Walmart sues brain-damaged mother of US soldier killed in Iraq for $470,000

All I can say is wow...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/wal...tle/index.html

Add that to my list of reasons I hate walmart. I feel so bad for that poor family. I can't even put into words how unjust that is.

that is so incredibly sad. But I work for wal-mart, a store that makes me most sales in the nation, and it's all true. They don't care who they hurt to save a little money. My aunt has worked there for over 40 years, and a couple years ago she got uterine cancer and had to have a lot of chemo. She missed a lot of work, and even with her healthcare plan from wal-mart, they paid for barely anything. when she came back, they changed her job to where she made less money than before and put a cap on her pay so she can't get anymore raises.

Wal-mart doesn't care about anything.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

I don't understand why walmart wants the money back? They paid for the medical bills, so they want they money they paid for it back? That's not really fair at all, that's the whole point you pay for insurance, so you don't have to pay it back.

Fairness has nothing to do with this. I don't like Walmart either for many things they do, but these folks signed up for a health plan that had this stipulation. The fact that they ignored a part of that plan when they sued for damages doesn't mean they shouldn't be held accountable for what they signed up for. Walmart isn't being mean; they are protecting their rights and against creating a precedent.

Personally, pay Walmart back what is owed them. And then Walmart should make a gift to that woman that same amount. Legally, everyone has followed the rules...and instead of Walmart looking like an ebil tyrant, they get be a good guy.

***
I hate to sound like I'm "sticking up" for Walmart, but I'm tired of hearing people whine about how things "aren't fair", especially in relation to variable sub-prime mortgages. "Wanh, it's not fair my mortgage has gone up a zillion dollars month, they can't ask for all my money."

Um, yes they can. You were responsible for understanding what you were signing when you bought that mortgage. You're not being fair saying you shouldn't have pay what you said you'd pay.

Gee what a bunch of losers :mad: :mad:.Good going Walmart :mad: :mad:

That is horrible. Is there a fund available to donate to her cause? I couldn't find anything.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyOhh

That is horrible. Is there a fund available to donate to her cause? I couldn't find anything.....

---

Probably not because Walmart would take it :mad:

What do you expect from a company that under pays employees so that they can get welfare to get by or to cover medical expenses. you get what you pay for and those low prices come right back to hit you when you pay your taxes. :rage:

This is a good example of how two wrongs don't make a right.

1st wrong: As part of the "health benefits" contract (NOT to be confused with health insurance), it states if the woman wins a settlement related to health care Walmart is entitled to it. Well, she won a settlement with the trucking company that hit her. So now Walmart wants the money she said she would give them by signing the health benefit contract.

2nd wrong: Yes technically Walmart is fully entitled to the money she won in the settlement, because she agreed to it. However given the circumstances of the situation with her, her son and her husband, Walmart should just look the other way and move on.

It's in the health plan, and if they were given money for the medical expenses, then sued and got money to pay the medical expenses, they got double-paid. The contract states this, and they should have understood it.
It's not "mean" or "unfair" it's business.
I think the fact that they continually refer to her slain son to gain sympathy is rather low. It has nothing to do with what's happening at all, but they use it to gain sympathy.
While I'd like to hear that she got good things to happen for her, the fact is the contracted health plan states this in it. It's not something Walmart made up after the fact in order to "steal" her money.
Just my opinion, but geez. It's a contracted medical plan. Their lawyer screwed up in this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfy-hound

Just my opinion, but geez. It's a contracted medical plan. Their lawyer screwed up in this.

---

We don't know, but I would guess that if their attorney knew about this stipulation in the health insurance contract, he would have gotten the defendant to increase the payout amount to cover the repayment to Walmart...

Hindsight is a fabulous and useless thing in this case.

Stupid old WalMart. They make it all great-sounding like.. "we are nono-union, but we provide our workers with a living wage and GREAT health insurance!!" when it is all a crock of bull. I have decided not to shop there anymore. Their material goods like bedding, furniture, etc. is JUNK and lasts for about 5 minutes.. and their food prices are now about equal or higher, to the local store here that has a union and a great health care plan for its employees (I used to work there.. it was awesome health-wise.)
Stupid megalomaniacs. :(

UPDATE:

http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/to...-disaster.aspx

"After fighting all the way to the Supreme Court, retailing behemoth Wal-Mart announced yesterday it would drop its claim to the settlement a former employee received after a horrific traffic accident. The change of heart came just as the funds, all $270,000 that remained, were being prepped for transfer to the company’s coffers. Unfortunately, it comes way too late to save any shred of goodwill in the minds of consumers.

The case involves 52-year-old Deborah Shank, who worked as a night-shift shelf stocker until a run-in with a tractor-trailer left her permanently brain-damaged and wheelchair bound. Although the story has been in and out of the news since December, things picked up when Wal-Mart won its suit against the family a few weeks ago.

This spurred MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann to award the company his “Worst Person in the World” award for four straight nights—starting with this tirade last Thursday. The blogosphere absolutely erupted over the story’s injustice. No wonder, given that this stokes all those passionate anti-corporatism and anti-globalization feelings bloggers often harbor.

Because of its already tattered image, this was an especially bad move for Wal-Mart. Even more infuriating is how, as public pressure grew to a fever pitch, Wal-Mart’s PR hacks continued to resist calls for change. The company needs to be smarter than this. Otherwise, all efforts to change the public’s perception of it will fail; as will efforts to attract the urban and suburban shoppers that remain the company’s last untapped opportunity here in the United States.

Sure, hyping up edgy new blogs, rolling out private-label organic coffees, making its stores more energy efficient, and going upscale with sushi and $500 wine are steps in the right direction. But if Wal-Mart wants to be seen as cool, à la Apple, Google, or Starbucks, it really needs to stop acting so maliciously. Yesterday’s statement, in which the company offers a feeble apology for “any additional stress” it placed on the Shanks, won’t help matters much. Nor will its lukewarm efforts to expand healthcare coverage amongst employees.

Embarrassingly, this bad publicity comes as the company unveils its big “Earth Month” campaign that will showcase its sustainability efforts. A big advertising push will play up Wal-Mart’s role in making eco-friendly products more affordable and accessible.

In the meantime, shares continue to trend higher as investors enjoy the company’s position as the retailer of last resort for embattled consumers. Given that we've yet to reach the full depths of this recession, Wal-Mart's stock price has room to run.

On average, analysts are looking for earnings per share to ring in at $3.40 this year. Assuming the market awards the company a premium closer to Costco, which is also benefiting from a weak consumer but gets the whole corporate social responsibility thing, I’m looking for shares to trade at 19 or 20 times this estimate—moving prices into the upper $60s over the next few months.

Eventually, as consumers regain their footing, come out of survival mode, and become more selective, the folks down in Bentonville will need to come to terms with their corporate attitude problem. Otherwise, shoppers will prefer the guilt-free experience they get at Costco and Target."

“It is difficult, but not impossible, to conduct strictly honest business”

Mahatma Gandhi

Doesn't it say it all? I do notice no one bothered to comment on the fact that the lawyers took 1/2 the money and didn't offer any of it to assist their client. I'm happy to see Wal-Mart folded under the 'bad publicity' hammer.

it makes me proud to say yet again, that i still don't shop at walmart, and never plan on doing so. there are plenty of other stores to get your goods at, where your money doesn't have to go to such greedy owners who care about nothing but them selfs.

i don't shop at any large chain stores. i prefer to support the small, privately owned stores.

they should give her a fake check she may not know the difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 420 boa

they should give her a fake check she may not know the difference.

---

:colbert: i'm speechless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyOhh

UPDATE:

http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/to...-disaster.aspx

"After fighting all the way to the Supreme Court, retailing behemoth Wal-Mart announced yesterday it would drop its claim to the settlement a former employee received after a horrific traffic accident. The change of heart came just as the funds, all $270,000 that remained, were being prepped for transfer to the company’s coffers. Unfortunately, it comes way too late to save any shred of goodwill in the minds of consumers.

The case involves 52-year-old Deborah Shank, who worked as a night-shift shelf stocker until a run-in with a tractor-trailer left her permanently brain-damaged and wheelchair bound. Although the story has been in and out of the news since December, things picked up when Wal-Mart won its suit against the family a few weeks ago.

This spurred MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann to award the company his “Worst Person in the World” award for four straight nights—starting with this tirade last Thursday. The blogosphere absolutely erupted over the story’s injustice. No wonder, given that this stokes all those passionate anti-corporatism and anti-globalization feelings bloggers often harbor.

Because of its already tattered image, this was an especially bad move for Wal-Mart. Even more infuriating is how, as public pressure grew to a fever pitch, Wal-Mart’s PR hacks continued to resist calls for change. The company needs to be smarter than this. Otherwise, all efforts to change the public’s perception of it will fail; as will efforts to attract the urban and suburban shoppers that remain the company’s last untapped opportunity here in the United States.

Sure, hyping up edgy new blogs, rolling out private-label organic coffees, making its stores more energy efficient, and going upscale with sushi and $500 wine are steps in the right direction. But if Wal-Mart wants to be seen as cool, à la Apple, Google, or Starbucks, it really needs to stop acting so maliciously. Yesterday’s statement, in which the company offers a feeble apology for “any additional stress” it placed on the Shanks, won’t help matters much. Nor will its lukewarm efforts to expand healthcare coverage amongst employees.

Embarrassingly, this bad publicity comes as the company unveils its big “Earth Month” campaign that will showcase its sustainability efforts. A big advertising push will play up Wal-Mart’s role in making eco-friendly products more affordable and accessible.

In the meantime, shares continue to trend higher as investors enjoy the company’s position as the retailer of last resort for embattled consumers. Given that we've yet to reach the full depths of this recession, Wal-Mart's stock price has room to run.

On average, analysts are looking for earnings per share to ring in at $3.40 this year. Assuming the market awards the company a premium closer to Costco, which is also benefiting from a weak consumer but gets the whole corporate social responsibility thing, I’m looking for shares to trade at 19 or 20 times this estimate—moving prices into the upper $60s over the next few months.

Eventually, as consumers regain their footing, come out of survival mode, and become more selective, the folks down in Bentonville will need to come to terms with their corporate attitude problem. Otherwise, shoppers will prefer the guilt-free experience they get at Costco and Target."

---

they only did this cause they relized that $270,000 is nothing compared to the losses that they would take if they took the money.



."[/QUOTE] they should give her a fake check ."[/QUOTE]

i am abosoultely speech less. :mad:

I can see where it is an issue of, reading up on the policy beforehand and understanding it. But if she had to pay it back.. that sounds more like a loan, than insurance. Wow I am glad that my company has a great insurance policy! I read the thing with its fine print.. I think that everyone should do this.
And lawyers.. will be lawyers. Not to offend anyone here who is one or knows one. But they don't always work for the greater good; they are often in it for the $$.

and thats why i dont shop at walmart. i dont like how they flaunt peoples disablities. yea its a great opportunity for people with disablities like that, but to make it the only focus kinda makes me sad especially in my area. i mean i go into a walmart and i actually feel bad for people i mean they have a guy who has als stocking shelves. they have a guy with one arm ringing the register. and they have a lady who can barely move greating people in my area and its kinda crazy in my opinion. but you know what if they can do it they might as well. but if something that bad happens to someone dont take adavantage of them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 420 boa

they should give her a fake check she may not know the difference.

---

was that supposed to be funny?

hahaha <-- fake laugh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 420 boa

they should give her a fake check she may not know the difference.

---

That was such a distasteful comment. As someone who works with the physically and mentally disabled, I'm deeply offended by that comment. :(

Wow, I feel for this lady, and her family like nothing I have felt in the past few years... This sounds wrong but I have to say that as extreme as this case is, Walmart is not in the wrong... They are contractually obligated to "follow their contract"... I am SOOOOOO happy they decided to drop the case, but honestly they would have kept winning, because its "iron clad" so other people can't fake a situation like this. Walmart DID PAY $477,000 so lets not forget that they did try in the first place. Think of it this way, would you rather the lady died because Walmart didn't front the $477k? Well, that might have saved a lot of the recent problems, but the son would still be dead, and the husband would still be out a wife. The only thing wrong here is some corporate TITAN! wanted their money back. And it was a lot of $ to begin with.

Ps. I don't agree with WALMARTin the slightest, but what they did was totally legal, and honest.

you people have wild animals like I do. The strong eat the weak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 420 boa

they should give her a fake check she may not know the difference.

---

This wins the dubious prize of the most thoughtless, waste of keystrokes post ever seen in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 420 boa

you people have wild animals like I do. The strong eat the weak.

---

Do NOT equate my ownership of snakes with anything to do with your mindset with regard to the disabled!

How can it cost 470 000 dollar to go to the doctor??!
You must be so afraid of getting sick! Medical treatment is allways for free here, it dont matter if your rich or homeless...

the usa you have to pay for medical care

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty

and thats why i dont shop at walmart. i dont like how they flaunt peoples disablities. yea its a great opportunity for people with disablities like that, but to make it the only focus kinda makes me sad especially in my area. i mean i go into a walmart and i actually feel bad for people i mean they have a guy who has als stocking shelves. they have a guy with one arm ringing the register. and they have a lady who can barely move greating people in my area and its kinda crazy in my opinion. but you know what if they can do it they might as well. but if something that bad happens to someone dont take adavantage of them

---

How is walmart taking advantage of the disabled by offering them employment? Would you prefer that these people just sit at home all day and collect a welfare check? I applaud their determination to be self-sufficient and productive members of society.

Looking at the disabled and feeling sad does nothing to help them. I'd suggest turning your pity into something that's productive, like giving to charities that help those less fortunate than you are. Trust me, it's a great feeling to know you're helping others in need.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 420 boa

you people have wild animals like I do. The strong eat the weak.

---

These are human beings, not wild animals. I'm sure you would be a little less insensitive if someone close to you had a disability. :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikkla

How can it cost 470 000 dollar to go to the doctor??!
You must be so afraid of getting sick! Medical treatment is allways for free here, it dont matter if your rich or homeless...

---

Cant argue with free* :)


*Must give half of your earnings to the Swedish government. If you aren't satisfied with our services, too bad - we're still going to take your money.

Sorry, just a little pet peeve of mine. Nothing is free. Sweden is reported to have a tax burden of 47.8% - the second highest in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty

the usa you have to pay for medical care

---

Just like every other country in the world. Either through voluntary means or through taxation.

[QUOTE=Figure8;757331]Nothing is free. Sweden is reported to have a tax burden of 47.8% - the second highest in the world.QUOTE]

I pay 31% in taxes and 25% VAT when I buy something (books and stuff like that is 6% VAT). So maybe it´s a little bit higher but I gladly pay so that I know that everybody in my country will get proper medical care if they get sick.

I agree and coming from a socialized medicine country I can tell you I miss it a lot. It's not free because you do pay for it through taxation and by employer contributions based on their number of employees. It does take away the worry that your health care for your family is tied to when your next pay check is due. Not to go off topic here but considering the US has some pretty dismal stats when it comes to infant mortality, women dying needlessly from breast cancer, poor prenatal care, etc. I don't think the current way the US handles it's health care needs works by any stretch of the imagination. :(