Wal-Mart sues brain damaged former employee

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

link (http://blog.aflcio.org/2007/11/21/so-much-for-remaking-its-image-wal-mart-sues-brain-damaged-worker/)

Wal-Mart (http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/walmart/upload/walmartreport_031406.pdf) has spent millions trying to convince consumers that its critics are wrong about its anti-worker actions and that it is a good company that cares about its employees and the community. But the way the company has treated Deborah Shank shows the retail giant’s true colors.
The company, which earned $2.9 billion last quarter, sued a former employee who suffered permanent brain damage in a car accident to get back $470,000 it spent on her medical bills.
Here’s the story. The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) reported yesterday that Deborah Shank, 52, who stocked shelves in Wal-Mart’s store in Cape Girardieu, Mo., was broadsided by a tractor-trailer seven years ago, causing permanent brain damage. Unable to walk without help or communicate meaningfully with her family, she now lives in a nursing home.
Wal-Mart’s health insurance plan paid about $470,000 in medical expenses. But after the Shanks sued and settled with the trucking company, Wal-Mart sued the couple and demanded its money back, plus interest and legal fees—more than the $417,477 the settlement had placed in a special-needs Medicaid trust fund for Shank’s future health care expenses.
A federal judge ruled that Wal-Mart’s health care plan gave them first dibs on any money gained by an injured employee. Such provisions aren’t uncommon in health plans, and Wal-Mart isn’t the first to enforce one.
To add to the tragedy, shortly after the judge ruled against the Shanks, their son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq. The Shanks have two other sons.
Deborah Shank, who receives Medicaid, is not the only Wal-Mart employee receiving public health care. More than 60 percent of Wal-Mart employees—600,000 people (http://www.ufcw.org/press_room/fact_sheets_and_backgrounder/walmart/benefits.cfm)—are forced to get health insurance coverage from the government or through spouses’ plans or live without any health insurance. Last year, the AFL-CIO released a report showing how Wal-Mart shifts health care costs to consumers (http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/walmart/upload/walmartreport_031406.pdf) and a bunch of studies showing how Wal-Mart profits from taxpayers (http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/walmart/walmart_3.cfm).
In the “it’s legal, but is it moral” category, Wal-Mart’s lawsuit shows its unrestrained greed. As the Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-walmart21nov21,0,635924.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail) points out in an editorial today:
Doing what the law allows isn’t the same as doing the right thing, however. The company made itself whole at the expense of a helpless former employee who will never be whole again. Instead of having some resources to improve her care, Shank will receive only the basic services afforded her by Medicaid and Social Security. Nor will the trust fund be in a position to reimburse Medicaid (i.e., taxpayers), which stood to collect any unspent money upon Shank’s death.
Wal-Mart has spent the last few years working hard to rebut health care reformers, labor unions, anti-globalization groups and other critics who’ve argued that it puts profits ahead of humanity. While its advertising campaigns try to put a friendlier spin on the company, its behavior toward Shank tells a different story. If Wal-Mart can’t restrain itself, perhaps Congress should prevent health plans from draining settlements won by injured workers with more bills to pay.
Wal-Mart’s anti-worker actions could fill (and have filled) books.
Earlier this year, a New Jersey court ruled a class action suit could proceed (http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/business/01walmart.html&OQ=_rQ3D1&OP=2fcf0e03Q2F-hXR-ED4Q7DIDDl9-9Q3CQ3CQ2F-Q3Cr-Q3CQ22-R1Q7DoQ27XQ7DQ7D-Q3CQ22hQ3AQ5EjQ3AIlQ2BcljQ5E) on behalf of 80,000 current and former Wal-Mart employees who say they were forced to work off the clock.
Human Rights Watch issued a report (http://blog.aflcio.org/2007/05/17/a-close-up-look-at-wal-mart%e2%80%99s-scary-anti-union-tactics/) showing how Wal-Mart systematically thwarts workers’ efforts to form unions. Recent reports also reveal how the retailers’ reliance on goods made by cheap labor in China threatens public safety (http://blog.aflcio.org/2007/11/04/unsafe-toys-us-corporate-policies-share-the-blame) and costs nearly 200,000 jobs (http://blog.aflcio.org/2007/06/27/wal-marts-china-imports-cost-200000-us-jobs).


In other words, shop at Target.

[justaKAiswear]

+ rep to you for postin this man! I have an impassioned disgust for Walmart after doing some fairly extensive research on them for some a paper in my Microeconomics class.

[blasting_speed]

Damn, i never liked going to Wal Mart anyway. Its like a ghetto K-Mart. I love Target. You can't beat their $2 hot dog and drink deal.:naughty:

[DreamN]

I dislike going into wal marts. only been to one maybe two or three times and I despise it. the greeters always freak me out. I swear it's as if they look for the creepiest looking old ppl they can get.

[Andrew Bohan]

You can't beat their $2 hot dog and drink deal.:naughty:

actually, costco has a $1.50 hot dog and drink deal

[corriganjoshua]

actually, costco has a $1.50 hot dog and drink deal
Hell yes they do and its good haha

[A Spec Products]

I saw this story on the news

Truly a saddening story

But yes, it's definitely a "it’s legal, but is it moral" issue as stated in the article

Wal-Mart definitely has the means to spare the $400K-ish amount they are trying to get back, but as a corporation it will be interesting to see how this plays out...I suppose as a business they can't make exceptions to one person, otherwise they would need to make exceptions in all other cases?

Definitely a tough decision, being politically correct vs. economically "correct"

What was also saddening was that the husband of the victim had to divorced her so that she was able to qualify for more government aid, which just added more hurt on hurt

On the topic of Wal-Mart however, I definitely don't agree with them as a company, and don't shop there since I don't want to be a supporter of big business

I love to support local small businesses because I don't want to end up being forced to eat at ONLY the Taco Bell like Stallone in Demolition Man

Support small businesses and put money back into your local community!

[sr20powerd]

This is why I quit going to wall*mart. Been free of them for 10 months now

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

I forgot to mention that she wakes up every morning and forgets the day before. So every morning she has to wake u p and be retold that her son has been killed in Iraq.

[ManoNegra]

Target and Costco are 'aight... Ikea hot dogs and meatballs is where is at!
I'd recommend watching "Walmart - The High Cost of Low Price", if this thread doesn't do it then that film will.

[ALEXTHESUS*PECT]

actually, costco has a $1.50 hot dog and drink deal

had one not too long ago!:bigok:

[brndck]

i suggest all of you check out knowmore.org its a site that thoroughly researches corporations and businesses to expose these kind of shady dealings. kinda nice to know what kind of company ur giving ur $ to.
ps fuck walmart. support your local industries.

[Pank]

its called double-dipping, and its a dick move to do, and its illegal. Walmart may be shitty, but what the person (or their lawyers) are trying to do is illegal.

sorry guy!
edit: i would have given the person the money, but they're well within their rights to want their half mil back

[sr20powerd]

Target and Costco are 'aight... Ikea hot dogs and meatballs is where is at!
I'd recommend watching "Walmart - The High Cost of Low Price", if this thread doesn't do it then that film will.
THAT movie changed a lot for me I definitely recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen it

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

THAT movie changed a lot for me I definitely recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen it
link? Blockbuster? Hollywood vid? where can I see it?

[Andrew Bohan]

when i got rear ended in my truck, my insurance (geico) covered my medical shit

then when i got all through my legal shit, the other dude's insurance (farmers) paid geico back for what they spent on me, plus gave me some for pain and suffering.

this case seems pretty similar to that, except that all the money went to shank first, instead of the truck's insurance splitting it up and paying walmart back for what they spent on her.


it also seems that some people are treating this as if she was injured while on the job and now walmart wants its money back, which is not the case.

i do hate walmart a lot, but this current issue seems to make sense to me
does walmart NEED the money? no, but this isn't about who needs it. it's about whose it is.

[sr20powerd]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3836296181471292925

Crappy quality though, sorry

[DreamN]

Edit: sr20 posted it just seconds before I did....

[OptionZero]

wait, what? Why is this a bad thing again?

Why should the employ be able to recover and keep money from both Wal-Mart AND the at-fault driver? That would be unjust enrichment, or in legal terms a "windfall".

People conveniently forget:
1. Walmart did not cause the accident.
2. Walmart paid the medical costs to at the start.
3. The injured woman is being paid by the at-fault driver.

This is just slanted journalism by the author and lazy reading by everyone else.

To illustrate using random people:

Person A and Person B are buddies.

Person C hits A wth his car.

A sues C to recover medical costs + whatever damages, which total $500 (for example)

B pays, let's say $500, for A's medical expenses in the meantime, incase A is unable to recover against C.

A and C settle. C's gonna cover the $500 in medical bills.

Is it so wrong to say that B should return A's money now that he's getting paid by C?

Otherwise, A has suffered $500 in damage (example amount, again) but if permitted to keep B's money gets to pocket $1000?

Yeah, that wouldn't make sense.

I urge people to think before jumping up and down in response to a news article.

[rajcat]

I swear wal-marts destroy traffic patterns with their store locations as well. 'wats all this traffic? for cryin out loud, another sale on cheep china made goods? thas 2wice this week n I'm late for work!' well its sumn like that, they're pure evil!

[HyperTek]

i have no problem with walmart, but you just see the most ghetto and poor people there..

I aggree with optionzero.


wait i just clicked on the link... THIS SHIT IS FUCKING OLD!!!!!

[Jung918]

walmart is a ruthless corporations. +1

[McRussellPants]

Its not greed. its business.

the world isn't rainbows and hopes and dreams.

If my old boss paid my bills to the tune of 470k and he wanted 400 back so be it.

fucking stupid USA mobile and its sense of fucking entitlement.

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

wait, what? Why is this a bad thing again?

Why should the employ be able to recover and keep money from both Wal-Mart AND the at-fault driver? That would be unjust enrichment, or in legal terms a "windfall".

People conveniently forget:
1. Walmart did not cause the accident.
2. Walmart paid the medical costs to at the start.
3. The injured woman is being paid by the at-fault driver.

This is just slanted journalism by the author and lazy reading by everyone else.

To illustrate using random people:

Person A and Person B are buddies.

Person C hits A wth his car.

A sues C to recover medical costs + whatever damages, which total $500 (for example)

B pays, let's say $500, for A's medical expenses in the meantime, incase A is unable to recover against C.

A and C settle. C's gonna cover the $500 in medical bills.

Is it so wrong to say that B should return A's money now that he's getting paid by C?

Otherwise, A has suffered $500 in damage (example amount, again) but if permitted to keep B's money gets to pocket $1000?

Yeah, that wouldn't make sense.

I urge people to think before jumping up and down in response to a news article.

Wal-Mart’s health insurance plan paid about $470,000 in medical expenses. But after the Shanks sued and settled with the trucking company, Wal-Mart sued the couple and demanded its money back, plus interest and legal fees—more than the $417,477 the settlement had placed in a special-needs Medicaid trust fund for Shank’s future health care expenses.This is what I got out of it:
she gets hurt
WalMarts insurance honors what she was paying into on health care and gets $417477
she wins lawsuit and gets 417,477 for medical costs
WalMart insurance wants money back plus interest and legal fees so now she's in the negative over $50000

And how is this NOT wrong?

To me that's ridiculous.

[OptionZero]

Perhaps she shouldn't have settled for $417,477?

Walmart honored all of its obligations and exercised its legal right. The obligation of the insured to repay the insurance payment after a settlement is something the insured should know about before agreeing to a settlment amount.

The injured person doesn't like it? Go to trial. If the damage and claim are real, then she should win in a cakewalk.



Did you read this part:
"Such provisions aren't uncommon in healthcare plans and Wal-mart isn't the first to enforce it."

If anything, why aren't you mad about the TRUCKING COMPANY'S INSURER? They're on the side that *actually* hurt the woman.
Why nothing about the lawmakers that put that statutory scheme on the books?

Again, you're seizing on a small part of a larger story without really thinking it through. Walmart bashing is easy, consideration is hard.

Everything I said is still true. The ability to recover double is a real concern, otherwise the rules in question would not be in place. You probably wouldn't be in such arms if she had come out $50k on TOP of whatever she needed to cover her expenses and injuries, right? No easy target to bash?

Wal-Mart may or may not be "good", but in this particular case, the bitching is pretty pointless, more so because the story's dated.

Chelsea Clinton for president, huh?

Wait I get it...YOU're our zilvia april fool's joke

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

Perhaps she shouldn't have settled for $417,477?

Walmart honored all of its obligations and exercised its legal right. The obligation of the insured to repay the insurance payment after a settlement is something the insured should know about before agreeing to a settlment amount.

The injured person doesn't like it? Go to trial. If the damage and claim are real, then she should win in a cakewalk.



Did you read this part:
"Such provisions aren't uncommon in healthcare plans and Wal-mart isn't the first to enforce it."

If anything, why aren't you mad about the TRUCKING COMPANY'S INSURER? They're on the side that *actually* hurt the woman.
Why nothing about the lawmakers that put that statutory scheme on the books?

Again, you're seizing on a small part of a larger story without really thinking it through. Walmart bashing is easy, consideration is hard.

Everything I said is still true. The ability to recover double is a real concern, otherwise the rules in question would not be in place. You probably wouldn't be in such arms if she had come out $50k on TOP of whatever she needed to cover her expenses and injuries, right? No easy target to bash?

Wal-Mart may or may not be "good", but in this particular case, the bitching is pretty pointless, more so because the story's dated.

Chelsea Clinton for president, huh?

Wait I get it...YOU're our zilvia april fool's joke

well that's not very nice, now is it?

WalMart should NOT have asked for interest. Legal fee's....well, not unless they did end up having to sue. I'm not saying she should have gotten double or anything more, just that Wal Mart shouldn't have even asked for anything over what was originally given.

Now, there's always two sides to every story, such as if the girl DIDN'T want to give the original amount back but from the original story I seen on TV it didn't SOUND like she was refusing to give it back. Plus, I understand that all of this is in writing but things aren't always so clear cut.

And don't shoot the messenger boy for delivering a story. You may have your opinion but others aren't stupid or "fools" for having a complete opposite reaction than you.

[murda-c]

where i live, there isn't much of a reason to shop at walmart.

it's got enough kmarts and targets and shit, and there's way too much competition and the price of living is too high for them to lower prices enough to drive out the competition. It ends up you don't get anything cheaper from walmart.

[DataXUnknown]

+1 for the costco hot dog and drink meal

although i still get the one at target as well because i always shop there.

if i ever go to wal mart, all i do is screw around and throw marshmellows over to the next isle...haven't been there in a super long time though

[OptionZero]

well that's not very nice, now is it?

WalMart should NOT have asked for interest. Legal fee's....well, not unless they did end up having to sue. I'm not saying she should have gotten double or anything more, just that Wal Mart shouldn't have even asked for anything over what was originally given.

Now, there's always two sides to every story, such as if the girl DIDN'T want to give the original amount back but from the original story I seen on TV it didn't SOUND like she was refusing to give it back. Plus, I understand that all of this is in writing but things aren't always so clear cut.

And don't shoot the messenger boy for delivering a story. You may have your opinion but others aren't stupid or "fools" for having a complete opposite reaction than you.

You delivered a story from November 2007, four months old.

You also ignored in important parts of the story and wrote it in a slanted manner.

Nothing Walmart did should surprise anyone, including the woman's counsel. Again, blame her representation or the system.

[Matej]

Walmart is at full legal right to get the money back at the cost of looking like jerks in the eyes of the public.

And I shop at Walmart for certain things. I'm for supporting the little guy and all that, but when money is tight supporting myself comes first, plus Walmart is just so convenient haha.

[thedecapitator]

wow truly saddening story .. i knew walmart was always like that i heard they have like a 3rd world country making the shirts

anyways i still go to walmart you cant beat the "back to school sale"

10cents for a stack of 200 college ruled paper!!:aw:

[Farzam]

Most of the people I know (not friends) just steal from Wal-Mart.

Lol

[opponheimer]

When the little guy sells moldy lemons and cheese expired for over two months I'll go to walmart man.. Its our own little communism in the business sector of america. I remember working at sam's club in high school. No unions, and you get yelled at if you didn't work your breaks, but you get screwed if you did. Its true big companies suck but its much more efficient for the country and environment than a bunch of little shit small companies.. I like going in to a walmart and knowing exactly where to go to get some headphones or to get some mechanical pencils. As far as cheap chinese crap is concerned... walmart sells sony, BIC, all namebrand shit. The only thing I hate about walmart is when the self-checkout line keeps asking for worker assistance when nothing is fucking wrong.

[98s14inaz]

I dislike shopping at wal-mart. I only buy ammo there and or something that is in fact cheaper there. I can't stand their philosophy and how they treat their employees. Wal-marx for the fail.

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

When the little guy sells moldy lemons and cheese expired for over two months I'll go to walmart man.. Its our own little communism in the business sector of america. I remember working at sam's club in high school. No unions, and you get yelled at if you didn't work your breaks, but you get screwed if you did. Its true big companies suck but its much more efficient for the country and environment than a bunch of little shit small companies.. I like going in to a walmart and knowing exactly where to go to get some headphones or to get some mechanical pencils. As far as cheap chinese crap is concerned... walmart sells sony, BIC, all namebrand shit. The only thing I hate about walmart is when the self-checkout line keeps asking for worker assistance when nothing is fucking wrong.

the same thing goes for costco, Target, and others but others aren't in the center of employee controversy that Wal Mart is under. I just don't like shopping at WalMart because of the creepy people who go there. Plus, the ones by me are really ghetto and the lines get LLLOOONNNNNGGGGG.

Just in yesterday:

Wal-Mart Agrees to Drop Demands on Shank Family (http://walmartwatch.com/blog/archives/wal_mart_agrees_to_drop_demands_on_shank_family/)

Jim Shank, husband of former Wal-Mart employee Deborah Shank, just sent out this statement:
Husband of Deborah Shank, Woman Brain Injured and Sued by Wal-Mart: Thanks to Public Outcry, Wal-Mart Has Finally Decided to Correct Its Error
Wal-Mart Tells Jim Shank it Plans to Drop Claim on Money for His Wife’s Medical Treatment
Jim Shank, the husband of former Wal-Mart employee Deborah Shank, issued the following statement after receiving a letter from Wal-Mart today stating that the company intends to drop its claim for $470,000 from him and his wife – money that the family desperately needs to cover her medical expenses. Deborah Shank was in a car crash seven years ago that left her brain damaged, unable to form short term memory, and in a wheelchair. Wal-Mart, her employer at the time, sued her for the cost of her medical treatment, plus interest and legal fees, after she won a settlement with the trucking company.
“I am grateful that Wal-Mart has seen their error and decided to rectify it. I just wish it hadn’t taken them so long, this never should have happened. I sincerely hope no other family ever has to go through this.

“My thanks go first and foremost to my lord and savior Jesus Christ for the strength to bear up under all this. Thanks also to the citizens of the United States – it wasn’t me who made this happen, it was the outcry of the people, and if there’s a lesson in this story it’s that ‘we the people’ still means something.”

[ESmorz]

When ever I walk into a Wal-Mart I see all the people I DON'T want to be when I get older.

[exitspeed]

My wife refuses to even go to Walmart anymore. Not even because of this stuff, but because they are usually nasty. Last time we went to one there was a used pregnancy test on the ground outside the store. WTF.

I see what you are saying Option, but morally I still disagree with the outcome.

[Mlogue84]

You delivered a story from November 2007, four months old.

You also ignored in important parts of the story and wrote it in a slanted manner.

Nothing Walmart did should surprise anyone, including the woman's counsel. Again, blame her representation or the system.

He didn't write the story... He just posted an article that he read. Ya, It's old but whatever, it's the first I'd heard of it.

But ya, I totally agree that if it went down the way you said it did, and I was Wal-Mart.... I would have done the same thing. On the other hand, if she really did deserve the money and would actually need it for the bills and such... Then Wal-Martart is completely wrong.

.....Glad to hear that they dropped the charges.

[McRussellPants]

Walmart giving up is even more infuriating to me than anything else in this thread.

buh.

Im gonna go get hit by a truck and make my boss pay for it.

god bless america.

[240trainee]

yea

I mean, I'm not a fan of wal mart

but people take legal matters personally, Wal-Mart isn't attacking them as a person.

Woman is injured.

Wal-Mart Pays

Woman sues truck, gets money to cover her already paid for medical expenses, so at this point she has been paid twice.

Wal-Mart wants thier money back, since she got it all paid for from the at fault party. If it had been handled correctly, the insurances would have figured it out, and it never would have been a personal suit.

She wasn't even injured on the job or anything, and Wally world still took care of her shit. Not bad at all if you ask me.

[opponheimer]

I think Each Walmart should incorporate a mcdonalds into their store, the subways in the walmarts just don't offer the food necessary for the fat asses of america

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

yea

I mean, I'm not a fan of wal mart

but people take legal matters personally, Wal-Mart isn't attacking them as a person.

Woman is injured.

Wal-Mart Pays

Woman sues truck, gets money to cover her already paid for medical expenses, so at this point she has been paid twice.

Wal-Mart wants thier money back, since she got it all paid for from the at fault party. If it had been handled correctly, the insurances would have figured it out, and it never would have been a personal suit.

She wasn't even injured on the job or anything, and Wally world still took care of her shit. Not bad at all if you ask me.
Well, Wal-Mart dished out $417,000 in medical expenses. After the woman settled with the truck company for an unknown amount, Wal-Mart turned around and sued her for $470,000, which was more than what was given. Plus, she received the money because she had insurance through Wal-Mart so that money was given to her because she was PAYING INTO IT, whether she was working or not.

[aznpoopy]

alright one thing you're missing

its almost standard practice in a complaint to ask for damages, attorney's fees, costs of suit, interest and and blah blah blah whatever other relief the court deems just, equitable and fair etc etc

so i doubt it was a conscious decision on the part of wal-mart's attorneys to purposely screw her for more money than they paid out

[Pank]

Well, Wal-Mart dished out $417,000 in medical expenses. After the woman settled with the truck company for an unknown amount, Wal-Mart turned around and sued her for $470,000, which was more than what was given. Plus, she received the money because she had insurance through Wal-Mart so that money was given to her because she was PAYING INTO IT, whether she was working or not.

so walmart should just give her an interest free loan then?

Walmart giving up is even more infuriating to me than anything else in this thread.

buh.

Im gonna go get hit by a truck and make my boss pay for it.

god bless america.

its the equivalent of the fat bitch at the video store raising hell and screaming untill the manager takes the 3 dollar late fee off her account so she can rent Babe: pig in the city

[firelizard]

Yeah, I didn't get why the family was all "oh, woe is us!" if they successfully sued the trucking company for the woman not knowing how to drive.

A u-turn in front of a semi and she got blind sided. If that were Canada, there would be none of that BS. At-fault accident, do not pass go, do not collect $700,000.

That's what you get for being a scammer. You get sued. Her attorneys say her family needed $4,000,000 to keep her alive for the rest of her life.

I say fuck off.


A collision with a tractor-trailer seven years ago left 52-year-old Deborah Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a wheelchair. Her husband, Jim, and three sons found a small source of solace: a $700,000 accident settlement from the trucking company involved.
After legal fees and other expenses, the remaining $417,000 was put in a special trust. It was to be used for Deborah Shank's care.
Instead, all of it is now slated to go to Deborah's former employer, Wal-Mart Stores.



MMM, biased reporting, how professional.

Wasn't the $417,000 money that Wal-Mart gave her? Yeah, not the same as the settlement with the trucking company. Which makes $1,117,000. Correct me if I'm wrong but that definitely spells greed to me.

[Pank]

if they needed $4,000,000, they should have sued for that amount. It's not walmarts fault they didnt get it.

[iwishiwas-all*]

it doesnt take anyone more than 30 seconds after walking into a walmart to know they are evil. Any place where you can take a family photo, get new glasses and eat at McDonalds without even leaving the store is what i consider anti american. I mean we are all about capitalism here but just think what that does to unemployment here. all the shops that close because of walmart n stuff. its horrible, allmost socialist in nature how that company operates.

[OptionZero]

I have a better question:

Wal-Mart paid up on the medical expenses up front.
The woman at that point, was "made whole" (afterall, she had over $400K from W-M).

Why did she then sue the trucking company?

If u have ur shit PAID FOR, and then decide to go through the trouble and cost of initiating litigation, it's damn sure not for fun.

Unless Wal-Mart forced her to sue the trucking company (off the top of my head, I can't see how that's possible; as I understand it she has her own lawyer, not a walmart lawyer)...

...the family wanted to sue and GET MORE MONEY.

Whos the greedy scum now.

Recap:

Woman hit by truck.

Wal-mart, employer, covers all woman's expenses.

Woman sues truck company.

Woman settles with truck company for less than wal-mart paid (stupid?)

Wal-mart tries to get money back (Although as mentioned above, they dropped the suit).

What the fuck is "morally" wrong with what Wal-mart did?

If I covered someone's medical bills and they went and used that money to sue and try to recover yet more, i better not hear them bitching when I ask for my money back.

that's assuming I'm as nice as walmart to pay for someone else's damages to begin with...

Where's Michael Moore? He should make a film against greedy plaintiff's lawyers.

if the woman didn't sue out of her own accord, then sure, i'm wrong, but the article states that "the shanks sued the trucking company"

bitch

[Andrew Bohan]

i'm pretty sure she doesn't do anything of her own accord, since she's brain dead. i'm 99% sure it's all her husband.


ANYWAY, where was her auto insurance company through all this?

[iwishiwas-all*]

I have a better question:

Wal-Mart paid up on the medical expenses up front.
The woman at that point, was "made whole" (afterall, she had over $400K from W-M).

Why did she then sue the trucking company?

If u have ur shit PAID FOR, and then decide to go through the trouble and cost of initiating litigation, it's damn sure not for fun.

Unless Wal-Mart forced her to sue the trucking company (off the top of my head, I can't see how that's possible; as I understand it she has her own lawyer, not a walmart lawyer)...

...the family wanted to sue and GET MORE MONEY.

Whos the greedy scum now.

Recap:

Woman hit by truck.

Wal-mart, employer, covers all woman's expenses.

Woman sues truck company.

Woman settles with truck company for less than wal-mart paid (stupid?)

Wal-mart tries to get money back (Although as mentioned above, they dropped the suit).

What the fuck is "morally" wrong with what Wal-mart did?

If I covered someone's medical bills and they went and used that money to sue and try to recover yet more, i better not hear them bitching when I ask for my money back.

that's assuming I'm as nice as walmart to pay for someone else's damages to begin with...

Where's Michael Moore? He should make a film against greedy plaintiff's lawyers.

if the woman didn't sue out of her own accord, then sure, i'm wrong, but the article states that "the shanks sued the trucking company"

bitch

two key words that put this argument out of contention. "Pain & Suffering". her physical wounds were paid for by walmart, but her "emotional" and her permanent debilitation was not, obviously.

[OptionZero]

really? if her pain and suffering was so great beyond her medical bills (what Walmart paid for), then why did she (or her guardians and family) settle for $50k less than that amount?

Pain and suffering belong to her. The injured party him/herself can sue for pain and suffering, medical expenses (including future treatment/therapy/etc), and lost wages (pecuniary damages).

Emotional distress is a cause of action brought by family members.

If you want to bitch about emotional distress, then Wal-Mart is even less at fault, since it has no duty to them. It has a duty to pay for the bills of its employees and anyone covered by that employee's policies...and that does not cover whatever emotiion well-being of the family.

So hey, its a greedy FAMILY, not just a greedy woman now. Even better. let's bitch about them!

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

Wal-Mart’s health insurance plan paid about $470,000 in medical expenses.

this is NOT a loan, this was paid for by the Wal-Mart HEALTH INSURANCE!!! She was paying into it and she deserves to get treated with no money out of her pocket except deductible.

scenario for you:
you break your arm

you buy a house

you sell your house for a HUGE profit

health insurance company wants their money back from when you broke your arm, plus interest

You refuse

they sue and add legal fees on top of it

This is a loophole in their health insurance plan and it morally should not be there! The fact that it IS there is a testimate to how they treat their employees.

[Andrew Bohan]

from the way i understand it, if you get hurt, your own insurance kicks in right away

THEN

if someone else was at fault, you can go after the other person's insurance and get the money back for your insurance

OR

if it was your fault, then your insurance just eats the cost, and maybe your rates go up.

this is a weird case though, since i'm sure walmart was not her auto insurance provider, and it's such a large amount of money

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

from the way i understand it, if you get hurt, your own insurance kicks in right away

THEN

if someone else was at fault, you can go after the other person's insurance and get the money back for your insurance

OR

if it was your fault, then your insurance just eats the cost, and maybe your rates go up.

this is a weird case though, since i'm sure walmart was not her auto insurance provider, and it's such a large amount of money
Exactly. But this exact reason is the reason why we get health insurance, just in case something like this happens. We pay into it FOR A REASON. WalMart didn't do this out of the kindness of their hearts, they just paid for what she was covered for. Then AFTER she won $417K THEN WalMart went after her for $470k. The argument that she is stupid for not suing for more is wrong because WalMart didn't go after her until she settled.

[Andrew Bohan]

walmart could have provided a lawyer for her to get the money from the other insurance, since it was in their interest that she gets a good settlement.

though i'm not exactly sure if it's legal, precisely because of that interest.

but in any case, the shanks should have known that they'd have to pay walmart back if they scored any money from the other insurance.

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

walmart could have provided a lawyer for her to get the money from the other insurance, since it was in their interest that she gets a good settlement.

though i'm not exactly sure if it's legal, precisely because of that interest.

but in any case, the shanks should have known that they'd have to pay walmart back if they scored any money from the other insurance.

But after the Shanks sued and settled with the trucking company
no one said that she sued the other insurance. Her lawsuit SOUNDS like it was a pain and suffering type of case, key word: "sounds".

[D1tuner]

this is NOT a loan, this was paid for by the Wal-Mart HEALTH INSURANCE!!! She was paying into it and she deserves to get treated with no money out of her pocket except deductible.

scenario for you:
you break your arm

you buy a house

you sell your house for a HUGE profit

health insurance company wants their money back from when you broke your arm, plus interest

You refuse

they sue and add legal fees on top of it

This is a loophole in their health insurance plan and it morally should not be there! The fact that it IS there is a testimate to how they treat their employees.

Agreed. what was walmart taking that money out of her pay check every week for. She would have been better off not using walmarts insurance plan at all.

[OptionZero]

this is NOT a loan, this was paid for by the Wal-Mart HEALTH INSURANCE!!! She was paying into it and she deserves to get treated with no money out of her pocket except deductible.

scenario for you:
you break your arm

you buy a house

you sell your house for a HUGE profit

health insurance company wants their money back from when you broke your arm, plus interest

You refuse

they sue and add legal fees on top of it

This is a loophole in their health insurance plan and it morally should not be there! The fact that it IS there is a testimate to how they treat their employees.

Wrong. Funny how you mention huge profits but still focus on bitching about walmart...when its the poor house-selling person thats the victim. How completely backward. Your example might be more accurate if you mentioned that say, wal-mart paid for your real estate agent and all escrow fees and advertising and gave you a place to stay while u were waiting for the sale to close and furnished the new place and gave you a blow job along the way

She got paid by Walmart AND she sued. To try and get money after getting paid already is quintissential double-dpping.

The argument that she's just getting pain and suffering is bootsy. Look at the amounts of money that are being talked about. It's the same 417K in medical expenses that the article mentioned Wal-mart already paid.

If she settled for that amount then she effectively said she didn't want any additional pain and suffering or didn't bother to fight for it.

It's crappy legal representation AND greedy decision making by whoever was taking care of her (family, guardian, plaintiff's lawyer).

When are you going to get it through your damn head isn't not just some "loophole".

This is a policy decision found throughout common law and insurance laws throughout the country to prevent the very real problem of plaintiff windfalls. You should not get paid more than you were injured.

Morally my ass, don't try to bring any self-righteousness into the conversation. This is a legal discussion, and if you can't wrap your head around the rules and reasoning behind the decision, then you have no business living in a society that is governed by law.

AndrewBohan:
From what I read, Wal-Mart got involved because Shank was injured ON THE JOB. This is what triggered their whole obligation to pay at all.

Were this a private case of her getting hit on the way home, then Wal-Mart would not even be in the discussion.

Tangentially, if Wal-Mart provided the lawyer (which does not seem to be the case here), then wouldn't the article be even more bullshit? How is it wrong for them to recover legal fees IF THEY PAID FOR THE LAWYER TO BEGIN WITH?

Yeah, i'll pay for the lawyer to help you get ur medical expenses paid.
What, repay me for the litigation costs? Naw son! keep it! it's on me! you deserve it! MORALLY I owe it to you to hand out money!


This is the problem with America.

Self entitlement.

ignorance

lack of reading comprehension

here, i'll pay for you to go to first year law school

don't worry tho, u dont have to pay me back once u acquire some basic understanding of the legal system and principles behind our modern jurisprudence

morally i should have paid for you to be educated to begin with, sue me for being stupid not to do it sooner

and if u get a lawyer job and make bank (Which i don't), feel free not to pay me back, its yours! get hit by a car so i have an excuse to pay you more

fuck

[SimpleS14]

Not even going to chime into this heated argument...

but i must say, after watching that video...i don't think i can ever go to Wal-Mart again. It makes me wonder if they will ever dissolve (by becoming a monopoly) or improve in anyway once time goes by.

[ESmorz]

Not even going to chime into this heated argument...

but i must say, after watching that video...i don't think i can ever go to Wal-Mart again. It makes me wonder if they will ever dissolve (by becoming a monopoly) or improve in anyway once time goes by.

Yeah that video was kind of sickening.