i'm officially done with walmart

12345AGNST1 · April 2008

slightofjeff wrote:

I know. The nerve! Making things convenient for people. Can you believe it?

the nerve i know! oh wait your from texas. ever heard of variety?

sponger · April 2008

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.

Vedderlution_Baby · April 2008

sponger wrote:

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.

know1 · April 2008

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

But it's not of her doing. So she should not have to suffer because of someone else's screw ups.

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.

know1 · April 2008

flywallyfly wrote:

Great news !! Bad publicity nightmare must have changed their minds.

http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/01/848981.aspx

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.

Kel Varnsen · April 2008

know1 wrote:

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.

puremagic · April 2008

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.

Collin · April 2008

puremagic wrote:

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.

That's good news!

cornnifer · April 2008

flywallyfly wrote:

Great news !! Bad publicity nightmare must have changed their minds.

http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/01/848981.aspx

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.

cornnifer · April 2008

know1 wrote:

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.

know1 · April 2008

cornnifer wrote:

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.

cornnifer · April 2008

know1 wrote:

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.

know1 · April 2008

cornnifer wrote:

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.

DriftingByTheStorm · April 2008

cornnifer wrote:

Medical issues!? Grow a fucking heart.

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.

cornnifer · April 2008

know1 wrote:

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.

know1 · April 2008

cornnifer wrote:

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.

PaperPlates · April 2008

cornnifer wrote:

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.

Judge not lest you be judged.

DriftingByTheStorm · April 2008

PaperPlates wrote:

Judge not lest you be judged.

yeah.
its pretty classy.

puremagic · April 2008

know1 wrote:

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.

PaperPlates · April 2008

puremagic wrote:

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!!!!

i'm officially done with walmart

Comments

Categories