By Rob Holbert Managing Editor

It’s very easy this time of year to get all crazy about buying that new Pocket Fisherman to give dear old dad Christmas morning, jump into your car and rush down to the nearest Wal-Mart to mill around with everyone else in the tri-county area.

Before you do that again this year, let me explain exactly what you’re supporting when you darken the checkout lane at one of your 15 local Wally Worlds. I came across this story in the Wall Street Journal the other day and it angered me so much I wanted to run over the first Big Box store that got in my way.

Deborah Shank, the story goes, was a Wal-Mart employee in Cape Girardieu, Mo., where she took a job in 1999 stocking shelves. Shank worked nights from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. so she could spend time with her kids during the day, and in 2000, she qualified for the Wal-Mart health plan.

Three months later, while touring yard sales, Shank was hit by a semi-trailer truck that smashed her mini van and caused her major brain damage. She spent several weeks in intensive care and was left with severe and ongoing medical problems and her medical bills climbed to more than $460,000, which was paid by her Wal-Mart medical plan.

In 2002, the Shanks sued the trucking company and won a settlement. Shank’s husband got a settlement of $200,000, of which he realized $119,000 after legal expenses. Shank received a settlement of $700,000, and after legal expenses and attorney fees, $417,477 was placed in a court-created special trust designed to provide for Shank’s ongoing care.

And that’s when the small print got her.

It seems Wal-Mart – like many large companies these days – has a clause in its health plan that allows the company to recoup medical expenses it paid if that person receives a settlement in a lawsuit. It’s called subrogation. Quite simply, Wal-Mart wants its money back from its brain-damaged former employee who now needs help eating and performing other basic tasks.

Wal-Mart, the richest company in the world, sued the Shanks for the $470,000 it spent on her care, and last year U.S. District Judge Lewis Blanton ruled in the retailer’s favor. Wal-Mart sued an invalid for her relatively tiny nest egg in the name of watching the bottom line for the rest of the people on its health plan. And barring a reversal from the U.S. Supreme Court, they’ll get it.

Now I’m not trying to be Pollyanna here. I know most companies have such subrogation clauses in their policies – policies all of us generally sign without ever reading any of the fine print. And I know that because that clause has been inserted into the policy, Wal-Mart and other insurers are within their rights to go after money won by the people they’ve covered. All that said, there’s right and there’s wrong.

Wal-Mart can’t even blame this on some third-party insurance underwriter. They self-insure. They wrote the policy. (Of course. Who could imagine Wal-Mart actually having to buy the services of another company? Pretty soon they’ll probably manufacture the air their employees and shoppers breathe.) So this is totally their call.

As the Wall Street Journal article explained, subrogation isn’t a new concept, but it’s becoming more popular with big companies trying to lower their health coverage expenses. Frankly it makes no logical sense to me that somehow getting paid by both the insurance company and a third party you just sued the pants off of amounts to some kind of double dipping. You pay a premium for the insurance. The insurance company collects it and spends it. The insurance company should have no expectation that it’s going to get paid back for legitimate claims it has to pay out. I wonder what insurance attorney was able to torture logic enough for this to ever be considered even a remotely legitimate practice.

Naturally Wal-Mart is trying to act like going after the Shanks’ money is some kind of heroic activity that will protect their employees from higher premiums. According to the Journal article, “Sharon Weber, a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart, declined to discuss the details of the Shanks’ case, but said the company was obliged to act in the interest of the health benefits of its employees as a whole. ‘While the case involves a tragic situation, our responsibility is to follow the provisions of the [company health] plan which governs the health benefits of our associates,’ she said.”

Let’s get real. That $460,000 Wally World is trying to get back isn’t going to do diddley to the company’s health plan. It’s a joke to even suggest that. I’m sure they’ll say it sets a bad precedent, but it’s not like thousands of its employees are likely to end up in a similar position each year.

I don’t buy for a second the notion that Wal-Mart’s hands were tied in this case. I’m sure they employ enough lawyers to handle potential subrogation suits on a case-by-case basis. In this instance I’m thinking taking a tragically brain-damaged woman’s last dime isn’t a particularly good move from a public relations standpoint. Not to mention the Hell points it’s earning the Wal-Mart honchos.

This sad tale is just the latest shabby chapter in Wal-Mart’s transformation from the feel-good, buy-American company founded by “Mr. Sam” to the greedy corporate monster that tramples competition, destroys locally owned businesses and treats its employees like indentured servants.

Not that I was ever one of their best customers, but I’m now officially done with Wal-Mart. It seems like a morally bankrupt company that does more harm than good, and this latest outrage just crystallizes all those feelings for me.

Saving money just isn’t worth supporting people who would do that to someone else.

Rob Holbert is Lagniappe managing editor. Contact him at rholbert@lagniappemobile.com.

Archives