Walmart makes a terrible decision!!

UGLY · 03-27-2008, 07:45 PM

"When Debbie Shank began working as a stock clerk at Wal-Mart, she joined the company's health and benefits plan and paid her premiums as insurance against injury or illness.

In 2000, Shank's car was rammed by a semi, and she suffered a traumatic brain injury that caused her to be permanently disabled. Her insurance kicked in and paid promptly for her medical bills -- for which Shank's family was grateful. This once vibrant wife and mother now lives in a nursing home and suffers from short-term memory loss, violent mood swings and other effects of her TBI.

Shank's injuries and disability are tragedy enough for her family. But now they're also faced with a $400,000-plus lawsuit by Wal-Mart."

http://greensboro.injuryboard.com/ca...googleid=15866

If Walmart could sink any lower they would be lower that snail shit. I don't think it matters that walmart is right legally from a human decency standpoint they are wrong. How in the hell can you sue a women when she is never going to recover and she needs that money to pay for her medical care. I know some of you will say she knows what she signed but I don't care. Walmart had a chance to do the right thing and gain some good publicity by not suing and letting the lady keep the money. It is no wonder why I don't shop there.

Zapp Brannigan · 03-27-2008, 07:48 PM

Disgusting.

ccbig · 03-28-2008, 10:33 AM

Wal-Mart, Insurance companies, Lawyers- A triple threat to this poor woman's every last dime. This is one cruel case!

Chance174 · 03-28-2008, 10:43 AM

I see where they have the legal right to do so, and I am in favor of people following the rules. That being said this is going a little too far. It is sad that this happened to this women and also sad that the brains at Wal-Mart are that stupid.

matclone · 03-28-2008, 12:07 PM

How can we castigate Wal-Mart before we know the facts? It's a piss poor accounting by the newspaper, if you ask me.

"After her accident, Shank and her family successfully sued the trucking company and won about $477,000. That money was put in a trust for her ongoing medical care, and only about $217,000 remains."

One reasonably concludes "that money put in a trust" is $477,000, so how can $217k remain?

"Wal-Mart has laid claim to that money"

What money?

", and the company is also demanding hundreds of thousands more from the disabled woman".

For what? [blank]

The woman won her suit, which I assume includes money for future medical care.

I assume, although it is not clear, that Wal-Mart is seeking to recover from the settlement their share of the medical bills that were already paid--Wal-Mart being synonomous with the insurance co (although you would never know it from the newspaper account). That doesn't seem totally unreasonable to me.

UGLY · 03-28-2008, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by matclone

How can we castigate Wal-Mart before we know the facts? It's a piss poor accounting by the newspaper, if you ask me.

"After her accident, Shank and her family successfully sued the trucking company and won about $477,000. That money was put in a trust for her ongoing medical care, and only about $217,000 remains."

One reasonably concludes "that money put in a trust" is $477,000, so how can $217k remain?

"Wal-Mart has laid claim to that money"

What money?

", and the company is also demanding hundreds of thousands more from the disabled woman".

For what? [blank]

The woman won her suit, which I assume includes money for future medical care.

I assume, although it is not clear, that Wal-Mart is seeking to recover from the settlement their share of the medical bills that were already paid--Wal-Mart being synonomous with the insurance co (although you would never know it from the newspaper account). That doesn't seem totally unreasonable to me.

You took the exact opposite position I thought you would take. If you will notice I said that Wal-Mart was right legally and the lady did sign saying that Walmart could recoup their expenses from the accident they paid out. I am looking at it from a moral POV. Wal-Mart doesnt need an extra couple hundred thousand dollars and they could have taken the high ground. I thought the media has covered the issue fine and given the results of the court cases as they get them.

matclone · 03-28-2008, 01:24 PM

I have no love for Wal-Mart, but, again, how can we condemn them if the facts are not clear? Maybe you're seeing something I'm not seeing.

Also, I completely missed this first time around: this isn't a newspaper, it's some lawyer's one-sided account of the affair--which gives it even less credibility. The fact that some TV hack (Olberman) covered it, gives it no more credibility.

You should at least acknowledge Wal-Mart's position (as much as we know): if they were to pay out claims on sympathy, that's less money for all their other plan participants (employees). It wouldn't remain viable for long on this basis.

~~slayer~~ · 03-28-2008, 01:43 PM

"The fact that some TV hack (Olberman) covered it, gives it no more credibility."

I thought you didn't watch cable?

matclone · 03-28-2008, 01:52 PM

I don't, generally. And I'm not sure I've ever seen more than a few seconds of Olberman (as a non-sports "news" guy). However, I've seen numerous accounts on this board and in other places as to what he's said, and knowing the state of cable news (I have seen some), and my notion (not original) that they are selling a product more than giving us news, why should I assign him any credibility? He's obviously smart, but he's also one more angry white man in a suit. More specifically, his role on television seems to be to attack conservatives (meaning: someone I oppose), in the same way O'Reilly and a host of others attack liberals (meaning: someone I oppose)--fomenting anger communities (a subject of another thread). Yawn.

Tight-Waist · 03-31-2008, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by matclone

How can we castigate Wal-Mart before we know the facts? It's a piss poor accounting by the newspaper, if you ask me.

"After her accident, Shank and her family successfully sued the trucking company and won about $477,000. That money was put in a trust for her ongoing medical care, and only about $217,000 remains."

One reasonably concludes "that money put in a trust" is $477,000, so how can $217k remain?

"Wal-Mart has laid claim to that money"

What money?

", and the company is also demanding hundreds of thousands more from the disabled woman".

For what? [blank]

The woman won her suit, which I assume includes money for future medical care.

I assume, although it is not clear, that Wal-Mart is seeking to recover from the settlement their share of the medical bills that were already paid--Wal-Mart being synonomous with the insurance co (although you would never know it from the newspaper account). That doesn't seem totally unreasonable to me.

How ya been Matclone? Missed ya!

It is my understanding that Walmart self insures their employes who choose to join. It is also my understanding that this is a non-profit benefit to the employees that seeks merely to collect no more in premiums what it pays out in benefits. Thus if they allowed this woman to keep her judgement it would just require them to raise the premiums on the other employees.

This woman signed a contract when she joined the program. That is an agreement. Wal_Mart has met the agreement.

You might say, "OK so? Wal-Mart can certainly afford it, they should pay it out of corporate profits". Yes, thats true, but if they do so for her, then they should do so for all. And if they start paying for hard luck cases where does it stop?

For those that think this woman was truely screwed by Wal-Mart I suggest you never ever shop there again. My guess is you wont.

Walmart makes a terrible decision!!

Politics & Religion