the accident for $300,000.      State Farm then sues you for $300,000 because of your medical expenses paid and such.    (not that State Farm would do that....its just a company that pops into mind).
*** scary stuff.
Reply
#2
Although Wal-Mart looks to be in the complete right with the "lawsuit" clause, why would they do this in this situation?

If I were running Wal-Mart this is a situation where the good PR would be worth the price for not going after this.

Its a sad story nonetheless.
Reply
#3
I really question the clause Wal-mart has in the policy.   I mean really, its healthcare!   Its a paid benefit.       A person who received no settlement, or maybe $10,000 would obviously not have to pay a dime back, or much less.    There is no fairness in the clause and I wonder how legal it really is to have a healthcare plan worded in such a manner.   Its more like a healthcare loan and not actually coverage.
Reply
#4
Sounds like the clause reads that Walmart will pay for the healthcare needed for a particular incident--the accident where she was hit by the truck.  But in the event that the victim performs a lawsuit of fault, and wins--then Walmart can recoup the costs.

I wish I knew how the clause was laid out and presented to employees.  Sounds like it was small print.

Seems tidy and legal but I ponder if its really a lawful clause?  It can compare to the state providing welfare for a person for years, then the person wins the lottery, does the state have a legal right to go after past entitlements?  I think not!
Reply
#5
US_Tank Wrote:I wish I knew how the clause was laid out and presented to employees.  Sounds like it was small print.

I worked for walmart dfor a while and two things:

1) no union dues, wally world threatebs to fire you if you even look at a union  person

2) the print in the health care clauses is TINY

like magnifying glass small.

TomC
I'm Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack! Cool
Reply
#6
poor lady, screwed either way Sad
I'm Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack! Cool
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)