Wal-Mart sues brain damaged woman

reply to post by DezertSkies


Wow that is a large step when you come down from that mighty pedestal upon which you have placed yourself. You know you are in better physical health than me? That is laughable to know that you know so much about me with all of the assumptions you have made one might think you are a God or at the very least psychic.

I am glad you lost weight and all though because I see you think much better of yourself, which is a good thing. But you know what they say about how one can get too much of a good thing. As for my weight that is an issue that has never troubled me or my family. You see we do not have that problem and for the most part are more than active enough to help with that as well. The best advice I can give for those who tend to eat too much and sit around to gain weight is get off your rear more.

Glad to know you do not think you are better than me though. But wait it seems you do as your post is rather condescending. To you I must seem like some backwoods overweight hillbilly. I am far from that though.

Why do I spend so much on food? I buy a month’s supply at one time. This is also a cost savings by the way. Also unlike many I do not believe in eating large amounts at one time. It is much better to eat smaller amounts more often. As for medical bills I am never sick only things I get are some sinus sniffles in the Spring and Autumn. Unless you can prove to me that is due to what I am eating your medical argument does little to count. I do not need to see a doctor unless I am getting a check up and I am quite healthy.
I love to eat meat, nothing wrong with a steak that has some blood coming out of it. I am not saying I eat red meat daily but do a few times a week. The rest is chicken and fish I also tend to love potatoes and beans. Breads are also one of my favorite things to eat.

Let me see, so far you are wrong about my being a backwoods overweight hillbilly. Also my being completely unhealthy, disease ridden and going to the doctor weekly. You also are wrong to assume that I am taking any kind of pharmaceutical.

I am glad you feel you are doing your part. You say you are not buying things that are third world plastic and such. What about the computer you are on now? If it is not you are supporting them by using the thing. Do you own a car? Better check where the plastics are made on it I will bet that they are made someplace other than the U.S. By the way at this moment I happen to work for a company that makes plastics for consumers like me. What about the home you live in? Are you sure that everything is natural and organic there? If not you are still not really doing your part are you? If I stopped buying such plastics I would in a sense put myself out of a job. How is that going to help my family?

Many people are so illiterate they cannot use words as weapons in this war? Wow so now you are not only better than me but others as well. I see plenty of people on this board that uses words very effectively. As well I know quite a few people that do well with word usage. As for my soul I feel it is quite healthy and in place with the God I worship.

First I would like to say that this has nothing to do with the thread we are posting on and should be taken someplace else. This thread is about Wal-Mart screwing this woman over. Not about which life style you or I intend to live.

Secondly you do seem to have some greater than thou attitude that shows quite well in your posts rather you can see it or even intend it is for you to know. I would explain more but you or a mod may consider that a personal attack. It would not be intended that way but some are unable to take constructive criticism well.

I never claimed to have led a perfect life. I do things that need to be done and spend money on things that it needs to be spent on. If you would like to spend the extra money each month to feed my family the way you see fit you are more than welcome to pay the bill. But I must warn you meat will be added to that diet. I simply said Wal-Mart was wrong on this issue and explained they need to do this on a case by case basis if they do it at all. As has been said it is about greed more than anything else. I would wager that you are feeding the pockets of the greedy rather you know it or admit it.

As for now can we please get back on topic?

Raist

If she was paying into her health insurance then why are they suing her for, isn't that what she was paying for?

And this just goes to show you that capitalism is good to a certain extent and then it just becomes greed. If any of these people that run these big corporations had all the money in the world it still wouldn't be enough. The next thing they would want is your soul.

Originally posted by thought
Wow. So many people here at ATS have no understanding of economics. People who work at Wal-Mart work there out of CHOICE. Wal-Mart has to pay a wage people will want-it beats all of the fast food joints.

It beats working at fast-food joints only because of work environment. The wages and stress levels are identical, but at least working at Wal-Mart doesn't mean you come home covered in a layer of grease.

Wal-Mart has to pay wages people want? No, it doesn't. It doesn't, Target doesn't, McDonalds doesn't... None of these low-end jobs do. All they have to do is offer pay - ANY amount of pay - and they will have a full roster of employees.

This is because people need to eat, and need to at least try to have clothing and homes, and in desperate straits, will accept ANY amount greater than zero. If you're living off tapwater and a box of saltines, and are on the verge of being kicked out of the apartment you have, you're not going to be holding out for a particular job - you're going to go for the first one that calls back.

Or in other words... If you really had a choice, why the hell are you working at Wal-Mart?

Is it a great job? Hell no! But it is often a pretty good job for students or mothers who only want to work part time. I've worked there myself. It's not great, but it's hardly the hell you describe.

I've worked in hell jobs - try working in a non-union food processing plant, THAT is hell. And no, Wal-Mart is not hellish. It's simply not a good job. Long hours, bad pay, low benefits... It's a job you take if you're fresh off the boat and need to collect ramen until a real job opens up. Unfortunately there are lots oe people who for one reason or another, rely on Wal-Mart for the main source of their income.

Why? Let's talk economics again. One of the truisms of capitalism is that it takes money to make money, and the richer you are, the richer you can get. So say a Wal-Mart opens up in your town. Or a Subway. Or what have you. What happens is that these outlets can afford to undercut their own prices, in order to offer you a much better deal when purchasing. Through this, they out-compete your local store or deli.

Good for you, the buyer? Sure, unless you work at that strore or deli. Or if your income is at all dependant on these places. You see, when a business is being outcompeted, it custs costs - and htre biggest costs are employees and employee benefits. Layoffs occur.

And you know what? Wal-Mart only has so many positions to fill, itself. There have been many instances where the presence of wal-mart has literally killed a town's economy. Not every time, clearly, but the process by which it goes is pretty well-documented.

So what happens to the Wal-Mart when Everyone in its location is unemployed, or both working at and shopping at Wal-Mart? Net loss for the outlet. TO stop hte loss, the store either jacks up its prices - which bites hte hell out of people who shop there, but also maybe revitalizing other businesses. Or it can cut its losses and close its doors - which is the SOP for wal-mart.

Originally posted by jackinthebox

"The recovery that Debbie Shank made was recovery for future lost earnings, for her pain and suffering," Graham said.

Seems to me that the award was not given as a reimbursment for medical expenses, and therefore Wal-Mart should not be entitled to a reimbursment of those medical expenses.

Why didn't her lawey know about this "fine print"? I would sue the lawyer.

I agree with you about the money she was awarded but I don't think you can sue your own lawyer. That would also be in the "fine print" that was signed by the Shank's upon retaining the lawyer.


For Wal-mart (they must be self insured?) to "recoup" (as it was put) money paid out for Shank's medical expenses I would think it would be contingent upon the wording in her lawsuit. If she was awarded money for medical expenses that Wal-mart has already paid then it makes sense to recoup it. If the awarded money was for pain and suffering or the cost of long term care then I think they are taking advantage of her. Actually if Wal-mart is so worried about their $470,000 that bad they could also sue the trucking company to "recoup" it, but instead they went after Shank's money (easy pickins). I wounder if they didn't sue the trucking co. anyway.

While I certainly understand why some people are outraged over this, I am more outraged that the US Government sends BILLIONS of dollars in foreign aid (this woman's tax dollars) out of our couuntry when that money could be used here to help people like this woman.

I work in retail myself, for a CVS/pharmacy, in old greenwich, CT, as a shift supervisor. Been employed with CVS since november 1994. What i can tell you all, is every store, no matter the chain, has a different maanger...each manager runs a store in his/her own way. S one walmart, may be cool, while the other one sucks. As for treatment of employees, yes, in retail it does suck. Managers only really like the ones they like, and the rest, are forced or made to quit, while in my wstores case, the hire illegal immigrants. I have myself, reported this to board of labor, and human resources in CVS, teah so im awhitsle blower, right is right, and wrong is wrong... thiers to much red tape in the politics of it all.
A pharmacist is our store, a muslim, exposed himself to a female empoyee, adn tried that with me recelty. They barely ever wash their hands, when dispensing medication, after leavin bathroom. Hell, the shoplifters get FAR better treatment sometimes, than the employees. Its kinda like slave labor/sweatshop standards, but with higher pay.
I do feel abd for that woman, walmart can make that money in an hour or less. After readin here, think i should become a Target shopper too. If you have al seen the video about walmart, the 2 that own it, their kinda eccentric... they got a bomb shelter built in their backyard. The point is, they have gone modern day corporate..... NWO in effect.

We seem to hear in an increasing rate sad stories about people that can't support their families.
A portion of the wealthier listeners of such news argue that growing poverty rates are just a byproduct of the present laws of economics.
The main argument is that While some get a bit richer some have to get a bit poorer, implying that we all have to follow this trend because else doing anything different the current "economics" might collapse, resulting in even less opportunities for economic sustainment or even future growth for both the less fortunate and the more fortunate alike.

The arguments continue with paradigms and cases that the less fortunate can better their positions by following different strategies. Yet no strategies are indicated for anyone fortunate enough because simply, they are doing fine!
You are not doing fine if your neighbors house catches fire and you think you can simply sit and watch without protecting yourself or even helping your neighbor save his residence. The main thoughts of a fortunate individual is, "if it isn't broke, why fix it"?
But is it really like that? Do we all understand how these economic laws really operate? Do we have any real knowledge of who is influencing them and why? Do we all get the bigger picture? Are we knowlegable about the cyclic processes of these economic models we support? On what grounds we base our opinions and decisions if we don't understand how the system works?

The real problem is that current schemes/opinions/examples as they hold, do nothing less than place even more burdens and obstacles upon the shoulders of the less fortunate, we seem to now demand from the people with insufficient education, limited social connections, growing family problems to become more resourceful, more ingenious and solve their problems without expecting much of outside help. It is clear that this strategy will never work, if the current social/economic trends that still hold have not helped those people in the past, there are now even fewer chances it will help them now or in the future.

The main point is this:

All people are entitled to rights of a decent living, fair education and opportunities to better their lives and help human society arrive in a better status of living conditions that can help the society in a whole to evolve at faster rates, thus dealing faster with new problems that may arise in the future. It is a interdependable cyclic process that needs to be fueled in order for it to start moving.

The above is the main point that many people having fortunate circumstances in their lives simply do not get!

In the present nobody is willing to give out anything for this essential amount of "fuel" to be donated, be it new opportunities in the view of gathering resources by an optimistic space program, be it a new optimistic economic model to be enforced, be it for a new philosophy of cheaper energy production, be it for laws or models that require the fortunate to lose something from their income that will help less fortunate to have a better chance. Neither governments nor individuals are doing serious thinking of how help might arrive in those of need.

the less fortunate have to burn their non existent remaining supplies in order for them to help themselves. I am sorry but this will not happen.

We can either sit and watch society's disintegration by the way current economic schemes work or do some serious thinking about doing something and arrive at a safer future for all of us, less fortunate and more fortunate alike.

Everything that is there to argue eventually boils down to what I state above, there is no shortcut or magic tricks to avoid this confrontation. We will all have to chip in sometime, else the "fuel" will run short for all of us except the very few and very rich.

All of us, except the very few will eventually arrive in a future with non existant opportunities and much despair if we don't act now.
WE are the solution to our problems, not some distant government or some filthy rich individuals. We make the opportunities, all of us, it is our labors and our efforts that made society what it is, why should we wait for some distant and detached from reality authority to save us? Why are we separating ourselves from the collective process of acquiring a better future? If you do nothing, you get nothing. We all live in the same world, everyones problems sooner or later WILL affect everyone of us. We better realize these things NOW!

[edit on 1-4-2008 by spacebot]

reply to post by Raist


Raist, I am not attacking you here but there are cheaper places to shop than walmart. If you are buying food some of Walmarts prices are out-freaking-rageous. A smart shopper will shop other places. Aldi is a good place. Save-a-lot is one...there are plenty of places to shop and stay away from the "Giant". We no longer spend our money there. I worked there is a kid back when the old man was still alive and it was a differnt place. There were actually american made products there. But that isn't Wal-marts fault it is ours. We want cheaper...no matter that the quality is absolute crap.
Be smart about your shopping and yes it does involve a little extra work on your part...If it was a priority for you to be a smart shopper then yes you would shop other places. Now it is just easier for you

I don't care how "convenient" or cheap Wal-wart is for shopping.

This is a question of morals, and if we are going to look at this, we should look at this one case; and imo Walwart is Scum, good grief this lady has to relive her own sons death in Iraq(irony eh?)everytime someone tells her, because she forgets it five minutes later.

I don't care what good WalMart does around the world. I care about what they look like when put under the microscope.

They could have done a million great things, but that Does not give them a FREE PASS or the RIGHT to screw over this poor family, out of $400,000, which isn't even gonna last them 2 years in the care this woman needs.

If Walwart is such a great company and into helping those all over the world, why are they doing this to this woman? You know why? because they are not good people, that's why. They are greedy, plain and simple.

I could see if this was a mom and pop shop, and losing a lawsuit like this would ruin their business, but this is walmart, as was said they make this money, in less than an hour, there is no reason for this.

So in my personal opinion. FU Walmart.

But thinking about it, now that this story is out (ty OP) I'll sit happily knowing that the backlash of this terrible decision , in the end, is gonna cost Walmart ALOT more than the $400,000 they're suing this nearly braindead woman, who's husband has cancer, and their son just died defending the countries consumers Walmart makes the majority of thier moneys from.

ok, so let me get this straight.. this women wants to sue walmart for money because she didn't bother to read the fine print of something she put her signature on. She got into an accident somewhere, got brain damaged, sued the trucking company for money, won, and is now crying and complaining because walmart did its due diligence and collected on its contract?

So basically, i'm supposed to feel sorry for this person because of their own ignorance and stupidity now that shes in a bad spot, right?

fat chance.

I agree, lawyers shouldn't be taking out that much. Unfortunately, it's standard practice for them to take one-third of thejudgment. Who else makes that kind of money in that way?

As for Wal-Mart, shouldn't they be reimbursed by their insurance company? I'm not talking the health insurance but the insurance that most businesses carry? Isn't that what insurance is for?

At any rate, Wart Mall didn't find out until two years after the fact. Now they want the entire $400,000 which means that poor husband will have to work until he drops. Then who will care for the woman? She will be supported by some social program which costs the taxpayers money. It ALWAYS come down to the little guy having to pay yet more for corps to stay in business.
Did Wart Mall never stop to realize that if the woman had continued to work there for the rest of her life, she would have probably made about that much. Hell, they may have even saved money. Does their greed know no bounds? I would be so embarassed to do such a thing if I ran a company.

The poor woman took out a health insurance policy, and in the end, she still ends up paying for her medical treatment anyway, so what good is the insurance???

What is Wal-Mart thinking of by recovering someone else's money and giving it to themselves? They could use this same type of thinking with every case like this, and no one will have health insurance, even though they paid for it and signed up for it.
I would be asking for a reimbursement of all the money I spent on health insurance.
She may well have a lawsuit or two to enter into, if the family wishes. She might be able to sue the lawyer for malpractice, or she might want to sue Wal-Mart for bankrupting her and for unethical practices by the corporation. Not that they would be won, though.
This world is losing its compassion day by day.

reply to post by Unit541


You're exactly right Unit...If more people knew the truth about the corporate empire that is walmar and how they run their business, they wouldn't shop there. Someone opened my eyes a couple of years ago, and I haven't gone back.

However, in this case, from what I can tell, the woman committed fraud, and got caught. Break the law, pay the price.

Everyone can relax.

Walmart dropped the suit.

The world's largest retailer said Tuesday in a letter to the family of Deborah Shank it will not seek to collect money the Shanks won in an injury lawsuit against a trucking company for the accident.

Wal-Mart's top executive for human resources, Pat Curran, wrote that Ms. Shank's extraordinary situation had made the company re-examine its stance. Wal-Mart has been roundly criticized in newspaper editorials, on cable news shows and by its union foes for its claim to the funds, which it made in a lawsuit upheld by a federal appeals court.

Insurance experts say it is increasingly common for health plans to seek reimbursement for the medical expenses they paid for someone's treatment if the person also collects damages in an injury suit. The practice, called "subrogation," has increased since a 2006 Supreme Court ruling that eased it.

online.wsj.com...

Subrogation is the word I heard for the first time in a hospital examination room. It's SOP.

I'm sure WalMart thought they'd lose more than a half million in the long run because of the public outrage, but I still blame the lawyers.

They took roughly 60% of the award and Walmart has to eat the money.

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


Thanks for the update.

Perhaps some prayers were hears on this or maybe the public outcry reached what many would call normally deaf ears.

Wow, it seems Wal-Mart makes a few good decisions from time to time.
Or maybe a few actually had a change of heart.



Either way good news for the family. Maybe now they can get some money back from their lawyer.

Raist

thats another reason why i can't stand large corporate entities, they have no soul, they might as well be robots. no sense of compassion or forgiveness, no sense of humanity at all.


Keeper

reply to post by Keeper of Kheb


I guarantee that this country would be a very different place if it weren't for charitable trusts and endowments created by corporations or those made very wealthy by corporations.

Originally posted by thought

I guarantee that this country would be a very different place if it weren't for charitable trusts and endowments created by corporations or those made very wealthy by corporations.

Agreed. If you go to a WalMart, there is a board in the front of each store that tallies the amount of money that that store has donated to local causes.

We should all be very grateful that there are large successful corporations out there, even oil companies, for without them and their success, we would simply not have the conveniences of our lives.

Imagine if the oil companies couldn't make a profit. What would be their incentive to buy oil and sell petroleum products.

We have oil right here in the US that could ease our dependence on foreign oil, but either because of environmentalists making it impossible to drill or because it is cheaper, even now, for us to buy someone else's oil than to explore and drill for our own, we just keep dancing to the OPEC's tune.

There was an oil bust in the eighties that nearly crippled the Louisiana economy, when foreign oil prices dipped and it was no longer profitable drill for domestic oil. A lot of millionaires lost everything, including one of my uncles.

Remember, no profits, no products.

[edit on 2008/4/2 by GradyPhilpott]

Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, who called Debbie Shank's case "unbelievably sad," replied in a statement: "Wal-Mart's plan is bound by very specific rules. ... We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank's case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan."

I stand by walmart, you can't just change the rules whenever you want to, its unfair to everyone

[edit on 3-4-2008 by Damien_Hell]