Wal-Mart Reverses Its Position on Subrogation Against Accident Victim's Recovery
Apparently, the negative publicity surrounding Wal-Mart’s decision to pursue reimbursement for Debbie Shank’s medical expenses from the remainder of her personal injury settlement made it rethink its position, as Wal-Mart announced yesterday that it would not attempt to collect any funds from Shank.
Here is the letter from Pat Curran, Wal-Mart’s Executive Vice President ? People (yes, that’s really her title), to Jim Shank, in which she explained that, “Occasionally others help us step back and look at a situation in a different way. This is one of those times.” I imagine that’s true, particularly when the “others” are CNN, MSNBC, The Wall Street Journal, and the websites and blogs that are devoted to following and scrutinizing Wal-Mart’s activities.
For more background, here is the Associated Press story in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, which quoted Roger Baron, who teaches at the University of South Dakota School of Law and specializes in reimbursement and subrogation issues. Professor Baron points out that since the United States Supreme Court’s decision in 2006 in Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., 547 U.S. 356 (2006), health plans have become “very aggressive” about subrogation. The Wall Street Journal Law Blog also weighs in today on Wal-Mart’s change of heart.
Wal-Mart did the right thing by realizing that in this situation, its position was inequitable. But I have no doubt that if Wal-Mart had not been subjected to so much criticism, it would have continued to pursue its subrogation claim against whatever remains of Debbie Shank's personal injury settlement.
