Meanwhile...that insurance policy hasn't changed...and others will eventually fall into the same situation and probably will not have the media to bail them out with a great big sob story to make everyone all angry and teary-eyed.
And while everybody was busy scolding the big bad corporation, this ambulance chasing lawyer who should've had the sense to ask for more damages walked away unscatched and several hundred thousand dollars richer.
Meanwhile...that insurance policy hasn't changed...and others will eventually fall into the same situation and probably will not have the media to bail them out with a great big sob story to make everyone all angry and teary-eyed.
And while everybody was busy scolding the big bad corporation, this ambulance chasing lawyer who should've had the sense to ask for more damages walked away unscatched and several hundred thousand dollars richer.
Actually, the quote said that walmart planned to modify the policy to give themselves more options pertaining to individual cases. Do I expect them to do this with everyone? No. I'd be surprised if they did it with even one more person. And as for that shitty lawyer...he's a lawyer.
Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker
Posted on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 6:26 PM PT
By Rich Gardella and Lisa Myers, NBC News
On Saturday's Nightly News, NBC News Senior Investigative Correspondent Lisa Myers reported on Deborah Shank, a former employee of Wal-Mart permanently disabled in a car accident eight years ago. Wal-Mart's health plan had moved to collect some of the settlement money she won in a lawsuit against a trucking firm in order to reimburse itself for the more than $470,000 in medical expenses it had paid for Shank.
Although it had just contacted Shank's attorney to begin the process of actually collecting the money from Shank and her husband, Wal-Mart announced Tuesday it had reversed its decision and said that it no longer will seek any reimbursement from the Shanks.
Wal-Mart had won its case in several courts over the past few years. Recently, the Supreme Court declined to hear Shank's appeal.
Both CNN and NBC News broadcast Shank's story last week, generating a large viewer response.
"We have decided to modify our plan to allow us more discretion for individual cases, and are in the final stages of working out the details," Wal-Mart's statement, released Tuesday, reads. "Wal-Mart will not seek any reimbursement for the money already spent on Ms. Shank's care, and we will work with the family to ensure the remaining amounts in the trust can be used for her ongoing care."
Wal-Mart ended its statement with an apology "for any additional stress this has put on the Shank family."
Jim Shank, Deborah's husbnad, released a statement in response: "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."
That's good for her personally, but I think Wal-Mart really shouldn't have to do this. I'll bet almost every insurance policy out there is similar to theirs, but because they are the big, bad Wal-Mart, the media rips on them and they are forced to acquiesce.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
As others have said, her LAWYER is the one who screwed up. Wal-Mart shouldn't have to suffer for someone else's screw ups.
Exactly, it is not walmarts fault she and her family chose to hire some total hack lawyer who didn't think it would be a good idea to see if anyone could legally come after her settlement money after it was awarded (especailly if like people say this is a common line in an insurance policy). Although I suppose people will say that with all the money walmart has they should have paid for her lawyer.
Wal-Mart Drops Fight Against Woman
CNN
Posted: 2008-04-02 07:17:52
Filed Under: Business News, Nation News
(April 2) - A former Wal-Mart employee who suffered severe brain damage in a traffic accident won't have to pay back the company for the cost of her medical care, Wal-Mart told the family Tuesday.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
Wal-Mart Drops Fight Against Woman
CNN
Posted: 2008-04-02 07:17:52
Filed Under: Business News, Nation News
(April 2) - A former Wal-Mart employee who suffered severe brain damage in a traffic accident won't have to pay back the company for the cost of her medical care, Wal-Mart told the family Tuesday.
Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker
Posted on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 6:26 PM PT
By Rich Gardella and Lisa Myers, NBC News
On Saturday's Nightly News, NBC News Senior Investigative Correspondent Lisa Myers reported on Deborah Shank, a former employee of Wal-Mart permanently disabled in a car accident eight years ago. Wal-Mart's health plan had moved to collect some of the settlement money she won in a lawsuit against a trucking firm in order to reimburse itself for the more than $470,000 in medical expenses it had paid for Shank.
Although it had just contacted Shank's attorney to begin the process of actually collecting the money from Shank and her husband, Wal-Mart announced Tuesday it had reversed its decision and said that it no longer will seek any reimbursement from the Shanks.
Wal-Mart had won its case in several courts over the past few years. Recently, the Supreme Court declined to hear Shank's appeal.
Both CNN and NBC News broadcast Shank's story last week, generating a large viewer response.
"We have decided to modify our plan to allow us more discretion for individual cases, and are in the final stages of working out the details," Wal-Mart's statement, released Tuesday, reads. "Wal-Mart will not seek any reimbursement for the money already spent on Ms. Shank's care, and we will work with the family to ensure the remaining amounts in the trust can be used for her ongoing care."
Wal-Mart ended its statement with an apology "for any additional stress this has put on the Shank family."
Jim Shank, Deborah's husbnad, released a statement in response: "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."
i heard this on the news last night and it made me smile. Not because i think walmart had a sudden attack of conscience, or because they decided to do the right thing, but because i believe it was public outcry that forced them to try an avoid a PR nightmare. Sounds like most people, unlike some of the heartless folks participating in this thread, have made their voices heard and persuded the greedy fuckers at wal-mart to take a second look at their position. i'm sure they're not happy about it, but, wo cares.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
That's good for her personally, but I think Wal-Mart really shouldn't have to do this. I'll bet almost every insurance policy out there is similar to theirs, but because they are the big, bad Wal-Mart, the media rips on them and they are forced to acquiesce.
You're right. They shouldn't HAVE to do this because the greedy, heartless, gutless, fuckers shouldn't have sued her in the first fucking place.
BTW they don't HAVE to do this. They already won the case. They're doing it because they need to stop a PR nightmare before it goes any further. It has nothing to do with their concern for the Shanks.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
i heard this on the news last night and it made me smile. Not because i think walmart had a sudden attack of conscience, or because they decided to do the right thing, but because i believe it was public outcry that forced them to try an avoid a PR nightmare. Sounds like most people, unlike some of the heartless folks participating in this thread, have made their voices heard and persuded the greedy fuckers at wal-mart to take a second look at their position. i'm sure they're not happy about it, but, wo cares.
They gave a very large monetary gift to a woman who had an unfortunate accident. Maybe you feel they should be unfairly pressured to get in the habit of giving money to everyone who has medical issues.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
They gave a very large monetary gift to a woman who had an unfortunate accident. Maybe you feel they should be unfairly pressured to get in the habit of giving money to everyone who has medical issues.
Medical issues!? Grow a fucking heart.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
The "medical issues" wasn't referring to this particular woman. It was a general comment. I'll phrase it a different way.
Basically what has transpired here is that they've given a gift of a lot of money to the woman due to media pressure when they had absolutely no obligation to.
Therefore, do you think we should basically pressure Wal-Mart to give gifts of money to everyone who has been in an accident or needs financial help for medical bills or daily care? Because that's exactly what happened here.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
The "medical issues" wasn't referring to this particular woman. It was a general comment. I'll phrase it a different way.
Basically what has transpired here is that they've given a gift of a lot of money to the woman due to media pressure when they had absolutely no obligation to.
Therefore, do you think we should basically pressure Wal-Mart to give gifts of money to everyone who has been in an accident or needs financial help for medical bills or daily care? Because that's exactly what happened here.
First of all, they didn't GIVE her shit. Now, its a handout :rolleyes:.
Secondly it isn't like she's a general charity case. Its their former employee who was employed by them and enrolled in their insurance program at the time. Next, she didn't just have an accident! She was plowed by a truck, and rendered handicapped and severly braindamaged. Her husband has been forced to legally divorce her for medicaid purposes. One son is dead in iraq, a tragedy she constantly relives the horrors of due to her brain damage, and another son will now have to forego college because of her "accident".
You are exactly whats wrong with America and the world and i have no problem making that assessment.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
First of all, they didn't GIVE her shit. Now, its a handout :rolleyes:.
Secondly it isn't like she's a general charity case. Its their former employee who was employed by them and enrolled in their insurance program at the time. Next, she didn't just have an accident! She was plowed by a truck, and rendered handicapped and severly braindamaged. Her husband has been forced to legally divorce her for medicaid purposes. One son is dead in iraq, a tragedy she constantly relives the horrors of due to her brain damage, and another son will now have to forego college because of her "accident".
You are exactly whats wrong with America and the world and i have no problem making that assessment.
For the third time, I'm asking a hypothetical question not about her but based on the principles of this situation. I don't need you to re-hash the details over and over although I think I know why you're avoiding the question. There are a lot of people out there who have very sad and difficult situations (many might be former employees). Should Wal-Mart be pressured to help them all through monetary gifts?
And yes - it is a gift at this point.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
First of all, they didn't GIVE her shit. Now, its a handout :rolleyes:.
Secondly it isn't like she's a general charity case. Its their former employee who was employed by them and enrolled in their insurance program at the time. Next, she didn't just have an accident! She was plowed by a truck, and rendered handicapped and severly braindamaged. Her husband has been forced to legally divorce her for medicaid purposes. One son is dead in iraq, a tragedy she constantly relives the horrors of due to her brain damage, and another son will now have to forego college because of her "accident".
You are exactly whats wrong with America and the world and i have no problem making that assessment.
The "medical issues" wasn't referring to this particular woman. It was a general comment. I'll phrase it a different way.
Basically what has transpired here is that they've given a gift of a lot of money to the woman due to media pressure when they had absolutely no obligation to.
Therefore, do you think we should basically pressure Wal-Mart to give gifts of money to everyone who has been in an accident or needs financial help for medical bills or daily care? Because that's exactly what happened here.
So what if it was media pressure, it is not as if Walmart would have voluntarily dropped the lawsuit. Do you think Walmart would have sue if the amount won in settlement would have been less? How many companies sue employees for their settlements, especially from employees who have no hope of a working future?
This is a cruel loophole. Should employees not get accident insurance simply to avoid being sued by the company. What happens to the employees who's settlement doesn't provide for quality of life care for a disabling injury and they didn't have accident insurance? At some point, the company paychecks stop, sometimes even before a settlement is reached. The fact is if Walmart would have kept the money, this women's full care would at some point became the responsibility of the State. So, Walmart would end up getting paid and the taxpayer's would end up having to take care of Walmart's obligation for this woman. So you and I become her charity donors, not Walmart because they would have got their money + some extra.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
So what if it was media pressure, it is not as if Walmart would have voluntarily dropped the lawsuit. Do you think Walmart would have sue if the amount won in settlement would have been less? How many companies sue employees for their settlements, especially from employees who have no hope of a working future?
This is a cruel loophole. Should employees not get accident insurance simply to avoid being sued by the company. What happens to the employees who's settlement doesn't provide for quality of life care for a disabling injury and they didn't have accident insurance? At some point, the company paychecks stop, sometimes even before a settlement is reached. The fact is if Walmart would have kept the money, this women's full care would at some point became the responsibility of the State. So, Walmart would end up getting paid and the taxpayer's would end up having to take care of Walmart's obligation for this woman. So you and I become her charity donors, not Walmart because they would have got their money + some extra.
So what if it was media pressure, it is not as if Walmart would have voluntarily dropped the lawsuit. Do you think Walmart would have sue if the amount won in settlement would have been less? How many companies sue employees for their settlements, especially from employees who have no hope of a working future?
This is a cruel loophole. Should employees not get accident insurance simply to avoid being sued by the company. What happens to the employees who's settlement doesn't provide for quality of life care for a disabling injury and they didn't have accident insurance? At some point, the company paychecks stop, sometimes even before a settlement is reached. The fact is if Walmart would have kept the money, this women's full care would at some point became the responsibility of the State. So, Walmart would end up getting paid and the taxpayer's would end up having to take care of Walmart's obligation for this woman. So you and I become her charity donors, not Walmart because they would have got their money + some extra.
Is it a cruel loophole when, from my understanding it is a pretty standard policy for most insurance companies?
If the settlement isn't large enough to provide quality of life care, than is that really Wal-Mart's issue...or the issue of the courts, jury and her lawyer?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Seriously. I have no problem with one person's decision to boycott Wal-Mart. It's America. You are free to shop or not shop where ever you choose, for whatever reason you choose.
But don't act like I or anybody else is an asshole because we do choose to shop there.
This is what I don't like about political extremism. It's all about shoving your beliefs and your convictions down someone else's throat, and they are the asshole if they don't swallow them.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
For the third time, I'm asking a hypothetical question not about her but based on the principles of this situation. I don't need you to re-hash the details over and over although I think I know why you're avoiding the question. There are a lot of people out there who have very sad and difficult situations (many might be former employees). Should Wal-Mart be pressured to help them all through monetary gifts?
And yes - it is a gift at this point.
i havn't avoided the question. i've answered it rather clearly. Not suing this woman does not equal giving "handouts" to everyone that gets sick or sprains a wrist. No, walmart shouldn't be pressured to stand out on the corner and hand out hundies to everyone who passes by with crutches or an arm sling, as you make it sound. It doesn't take much to see the uniqueness of this scenario. It all comes down to what you use to fill that open cavity in your chest where a heart, perhaps, once was.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Not really, the problem wasn't with providing her health care. The problem is clearly a loophole written into the policies. A loophole that allowed Walmart to sue her for any settlement she received.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
Is it a cruel loophole when, from my understanding it is a pretty standard policy for most insurance companies?
If the settlement isn't large enough to provide quality of life care, than is that really Wal-Mart's issue...or the issue of the courts, jury and her lawyer?
The money from the settlement could provide that care, now it becomes our responsibility because of greed. Walmart can afford to stay in court for years, can this woman or maybe even the next Walmart worker who gets injured on the job?
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
Seriously. I have no problem with one person's decision to boycott Wal-Mart. It's America. You are free to shop or not shop where ever you choose, for whatever reason you choose.
But don't act like I or anybody else is an asshole because we do choose to shop there.
This is what I don't like about political extremism. It's all about shoving your beliefs and your convictions down someone else's throat, and they are the asshole if they don't swallow them.
But see, i havn't done that. i havn't even asked anyone to join me in not shopping at walmart. i havn't even called by decision a "boycott". One person does not a boycott make. You can shop wherever you want. i havn't suggested YOU do otherwise.
i havn't suggested that shopping at walmart makes one heartless (i have not at all used the word "asshole" to describe anyone here). i HAVE and will continue to suggest that insisting on boiling this case down to walmarts legal RIGHTS based on a contract and defending their actions and decisions in this individual, and very unique case, causes me to speculate on just what, if anything resides in one's chest.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Is it a cruel loophole when, from my understanding it is a pretty standard policy for most insurance companies?
If the settlement isn't large enough to provide quality of life care, than is that really Wal-Mart's issue...or the issue of the courts, jury and her lawyer?
That is what I was thinking. Walmart definetly has a claim for damages, since if the truck didn't hit the lady, they wouldn't have had to spend the 1000's of dollars in her medical costs. So to me their options are either to sue the truck driver like she did, or let her sue him and then recover their costs through her. If it is unfair for walmart to try and recover their costs by using a lawsuit then wouldn't it also be unfair for the lady to sue the truck driver (because of his accident she has future medical costs that she should be allowed to recover).
Basically what has transpired here is that they've given a gift of a lot of money to the woman due to media pressure when they had absolutely no obligation to.
Therefore, do you think we should basically pressure Wal-Mart to give gifts of money to everyone who has been in an accident or needs financial help for medical bills or daily care? Because that's exactly what happened here.
No one forced Wal-Mart to drop this thing. No one. The people and the media stated their opinion i.e. that it's a heartless thing to do. And even though Wal-Mart is within their rights, Wal-Mart chose to drop it, not the media, not the people.
Do you think the media and the people would raise their voices, that this would be such an issue if it was about a guy who lost his little finger? No. No one would care. But in this case it's about a woman who has severe brain damage, her husband is working two jobs, legally divorced her for financial reasons, that while he's recovering from cancer and their son might not get to go to college because of this. On top of that, they lost their other son.
The media and the people stood up against the cold reality of the corporate 'real' world. They put people above profits and money, they stated their opinions, their disgust... but they did not force Wal-Mart to do anything.
Don't tell me Wal-Mart is the victim here. What happened to that "Yes, it's tragic but this is the real world?" mentality? Well, Yes, Wal-Mart probably dropped the whole thing not because of media pressure but to avoid a PR scandal or to save face. But that's the real world. Right? edit: It's a two way street. Sometimes you get to screw people over and be heartless and cold, and sometimes you're "forced" into a decision. Business, that's all.
Or perhaps, but less likely, they've realised that the woman needs the money a lot more than they do, that giving her the money is a noble thing to do even though they can legally take it back.
Comments
the nerve i know! oh wait your from texas. ever heard of variety?
8/7/08, 6/9/09
And while everybody was busy scolding the big bad corporation, this ambulance chasing lawyer who should've had the sense to ask for more damages walked away unscatched and several hundred thousand dollars richer.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Actually, the quote said that walmart planned to modify the policy to give themselves more options pertaining to individual cases. Do I expect them to do this with everyone? No. I'd be surprised if they did it with even one more person. And as for that shitty lawyer...he's a lawyer.
As others have said, her LAWYER is the one who screwed up. Wal-Mart shouldn't have to suffer for someone else's screw ups.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
That's good for her personally, but I think Wal-Mart really shouldn't have to do this. I'll bet almost every insurance policy out there is similar to theirs, but because they are the big, bad Wal-Mart, the media rips on them and they are forced to acquiesce.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Exactly, it is not walmarts fault she and her family chose to hire some total hack lawyer who didn't think it would be a good idea to see if anyone could legally come after her settlement money after it was awarded (especailly if like people say this is a common line in an insurance policy). Although I suppose people will say that with all the money walmart has they should have paid for her lawyer.
CNN
Posted: 2008-04-02 07:17:52
Filed Under: Business News, Nation News
(April 2) - A former Wal-Mart employee who suffered severe brain damage in a traffic accident won't have to pay back the company for the cost of her medical care, Wal-Mart told the family Tuesday.
That's good news!
naděje umírá poslední
i heard this on the news last night and it made me smile. Not because i think walmart had a sudden attack of conscience, or because they decided to do the right thing, but because i believe it was public outcry that forced them to try an avoid a PR nightmare. Sounds like most people, unlike some of the heartless folks participating in this thread, have made their voices heard and persuded the greedy fuckers at wal-mart to take a second look at their position. i'm sure they're not happy about it, but, wo cares.
You're right. They shouldn't HAVE to do this because the greedy, heartless, gutless, fuckers shouldn't have sued her in the first fucking place.
BTW they don't HAVE to do this. They already won the case. They're doing it because they need to stop a PR nightmare before it goes any further. It has nothing to do with their concern for the Shanks.
They gave a very large monetary gift to a woman who had an unfortunate accident. Maybe you feel they should be unfairly pressured to get in the habit of giving money to everyone who has medical issues.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Medical issues!? Grow a fucking heart.
The "medical issues" wasn't referring to this particular woman. It was a general comment. I'll phrase it a different way.
Basically what has transpired here is that they've given a gift of a lot of money to the woman due to media pressure when they had absolutely no obligation to.
Therefore, do you think we should basically pressure Wal-Mart to give gifts of money to everyone who has been in an accident or needs financial help for medical bills or daily care? Because that's exactly what happened here.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
you need to drop the personal attacks, buddy.
You aren't some sort of morally superior being, you know.
Just because others are able to see more than one side of an issue doesn't make them evil or heartless.
knock it off.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
First of all, they didn't GIVE her shit. Now, its a handout :rolleyes:.
Secondly it isn't like she's a general charity case. Its their former employee who was employed by them and enrolled in their insurance program at the time. Next, she didn't just have an accident! She was plowed by a truck, and rendered handicapped and severly braindamaged. Her husband has been forced to legally divorce her for medicaid purposes. One son is dead in iraq, a tragedy she constantly relives the horrors of due to her brain damage, and another son will now have to forego college because of her "accident".
You are exactly whats wrong with America and the world and i have no problem making that assessment.
For the third time, I'm asking a hypothetical question not about her but based on the principles of this situation. I don't need you to re-hash the details over and over although I think I know why you're avoiding the question. There are a lot of people out there who have very sad and difficult situations (many might be former employees). Should Wal-Mart be pressured to help them all through monetary gifts?
And yes - it is a gift at this point.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Judge not lest you be judged.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
yeah.
its pretty classy.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
So what if it was media pressure, it is not as if Walmart would have voluntarily dropped the lawsuit. Do you think Walmart would have sue if the amount won in settlement would have been less? How many companies sue employees for their settlements, especially from employees who have no hope of a working future?
This is a cruel loophole. Should employees not get accident insurance simply to avoid being sued by the company. What happens to the employees who's settlement doesn't provide for quality of life care for a disabling injury and they didn't have accident insurance? At some point, the company paychecks stop, sometimes even before a settlement is reached. The fact is if Walmart would have kept the money, this women's full care would at some point became the responsibility of the State. So, Walmart would end up getting paid and the taxpayer's would end up having to take care of Walmart's obligation for this woman. So you and I become her charity donors, not Walmart because they would have got their money + some extra.
Universal health care is the answer!!!!
www.myspace.com/jensvad
Is it a cruel loophole when, from my understanding it is a pretty standard policy for most insurance companies?
If the settlement isn't large enough to provide quality of life care, than is that really Wal-Mart's issue...or the issue of the courts, jury and her lawyer?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Seriously. I have no problem with one person's decision to boycott Wal-Mart. It's America. You are free to shop or not shop where ever you choose, for whatever reason you choose.
But don't act like I or anybody else is an asshole because we do choose to shop there.
This is what I don't like about political extremism. It's all about shoving your beliefs and your convictions down someone else's throat, and they are the asshole if they don't swallow them.
for the least they could possibly do
What does being from Texas have to do with anything?
What does variety have to do with anything?
Do you have a cogent argument against one-stop shopping, or are you just going to slur my home state for no reason at all?
for the least they could possibly do
i havn't avoided the question. i've answered it rather clearly. Not suing this woman does not equal giving "handouts" to everyone that gets sick or sprains a wrist. No, walmart shouldn't be pressured to stand out on the corner and hand out hundies to everyone who passes by with crutches or an arm sling, as you make it sound. It doesn't take much to see the uniqueness of this scenario. It all comes down to what you use to fill that open cavity in your chest where a heart, perhaps, once was.
Not really, the problem wasn't with providing her health care. The problem is clearly a loophole written into the policies. A loophole that allowed Walmart to sue her for any settlement she received.
The money from the settlement could provide that care, now it becomes our responsibility because of greed. Walmart can afford to stay in court for years, can this woman or maybe even the next Walmart worker who gets injured on the job?
i havn't suggested that shopping at walmart makes one heartless (i have not at all used the word "asshole" to describe anyone here). i HAVE and will continue to suggest that insisting on boiling this case down to walmarts legal RIGHTS based on a contract and defending their actions and decisions in this individual, and very unique case, causes me to speculate on just what, if anything resides in one's chest.
I guess Walmart had a change of heart...
That is what I was thinking. Walmart definetly has a claim for damages, since if the truck didn't hit the lady, they wouldn't have had to spend the 1000's of dollars in her medical costs. So to me their options are either to sue the truck driver like she did, or let her sue him and then recover their costs through her. If it is unfair for walmart to try and recover their costs by using a lawsuit then wouldn't it also be unfair for the lady to sue the truck driver (because of his accident she has future medical costs that she should be allowed to recover).
No one forced Wal-Mart to drop this thing. No one. The people and the media stated their opinion i.e. that it's a heartless thing to do. And even though Wal-Mart is within their rights, Wal-Mart chose to drop it, not the media, not the people.
Do you think the media and the people would raise their voices, that this would be such an issue if it was about a guy who lost his little finger? No. No one would care. But in this case it's about a woman who has severe brain damage, her husband is working two jobs, legally divorced her for financial reasons, that while he's recovering from cancer and their son might not get to go to college because of this. On top of that, they lost their other son.
The media and the people stood up against the cold reality of the corporate 'real' world. They put people above profits and money, they stated their opinions, their disgust... but they did not force Wal-Mart to do anything.
Don't tell me Wal-Mart is the victim here. What happened to that "Yes, it's tragic but this is the real world?" mentality? Well, Yes, Wal-Mart probably dropped the whole thing not because of media pressure but to avoid a PR scandal or to save face. But that's the real world. Right? edit: It's a two way street. Sometimes you get to screw people over and be heartless and cold, and sometimes you're "forced" into a decision. Business, that's all.
Or perhaps, but less likely, they've realised that the woman needs the money a lot more than they do, that giving her the money is a noble thing to do even though they can legally take it back.
naděje umírá poslední