subrogation - n. assuming the legal rights of a person for whom expenses or a debt has been paid.

Subrogation, and the story of former Wal-Mart employee Debbie Shank, broke into the news with a vengeance just a little over one year ago after Wal-Mart Watch brought her story to the attention of the Wall Street Journal. A collision with a semi-trailer truck eight years ago left Debbie Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a wheelchair. Hoping to help cover Debbie’s nursing home costs, her husband Jim sued the trucking company that hit her. The family won a modest settlement, after which Jim received a call from Wal-Mart’s attorneys. Wal-Mart’s health plan, through a little-known clause in its health plan, sued the Shanks for the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care, and a federal judge ruled in Wal-Mart’s favor. And hence, the issue of subrogation and the Shanks became a national story in both print and broadcast media across the country.

The story ends, or at least has settled, on a more positive note. On April 1, 2008, Wal-Mart dropped all pending litigation against the Shank family. Thanks in part to the hundreds of people who wrote in to the company, as well of the contribution of many major news outlets, Debbie’s family will keep the money currently being held in trust for her future care, though how long that will last remains to be seen.

The story has now added another chapter, however. Individuals suffering catastrophic injuries like those that resulted from Debbie’s violent traffic collision will no longer have to worry about the threat of subrogation. Wal-Mart Watch has confirmed that Wal-Mart’s 2009 health care plan exempts the company’s right to subrogate against a covered person completely in cases of: 1) paraplegia or quadriplegia; 2) severe burns; 3) total and permanent physical or mental disability; or 4) death. In all other cases, the plan also limits the right to recover to 50% of a settlement (Including attorney’s fees).

You can read our press release after the jump. At the bottom you’ll find links to Wal-Mart’s 2008 benefits plan, plus the 2009 amendments.

Read the rest of this story ...

I would say that this story is surprising, but with Wal-Mart’s track record in these cases, that really, reeeeaaaalllllly would be disingenuous. As reported this morning, Wal-Mart will pay over $54 million as part of a settlement of a class-action lawsuit in Minnesota over wages and hours. The case is Braun v. Wal-Mart, a case in which Dakota County District Court Judge Robert King Jr. ruled on back in July, holding that Wal-Mart broke Minnesota labor law more than two million times over a six-year period by forcing employees to work without breaks and without full pay.

At the time, Judge King ruled that in addition to penalties, Wal-Mart owed workers at least $6 million in back wages. Under a Court order, a jury was expected to decide the amount of punitive damages and penalties in October, but settlement discussions pushed that date back.

Wal-Mart will pay up to $54.25 million to settle a class-action lawsuit that alleged the discount giant cut workers’ break time and allowed employees to work off the clock in Minnesota. The class includes about 100,000 current and former hourly workers who were employed at Wal-Mart Stores and Sam’s Clubs in Minnesota from Sept. 11, 1998, through Nov. 14, 2008. Wal-Mart has also agreed to maintain electronic systems, surveys and notices to stay compliant with wage and hour policies and Minnesota laws.

Needless to say, this is really just the latest in a disturbing pattern of Wal-Mart’s disregard for the law. Not only can’t Wal-Mart’s workers be very happy that retailer has decided overtime pay to be voluntary, but Wal-Mart also has a fiduciary obligation to its investors and shareholders to comply with labor regulations, and not, you know, keep doing stuff like this.

You can check out our fact sheet on Wal-Mart’s wage and hour shenanigans, if you’d like. Go ahead, click on it, and put in a little overtime on this story.

Wal-Mart To Pay $54.25 Million In Minn. Settlement [Associated Press via WCCO.com]

Read the rest of this story ...

AS A FORMER EMPLOYEE OF WAL-MART, I was aware that my store had a “loss-prevention team” - which basically consisted of two obvious plain-clothed, unarmed “security officers” that walked around the store watching people shop, trying to catch shop-lifters.  These guys were likely moonlighting at Wal-Mart on their days off from bouncer-duty at the bar.  Nevertheless, occasionally they would catch someone stealing, and that’s where it all gets fuzzy.  Let me make it perfectly clear, these guys ARE NOT law enforcement officials so the level of actual ‘enforcement’ they were legally allowed to use always seemed unclear.  From what I understood, they were not allowed to physically intervene in a theft situation, just ‘escort’ them to the back, and call the police. They were not allowed to slam you face-first onto the ground.

Apparently a loss-prevention officer for a Wal-Mart in Spartanburg, S.C. never got that memo. WYFF-TV in South Carolina reports that a video-survellience camera captured footage of loss prevention officer, Joseph Gregorie bear-hug a 58-year-old woman, he suspected of shop-lifting, and slam her face-first into the ground.  Talk about your all-time, total losses of composure.  The woman sustained minor facial injuries and was taken to an area hospital.  Wal-Mart was vague when talking to WSNA-TV in South Carolina about their loss-prevention protocol:

“...the spokesperson said their employees do follow certain ‘asset protection’ protocols, but she said she could not go into details about those protocols because of this investigation.”

UPDATE: if you didn’t already see it, check out the comment below from loyal reader Rob. He reports seeing a similar situation at a store where he worked.

Wal-Mart Employee Charged With Assaulting Shopper [WSNA-TV (S.C.)]

A Wal-Mart employee faces charges after police say he slammed a woman suspected of shoplifting face-first into the ground.

It happened late Tuesday night at the Dorman Centre Wal-Mart in Spartanburg. According to police reports, Joseph Gregorie, the store’s loss prevention officer, saw a 58-year old Greer woman concealing items in a bag. Gregorie says when he confronted her, the woman dropped the bag and tried to run away. The woman, Deborah Blackwell, tells police that Gregorie “bear hugged” her and slammed her face-first into the ground. She suffered a large contusion on her left eye and an injured hand and had to be taken to the hospital by ambulance. Gregorie told police that he grabbed Blackwell and she lost her balance and they both fell. But after reviewing surveillance video, the investigating officer said it shows Gregorie “throwing her to the ground”. He took the evidence to a judge who signed arrest warrants for both Gregorie and Blackwell.

Read the rest of this story ...

Time to pull that roll of aluminum foil out of the pantry, because they’re after us, and they want our braaainnns…

Or so says Jerry Rose, one of our neighbors to the north in British Columbia, who has filed one of the more bizarre lawsuits I have seen in some time. Rose is after $2 billion in damages from Microsoft, Telus, Wal-Mart, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (among others) for the usual list of charges: mind control, satanism, and witchcraft. We’ll look around and see if we can get a copy of his complaint, but according to the National Post:

Mr. Rose’s claim states “that he has been subject to invasive brain computer interface technology, research, experiments, field studies and surgery” and also named the University of B.C. and the B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons as defendants.

Not to be outdone, an attorney for Microsoft assured the judge that there is in fact no scientific evidence that mind control is possible, although anyone that has been forced to watch a Sarah Palin rally may beg to differ. We’re not sure what role Wal-Mart has played in all of this, but if I had to guess, witchcraft would be my bet.

Judge Fraser Wilson, while calling the case unusual, has said he will need to be convinced there is nothing in Rose’s claim that could not be litigated before he dismisses it.

B.C. judge hears $2B lawsuit against Microsoft, Wal-Mart over brain control [CanWest News Service]

Read the rest of this story ...