World's Worst: BillO/James Dobson/Wal-Mart
By John Amato Wednesday Mar 26, 2008 3:00pm
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Heather)
All worthy choices for the GOLD as Keith explains, but Wal-Mart's behavior to Debora Shank is unconscionable.
Deborah Shank's story would have been sad enough, considering the devastating injuries she suffered in a traffic accident seven years ago. Nevertheless, Wal-Mart found a way to add a brutal coda.
Wal-Mart started out as one of the good guys in this story, paying almost $470,000 of her initial medical bills. But three years after Shank's husband sued and settled with the semi driver's employer, the retail giant changed hats. It demanded every penny back, plus interest and legal fees -- more, in fact, than the $417,477 the settlement had placed in a special-needs Medicaid trust fund for Shank's future healthcare expenses.
Login or Register to post comments.
Bad choice by Keith O. as to Walmart being "Worst in the World". Sure, we all feel
sorry for the family and they have our heart felt condolences and sympathy, but
if Keith and his crew would do a little investigating as to the law and what Walmart's
rights were thereunder, he'd find that NO law was broken irrespective of how "unfair"
the decision may appear as rendered by a Court.
Hey, Everybody: Don't forget that Keith will have a special edition of Countdown on NBC this coming Sunday night at 7 ET!!!
It is legal as hell but you would think the largest retail store in the United States (if not the world) could just eat this and not appear to be a bunch of horse's asses.
Just a bit more info, this lady's son was killed in Iraq. These people are pitiful by any definition. Walmart should cut them some humanitarian slack.
He didn't say they were wrong legally ,only morally.
Doggiebobo @ 1:
nah, wal mart is on the permanent 'world's worst' list.
you're right, legally speaking. but morally, and PR-speaking this is an abhorrent move by wal mart.
KO's list isn't based on legality, but simply who sucks. and wal mart qualifies, a bajillion times over
Doggiebobo @ 1:
About as fair as a felony possession charge.
They went after the throat and held on tight. There's the letter of the law, yes, but also the spirit of the law.
Thank you insurance agency to opening the door to making things worse for people that are already under hardship. Get the little guy when they can't defend themselves.
Is C&L trying to make me puke today?
pissed off patricia @ 3:
Just a bit more info, this lady's son was killed in Iraq.
Damn. Didn't know that.
Sick.
Doggiebobo @ 1:
He didn't accuse them of breaking a law did he ?.
A truly disgusting act by wal-mart. And they wonder why they have a bad name ?
pissed off patricia @ 3:
For real. They could have covered that cost by adding a penny to the price of Jell-O for a week. But no, they had to be dicks about it.
Too screwin' bad wal-mart couldn't be sued by all the mom and pop stores they have put out of business over the years.
pissed off patricia @ 3:
POP: I do not disagree, but....the law is on the side of the BIG corp's. If Keith wanted
a worst person, I'll give him one: The W/H and bush, for they have again(and again and again) disregarded the "law"; in this case in a U.S. District Court in D.C. whereby a
Federal Judge(John M. Facciola) has requested a full and complete explanation from the
W/H as to the "missing 5 million or more" pieces of E-mails(which just coincidentially I'm
sure) include communications leading up to the invasion of Iraq. So, what does the W/H
do when reponding to Judge Facciola's request...in essence they tell him to "go f... yourselve"...or more clearing..."We are above the law"...
Welcome to Corporate America.
Doggiebobo,
The point isn't the legality of the issue. Being a 90 billion dollar Satan worshiping, baby eating entity is. When your not going to miss that money , this should have been swept under the carpet by Walmart. But they made it an issue. Just another reason not to shop there.
Doggiebobo @ 1:
Legally, they might be worried about setting a precedent in future cases, but you'd think they could have had the family sign something to keep quiet, let them keep their money and avoid the millions in bad publicity that this will no doubt cause them.
pissed off patricia @ 3:
They can't do no more cutting, cuz their ads already say they'z a slashin' already low prices. AND, it's a happy smiley face. No way a corporation could be THAT evil with a happy smiley face as it's mascot. All right. Snark off. Pathetic bastards they is.
Doggiebobo @ 12:
You forgot that they are required by FEDERAL law to keep these e-mails!
Doggiebobo @ 1:
Guess laws need changed then. If they broke no laws by making sure this woman and her family have very little income to support themselves, then the laws need changed.
How much lucre is enough for these filthy corporate pigs?
It's the morality and the principle of the thing -- not the legality.
I haven't set foot in a Wal-Mart in years.
Vote with your pocketbooks, people.
Because this lady's memory is so messed up now, she forgets her son is dead and when she asks about her son and they have to tell her he was killed in the war, she cries just like she did the first time she was told about it. The family said this happens over and over. This poor lady is in a mental hell. Wal-mart doesn't need to pile on right now.
Wow...just wow.
Good thing none of the folks running for President this year used to work for these bunch of douchebags, huh?
Oh wait...
My wife was in a car accident in October. Nothing major, but on the suggestion of the advice nurse, we took her to the emergency room. They did exactly what I said they'd do for her- gave her two 800mg aspirin and sent her on her way. The guy who rear ended her was at fault and they paid for the car damage and also made a payment for her distress and problems associated to the accident. Months after settling with the company, we get a letter from some law office saying they're looking to contact my wife about her emergency room visit. She showed me the letter and it was totally vague and looked more like a request for a survey to be completed. After they kept sending these, I noticed the letterhead was from a law office and told her she better find out what this was all about. When she called, they told her that they were trying to collect money from the emergency room visit, saying something about a clause in the Kaiser contract that said they could collect for costs associated to treating injury or illness inflicted by a third party. I had never heard of anything like this and I had Kaiser my whole life. Some quick Google searches pulled up posts from other people who were dealing with the same thing with Kaiser. It's not like we would have lied when we took her to the emergency room, but had we known this, we would not have settled without factoring in the actual cost of the emergency room visit. I think it's totally ridiculous. What if instead of a car accident, I had accidentally stepped on my wife's toe and broke it? Would they sue me for the damages? In terms of this case, the husband did know of this clause and they really should have factored it into the settlement. Though, I can't say I would have done anything different. This guys wife is totally out of commission, and not taking the settlement offer could have left them in the lurch during a court battle and appeals process.
You know what. I want to start a card campaign (or something like that) for the family.
Terry740 @ 17:
No, I did not forget, the W/H forgets..
I've read somewhere that the Walton family (wife and remaining children of Sam Walton) earn approx. $850 million/year in dividends on their holdings of WalMart stock. Of course, those dividends are taxed at the now prevailing rate of 15% for qualified dividend income (thanks, George Bush!). So no, I really don't see how the Walton family or the ridiculously profitable corporation should or could pay this stock clerk's medical expenses. It would be un-American.
Doggiebobo @ 1:
eh... the Worst person in the world in his program isn't about 'law breaking' you can see the news for that. It's about immorality. He never said they broke the law... he said what they did was wrong.
And if you read the article in Crooks and Liars..the court is done with this. Wal Mart expect the handicap to pay money she never had. But to their credit, Keith never called them pure evil.. but when things like this happen.. it's no wonder. They could have let it go.
Doggiebobo @ 12:
I agree with you that the fu*king white house is crawling with criminals and such, it's just that some times a big company doing what is right, rather than what is greedy would be refreshing.
ConcernedCanuck @ 18:
I believe you and I have disCUSSed this previously on another C&L thread...and we
agree...
People defending Wal-Mart as "legally" right really ought to ponder what it feels like to be kicked in the groin after having your head smashed in.
Wal-Mart was morally wrong to do exactly that. They constantly market their down-home, American image as an entrepreneurial success story that's good for America. Pulling this crap only makes that all the more hypocritical.
CNN covered the story better: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/walmart.insurance.battle/index.html?ire...
She's the mother of an 18-year-old soldier killed in Iraq, are the right-wingers puffing up their oh-so-patriotic chests in indignation or does corporate greed trump that?
Doggiebobo @ 28:
Yup......didn't see it was you there until I clicked submit........so how is it going? Can you do me a HUGE favour and quit sending your damn winter storms north? I've had just about as much of this cold global warming as I can take. Me bones ache.
Doggiebobo @ 1:
Hey dumbass, Keith didn't say that what they did was illegal. It was MORALLY WRONG. Get it?
Lefty @ 30:
The current Republican party line on soldiers killed in Iraq is "so?"
No major surprise that this supreme court refused to hear her case.
Since Jan 1 ,2007 Wal Mart has costed the american taxpayers over 6.1 billion dollars in welfare for their underpaid workers.
WakeUpWalMart.com
Lefty @ 30:
One guess.
ConcernedCanuck @ 31:
Hey, it's not me. I'm way down here in Central Texas, where weather is in the 80's and
90's, so I am unable to honor your request....By the way,our lakes are low, our fields are dry, we are experiencing numerous wildfires too, so not sure if just "seasonable"
or if in fact global warming is adding to some of our discomforts.
and
Rusty Medium-Legged Mack Daddy Shackleford @ 33:
The" Dick" also said they volunteered for it.
Wal-Mart is the Anti-Christ.
Inflation no chance
To increase finance
Bills pile up sky high
Send that boy off to die
Make me wanna holler
The way they do my life
Make me wanna holler
The way they do my life
- M. Gaye
As much as it is a poor and immoral decision by Walmart, this all comes back to the fact that this predicament never would have arisen if there was universal healthcare.
I don't know of any employer health plans or private health insurance that doesn't have a provision like this. This is one more reason NOT to vote for a corporatist prostitute for president, one who is going to create a wellfare program for insurance companies and care it "healthcare".
Support HR. 676. Universal, single-payer healthcare. No insurance company involvement or participation. No $ in preference to people.
Moose @ 41:
That's just commie talk. We can't risk America becoming a third-world hellhole like Canada or Sweden.
The cut off for company sponsered heath insurance is 30 hours and guess what hours the major number of employees at Wal Mart work? Guess what employees get sent home an hour early each week to keep them from meeting to requirement?
Doggiebobo @ 37:
Really? Where at?
I'm in the Dallas area. No major complaints here, minus the daily wind advisories.
Couldn't Walmart at least make some sort of donation to the cost of her health care? I imagine they make all sorts of donations to other organizations and such. It would sure help the chain's miserable image.
Ot
Run Al Run! I have been thinking about this possibility as the mess between Obama and Clinton grows
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/03/27/gore/index.html
Add the Clintons to the list.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has tried (and now some are waging political war on her), Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, has suggested it (but "BILLARY" Clinton is NOT hearing it) and NOW someone -- ANYONE -- needs to whisper in Clinton's ear -- like you would with a SENILE Aunt -- that the gig is up and Obama is the Democratic nominee!
[Deleted. If you'd like an explanation, please contact us at sitemonitor1@gmail.com . Site Monitor]
GW's "compassionate conservatism" at work.
Ash"Hussy"Williams @ 45:
Yeah it's been nice around Dallas. We can use some rain though. My beans and squash are sprouting, they'd like some non-chlorinated water.
pissed off patricia @ 46:
which is the head-slapping moment. why a company that is so despised and disliked would pursue, what they HAD to know was going to be a PR nightmare, such a depraved and disgusted lawsuit.
they are the posterchild of unrestrained capitalism.
pissed off patricia @ 46:
Absolutely accurate...and such donations/contributions would, I'm rather sure, be
a tax deductible type....and "kind of heart" to top that off.
Weaseldog, I read your comment about your beans and squash before reading who it was written by. As soon as I read the comment, I said to myself, that sounds like weaseldog.
Satan laughing spreads his wings! Oh lord ya!
Weaseldog @ 49:
Just 198 miles to the South...in Austin(the "liberal" city of Texas)...and tho we too are
lacking rain(and it's been windy), the bluebonnets are beginning to sprout out along
I-35 and other roadways.
this is the main reason i refuse to shop at walmart
Kathleen @ 47:
What mess? Hillary has at best about a %5 chance of winning the nomination. The media will do anything to keep the race alive just to attract eyeballs. There is no real controversy with Rev. Wright and its past time that Hillary should just be ignored.
Rusty Medium-Legged Mack Daddy Shackleford @ 43:
That's right. Nice new and improved name, Rusty, but you're also supposed to squeeze a "Hussein" in there, too.
A girl who works for my husband was in a bad accident away from work. Thank goodness she has good insurance paid for by my husband's company. There were no law suits involved because no one else was involved in the accident. Because she and her husband were having a tough time, the company donated a large chuck of change to her and the other employees took up their own collection among themselves. Some times you just do something because it's the right thing to do.
This is not some giant company my husband and his partner own, but they did what they felt they wanted to do.
Wal-mart could learn some lessons on being humanitarian
Gumby69 @ 54:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GRR_n_yQGA
Rusty Medium-Legged Mack Daddy Shackleford @ 33:
Good ol' Us of A (assholes) Corporate interests will always win it's what your elected officials were put into office to make sure of SUCKERS!!!!
#41 - this was the comment I was looking for...yes indeed REAL UHC would take this story off the map. Unfortunately neither of the three candidates left for the nomination is really offering that. Clinton and Obama simply mandate that we buy into the current corrupt money-grabbing for profit insurance scam we've mostly come to loathe in this country. Their plans would change none of this. My hope is that - like FDR or TR - they will govern more progressively than they've campaigned.
Paul @ 58:
Besides...Walmart offers a self-insured plan under ERISA(Employees Retirement Income
Security Act) of 1974, so it's insurance plans is NOT even subject to the regulation of
State Insurance Commissions, as are health insurance plans underwritten by "Insurance
Companies". ERISA plans are under Federal regulation..and I have not heard Obama,
Hillary nor McCain say that should their respective plans for universal health insurance
be implemented, if ERISA plans would be subject to inclusion. An unknown at this time.
That's a great comment. He was fired up at the end, nice! This is the corporation's monopoly. Maybe the law could help small companies, which is what the admin always says, but this is who abuses it, the big companies.
pissed off patricia @ 52:
That garden is my sanctuary from this crap.
And Walmart is so big that they no longer have to worry about their image. In many parts of the US, if you don't buy it from Walmart, you can't get it.
Also consider that corporations go through the same stages as empires do, when they are in decline. Walmart wouldn't be lashing out like this, unless they were already experiencing financial strain. Their executive decisions are becoming more emotional and less rational.
Walmart must be at a crisis point. Their numbers next quarter are likely to hurt them.
Consider to that fuel prices are high and people are cutting back on purchases. So Walmart is seeing rising costs and reduced sales.
Now that Cantarell is seeing a 19% decline, gasoline and diesel prices will rise again soon in the US. So just as Walmart reports their numbers, they'll be facing even worse numbers to publish the quarter after.
This is the real danger of the Post Peak Chaos. Like a bear that has been mortally wounded, but still has some fight left in him, our major corporations and our government are going to lash out in the struggle as they decline.
Most of the CEOs I've personally known, tend to be smart men with the emotional maturity of five year olds. When bad things happen, they lose all of their critical thinking skills and react in a knee jerk fashion. They are used to getting their way, and they act out when the world doesn't deliver.
There will be more stories like this one, coming soon.
Doggiebobo @ 55:
Wow, that sounds pretty awesome. I love when the bluebonnets show up in numbers.
And to Weasledog, I think it's supposed to rain all next week, which should be nice.
But this whole WalMart thing has got me thinking. I know there are already people giving support and money and whatnot to this family, but I want to do something personally, rather than just sign an online petition to WalMart (which I already did :D).
I hate when I get grabbed like this. I can't let go of it until I've commensurately satisfied my conscience.
Ash"Hussy"Williams @ 66:
Your conscience should be clear because you, like many, many of us, NEVER shop
at Walmart and NEVER intend to do so. That's one way of getting some satisfaction.
Rusty Hussein-Legged Mack Daddy Shackleford @ 60:
Cool man I hadn't seen that. Very Fitting.
RueMorgue @ 13:
...now bend over, grab your ankles and take it up the rear
like the good little minions you are!
Rusty Medium-Legged Mack Daddy Shackleford @ 43:
No offence dude i'm from canada were 1st world not you. Our dollar isn't the peso anymore it's yours!
Gumby69 @ 70:
Rusty forgot to put in the tags.
Gumby69 @ 70:
I'm from America and I agree with you. Canada doesn't have 47 million people without health insurance.
I actually believe this practice is fairly wide spread. Why always pick on WalMart? Why not some other company that has done the same thing? I shop at WalMart, it is the only place this disabled woman living on Disability can afford to shop. If it weren't for them I would be wearing rags.
Why not bash the legal system, the lawyers that take a huge chunk, and our laws that are so complicated you can't fight for yourself before a court of law? Nothing is said about the fact that the lawyer raped her first.
The trucking company should have been sued for a lot more than that! IF she were hurt at work I would feel differently, but she wasn't so how is WalMart responsible?
If we start to pick and choose what laws to follow maybe we should start calling ourselves REPUBLICANS!
"Bad choice by Keith O. as to Walmart being “Worst in the World”."
The real question...which I am to lazy to research...is what was the purpose of the civil judgement? To pay the medical bills or pain and suffering.
This is a moot point for me now that I think about it. Wal-Mart is terrible for a multitude of reasons so I don't shop there.
By the way...slavery was legal at one point also. So was Jim Crow so stop clinging to "legality" as the ultimate point in judgement.
Weaseldog @ 65:
Mm. No doubt.
Doggiebobo @ 1:
You miss the whole point.
Weaseldog @ 65:
Lefty @ 30:
Haven't seen Bill-O crowing about this one...or the blonde boy wonder (wasshis name), or Brit, or any of the other keyboard commandoes.
The corporation with no heart whatsoever... that's Wal-Mart. I refuse to spend one cent with those effers. I do everything I can to discourage anyone I know who shops there from every crossing their threshold again. There's lots of other places to shop and if you really need one more piece of cheap crappy shite made in China or other slave-labour countries, you've got big problems
Lefty @ 30:
Corporate greed seems to be what it's all about for those oh-so-morally-vigilant folks. Down with the ba$stard$!!!
Doggiebobo @ 1:
You have got a Bush fan.
Cat Atomic @ 81:
Bullshit. Far from it.
Weaseldog @ 71:
Weaseldog is right. I was being facetious.
K.O. hit on a great story for the worst. Is it just me or is he starting to sound like Rosie O'Donnell feuding with Donald Trump when he talks about Bill O? I used to enjoy it, but now it's pretty lame.
Ash"Hussy"Williams @ 23:
I found this for people who are interested. I have an email in to the folks regarding the administrative costs or the percentage that goes to the Shanks. I'll report back.
http://walmartwatch.com/pages/deborah_shank_needs_your_help/
[Deleted. Please keep it civil. Add to the conversation without attacking the bloggers and/or commenters. Site Monitor]
Weaseldog @ 65:
We have at least two giant walmarts here. On easter sunday we passed one of them and their even bigger giant parking lot was full. It looked like it was the day before christmas. I'm not sure that store is hurting.
EJG @ 73:
Its more complicated than Olbermann let on. First, Walmart didn't even pay all of this lady's medical expenses as was expected for her policy, they backed out. Then, the settlement with the trucking company was set up to cover "remaining medical expenses." The clauses are usually put in policies to avoid double payment of medical expenses (i.e. the insurance company pays medical expenses then you receive medical expenses as part of a settlement). This settlement wasn't for settled medical expenses, it was for continuing medical expenses. The Shanks' lawyer even argued that Walmart should be compensated proportionally to the amount it had covered relative to her overall bills, but Walmart took this to court. The federal courts screwed these folks too, because they didn't consider all these other factors as germaine.
Note, Walmart was able to recover 460,000 dollars because the original settlement before legal fees was 700,000. But if the Shanks hadn't hired the lawyers (and paid the legal fees), Walmart wouldn't have gotten anything.
Bastards.
Old Billy Hussein @ 85:
I've got one of those grand schemes in mind.
If it gets past the scheme stage and passes into the plan stage, I'll let you guys know.
Well, he leaves out how she received an award of $1million and, after the lawyer got his, there was on $470K left.
I do think that Wal-Mart should have just let it go and not make an issue of it. Now, they HAVE to take the money or they will end up paying out 100x that amount. Where as before, they let it pass and it stays on the downlow.
Bottomline, the lawyer should be included in the WP list.
My question is to NEOs. You dwits excitedly chant "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!" Yet, heres a family that's sacrificed their son for your fuhrors big oil grab...oh I mean, the war on terror and, yet, they are left to suffer. Go figure...
Druggie Boy, Hannity and the like should have issued donations to cover the $500K easily for as much shit as they talk about troop support!!
come on NEOs put your money where your mouth is...
You know, WalMart has such a bad record with issues like this, gender bias issues, cheap Chinese knock-offs, etc. I know the health care policy the woman had said that WalMat can do what it did. It seems perfectly legal and now going to the Supreme Court. I can count on one hand how many times I've been in a WalMart and have fingers left over. Last night, after I heard this, I wanted to go to the nearest WalMart with signs, bull horns, whatever (nothing violent or lethal) AND SHUT THEM DOWN!!
What amount of compassion might it have taken to allow this woman and her family to keep the money? When a corporation makes $11 Billion in a year, what amount of greed do these corporation ogres have to maintain in order to keep their jobs and fulfill their pitiful lives? How would anyone of them feel if they were on the other side? That of course assumes that they have the SAME medical plan that the employees do.
You know, this is how I feel about all of this BEFORE we factor in the son's death in Iraq.
I can count on one hand the number of times I've been in a WalMart and have fingers left over. It will be a cold day in Hell before I ever step foot in a WalMart again!
Billo, Dobson and Walmart... Overall, that's got to be a photo-finish tie....They all suck! They all make me want to vomit!!! As to the focus on wal-mart screwing over a now disabled former employee... I got no use for wal-mart period. Never had, never will. They have taken the simple idea of a discount chain store and made it totally dirty and dishonest, and I ain't a bit surprised they are screwing this family over....Wal-mart..Fucking insidious greedmongers is what they are!!!
If there was any justice in this world.... well I guess there just ain't really much justice to be had in this world nowadays. The fact that Gdub the shrub and Dick da Dick are still upright and breathing proves that to me.. Let me just say of that business entity, I hope they get e.v.e.r.yt.h.i.n.g. they f.u.l.l.y deserve as a result of their long-standing behavior towards their employees and their extremely predatory business practices, such as bullying or bribing their way into communities and ruining the local businesses in the process..... IF that involves financial and social ruin for that business and the family who owns it, somewhere down the road.. So be it. That'd just be the 'magic hand' of the market 'self correcting' wouldn't it???? JD
This whole matter is a sorry affair. Going through the lawsuit was, I'm sure, a long and difficult procedure. I'm sure attorney's on both sides had their expert witnesses as to how severe her injuries were, how to put a dollar value on her pain and suffering. Did they know then that her son fighting in Iraq would soon be killed? Did they know that she would mourn that loss every day as if it had just happened? Did they realize what kind of torture that we be....beyond any other of the many difficulties and losses she faces. So what it comes down to is that her family went through the extreme difficulty of the lawsuit so that attorneys on both sides could make plenty of money all to get WalMart money. They are left with the impossibility of dealing with this tragedy but WalMart and the attorneys made a nice profit from it all. We live in a really screwed up world. Why didn't her attorney tell them that WalMart would just take the money that he didn't take himself?
Why not post the lead attorneys names and home addresses for Wal-Mart, that won the case ? Then you could write, or call them, or go by thier homes, and personally thank them for keeping costs low at Wal Mart! How about a picture of them, so we don't thank the gardener, or the pool boy!
Seems like Wal-Mart compensating this woman has second thoughts and wants most of the millions back. It's like complaining while doing "hard work" or the right thing to help someone in need and then regret it because they thought what they gave they did not equally get in return.
...Other than that Wal-Mart and their affiliate Sam's Club treat their employees like rubbish!
Doggiebobo @ 1:
Man, fuck you.
And fuck wal-mart.
Recently in the news there was the story of a guy who created two anti-walmart web sites:
http://www.walqaeda.com
http://www.walocaust.com
referencing he Dime Store From Hell." Wal-Mart sued him, saying his antics were tarnishing their good name and they also claimed ownership of the smiley face. They did not even create the smiley face: it was created by some guy years before WM ever used it. They are bullies and use fear and intimidation to go after everybody. The guy countersued WM and the case went to federal court in Atlanta. The judge ruled *against* Wal-Mart and said the guy could continue to run his web sites and sell his anti-walmart t-shirts, etc. One of Wal-Mart´s demands also was that the guy would have to sign over to them the two domain names that he had registered! I rejoice every time WM gets bad press.
Doggiebobo @ 1:
He didn't say any laws were broken. The point was/is that they sued her for MORE than her judgement without considering that the woman needs ONGOING care that she cannot pay for because she CANNOT work because of the accident. Oh' and there's the small matter that they have MORE than enough money to forgo the relative pittance Mrs. Shank won in court so that she could at least have a year or so of treatment before her husband goes crazy trying to figure out how to pay for it.
Ed Furey @ 84:
You may think it's lame, but one day, it's finally going to get to Billo, and he's going to issue an on-air threat to Keith...if anything, it'll put an end to Billo...sometimes, ya gotta "poke the troll".
Regardless of whether KO is doing right or wrong , I can't stand listening to him or watching him, not even one more minute. He thinks he is superior to the rest of us ,and does'nt mind telling us so. Heard for years that he was unbearable and seems to be true.
Wal Mart has no fewer than 10.000 lawsuits ongoing at any given time ranging from injuries lawsuits to labour violations.
BushCo let Wal Fart lawyers and lobbiests rewrite the labour laws to suit their so called business model. No more surprise labour department or INS visits for them.
I was CAW for 25 years. I got no use for Wal Marts crap. Still a lot of other places to shop and feel good about yourself.
First of all, in the interests of full disclosure, I am an attorney. I wanted to dispel some of the misconceptions regarding the "incompetent and greedy" plaintiffs' attorneys representing the Shanks. I've read several articles about this case, and my information has been gleaned from those articles and my own 14 years of experience as a lawyer. The Shanks' attorneys settled the case for the trucking company's insurance policy limits of $1 million. They structured the settlement such that Mr. Shank received $200K of the settlement for his loss of consortium and Mrs. Shank $800K, less attorney fees and costs. Personal injury attorneys are routinely compensated on a contingency basis, meaning they only get paid if they win or settle the case. Typically fees are one-third of the recovery, up to 40% if the case is appealed.
Now it certainly appears in this case that the settlement was small considering the severity of Mrs. Shank's injuries. However, if the insurance coverage limits of the trucking company who injures you is only $1 million, that's all the insurance will pay. You can attempt to obtain a judgment against the company over and above the insurance coverage, but if the trucking company is similar to most businesses (other than Wal-Mart), they have little money in the bank and few assets that are not already mortgaged to the hilt, so good luck collecting any judgment over and above the amount of insurance they carry. And if you do tap them for a huge judgment, the company may just file bankruptcy and discharge the debt. This is the same situation if you are in a car accident and the person at fault carries only the minimum coverages on his insurance. Unless you have high UIM limits on your own policy, you are going to be out of luck, and confined to the limits of the other driver's coverage and the value of his assets, if any.
Now in these types of cases, the injured party's insurance company, in this case Wal-Mart, routinely negotiates with the injured party's attorney to discount the amount of their claim or lien against any settlement. The stories I have read indicate that the Shanks' attorney repeatedly tried to contact Wal-Mart and negotiate their claim, but Wal-Mart refused to respond. As a result, the Shanks' attorney set up a trust to provide for Mrs. Shank's future care, and attempted to shelter those funds from Wal-Mart by structuring them as payment for future medical care. Nevertheless, the Courts allowed Wal-Mart to raid that trust pursuant to their insurance contract, and grab those funds to reimburse themselves for the money they had initially paid for Mrs. Shank's medical expenses. Accordingly, it appears that the Shanks' attorney did virtually everything he could, but Wal-Mart's contract language was what it was, and they had the legal basis to do what they did.
This is yet another argument for universal single payer healthcare for everyone, and yet another argument for not shopping at Wal-Mart. I personally gave it up years ago. I also receive many compliments when I wear my t-shirt that reads, "Wal-Mart, your choice for cheap plastic shit."
Walmart had to sue, look at the bad financial shape they're in!
Keith was right, they should have let this one go. This is why Walmart never gets a dollar from me.
And yes, they ARE destroying neighborhoods and the small businesses. Just like the ReThugs.
Jafo is right about lawyers, folk, don't throw out the baby with the bath water...I work for two law firms, and many lawyers do whatever they can to help their clients. I have even seen lawyers go after companies for money that the government lawyers SHOULD have gotten back for us taxpayers, but didn't have the resources or wit with which to follow through.
And I do NOT shop at Walmart, or Sam's Club. Haven't for many years, because of their cut-throat employment policies and cheap Chinese crap.
Doggiebobo @ 1:
HI Doggiebobo: You are the poster boy for the word prick. Congratulations.
Doggiebobo @ 1:
Actually, Keith noted the "legality" of Wal-Mart's actions and said it was nonetheless reprehensible. And it was. I have since contacted Wal-Mart's corporate office and told them that I will never shop at any of their establishments again unless their policies are rectified. I encourage you to do the same if you feel outraged by this. http://www.walmartstores.com/7663.aspx
googoomuck @ 14:
Especially when their lobbyists practically write the laws and get their whores in congress to push them through.
Keith Olbermann is one amazing guy, with a spine of steel, and a heart of gold. No other public figure comes close to his integrity, honesty and bravery in standing up to the corrupt power elite.
In the last 5 years I have spent approximately $12.00 at Wal-Mart. For some reason that fact makes me happy.
Pursang @ 110:
I wish I could say the same. Unfortunately, living from paycheck to paycheck, the very close location, the price of gas, etc., I must shop there. I try to boycott all the bad guys-like the FOX channel, anything right-wing radio, but I am guilty of shopping Walmart.
JAFO @ 103:
Exactly.
And, might I add, I am absolutely astonished that anyone at this site (even right-wing trolls) can't comprehend the difference between legally right and morally right.
No one should have to explain to Doggiebobo that what Wal-mart did was wrong even if they had a legal right to do it.
Universal heath care for America; universal boycott for Wal-Mart.
This woman's lawyers should have known that Walmart would recoup their initial payment. It's standard. It should have been taken into account when settling with the at-fault party. That it happened to the mother of a soldier lost in Iraq is irrelevant. This happens all of the time in cases, big and small.
Everyone here believes that Walmart should eat the half a million dollars? The family's lawyers are at fault here.
obscene @ 114:
Absolutely. If they have the brains they were born with. They can let this one ride, or collect the money, and yet lose millions from the poor public relations. I'm guessing they are penny-wise, pound-foolish. If so, they'll follow your line of reasoning. We'll see.
I'm not even gonna say how sickened this makes me. I feel filthy just walking the same Earth and breathing the same air as these scumbags.
The Champ is out.
So while Wal-Mart takes its money from the handicapped woman, guess who is going to pick up the bill. The TAX PAYERS! Since her husband had to divorce her so she could qualify for MEDICARE!
So for all of the morons out there defending Wal-Mart, wake up, you are just subsidizing a highly profitable corporation. WAL-MART IS EVIL!!!!!
It's not your corporation. I assume that your stockholders would feel fine with writing it off.
It's not a line of reasoning. It's how the plan that you belong to works. Your employer shouldn't have to pay for an accident caused by someone else. The other guy's insurance company settled with the victim admitting fault and responsibility, but you want the evil corporation to pay too. I'm not defending the scam that is health insurance or Walmart's documented shady labor practices. I'm pointing out that it's not Walmart's responsibility morally or ethically to pick up the tab. It's the at-fault party and his insurance company's responsibility.
obscene @ 114:
I don't think it's standard practice. I have a neighbor living off of a settlement, and his medical bills were also paid by insurance. I would love to see some actual proof that this type of deal is standard!
Juliet @ 117:
The taxpayers have to pay because her lawyers didn't negotiate a reasonable settlement. You Walmart haters will never accept it, but that's the bottom line.
Maybe not standard then. Common. Here's a clip from the article
The company persuaded a federal district court judge and the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals to award it the full amount, even though Shank's family had paid for the lawsuit. Nor did it matter that the settlement covered a fraction of her expenses and losses. Wal-Mart's healthcare plan clearly states that it gets first dibs on any money recovered by injured employees. Such provisions aren't uncommon in health plans, and Wal-Mart isn't the first to enforce one.
Doggiebobo @ 1:
I'm sorry but clearly you got stuck on the twig and missed the forest on Keith’s message. There is a big difference between legal and doing the right thing. Obviously your moral compass is broken, as is Walmart’s legal unit.
This is why companies like Walmart get bad press and people such as yourself can’t fathom why they got the bad press in the first place.
obscene @ 120:
Great another stuck on the law attorney. Read my above post, contemplate the notion there are times when you should step outside the contract and drop the issue in favor of the right and moral action as a caring human , that is the point you are desperately missing.
Of course the brain damaged woman had no idea what her rights were when Walmart did what they did.
Whoever wins is gonna be a corporatist prostitute. We just have to select the least objectionable corporate prostitute. I have half a mind to put a sign in the yard that says "Obama: By Default". He's the least horrifying candidate, and that's by far his biggest selling point.
A Clinton victory represents nothing less than a belated defeat of the ideals of the American Revolution. It is our renunciation of our renunciation of monarchy. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. Wash, rinse, repeat. Ironic that the first woman to have a chance at becoming President would be such a lousy and wholly inappropriate candidate. A woman becoming President is the sort of thing that perfectly embodies everything I love about this country; but not this particular woman.
New Constitutional Amendment: Immediate family members, spouses, and ex-spouses of Presidents are henceforth disqualified from running for President or any other office in the line of succession. No exceptions, no excuses. We can call it the "Bush-Kennedy-Clinton Safeguarding Our Democracy Amendment". I dare anyone to vote against safeguarding our democracy.
Edwards for VP.
Why always pick on WalMart? - EJG
Because they are the fattest blood filled tick feasting on this countries nether regions. I will grant you that they are not the ONLY parasite needing eradication but just because a LOT of companies have the morals of a maggot swarm does not excuse their behavior.
Shorter: it's easier to skewer the big ones with a hot needle.
Blah-Blah-Blah...
Next time (if you dare!) you're in a Wal-Mart, look at the attitude of the people who work there...they're miserable! I should know--I was one of them about ten years ago!
Oh...and realize who used to sit on their Board of Directors ?
Sleep Tight...
Doggiebobo @ 1:
Wait. She got half a million in medical care? She got that, AND she got half a million from the truck driver's company? So, she wanted a double recovery? Free double dipping?
She didn't settle well. She took that offer, or at least her moron of a husband took that offer from that trucking company. She should have divorced her husband, first, for his bad advice. She could have settled for her medical bills, and whatever additional she needed, but instead, she was relying on her greedy husband to tell her to take half the settlement that she should have demanded. So, she was stupid. So, how is that Walmart's fault? Walmart didn't enter into the settlement negotiations for her. She went out on her own.
So, why is this Walmart's fault?
If you spend a dollar fixing your health, and it's someone else's dollar, and you sue someone else, you have to get that dollar back, to pay back to the other guy, first, and then negotiate for whatever else you need to be whole.
Don't put stupid bargaining on Walmart.
These people are stupid, and they must have hired a really stupid lawyer.
Sue their lawyer, is their cure, NOT attack Walmart.
You don't get good settlements for being an idiot.
D4 @ 112:
I don't think so. If someone offers you half of what you need, and you take it, the onus is on YOU. Their lawyer should have known about the subrogation rights, of the health plan, it was written into the contract. All he had to do was read it. So, these people screwed up.
If you had a car accident, and you had insurance, and that insurance had subrogation rights, you would have to get all your medical bills, that have been paid, and all your medical bills that you will have to pay, and pay back the policy that covered your medicals, and then keep the rest.
So, you are blaming Walmart for her own stupid settlement?
PLEASE.
She most likely has a case of malpractice against her lawyer, for not advising her that she has to pay the healthcare costs back, first, and then get her additional recovery.
But, please, don't blame a policy that was written in black and white.
Someone should know how to read.
VegasRage @ 123:
That's right, the taxpayers are going to have to pay for her continuing costs.
I'm tired of this ridiculous assumption that it's somehow Walmart's fault because they hired an incompetent attorney.
BTW, she has brain damage, but her dear hubby took the offer and ran that show.
Don't whine if you take a stupid offer.
Most likely her attorney got his third of this settlement offer, and that was all he cared about. Maybe he had an overdue mortgage, and his greediness caused him to forget about the subrogation rights of the medical policy? In any event, this blame is misplaced, and it is not a moral issue of just handing this woman half a million for no reason at all.
She took her chances, took her settlement, and now she wants half a million in free money?????That is morally wrong.
Rusty Hussein-Legged Mack Daddy Shackleford @ 83:
Doh I couldn't tell from the tone of your voice.
I'm from Guelph Ontario we made Walmart really pay to get into our town. They're store isn't nearly the size as some other ones. It's also painted green not trad Blue and white.
Funny I live in Missouri and hadn't heard this story.We should all boycott Wal-Mart, but alas, there is no viable alternative.They are the only game in town (my town, at least).I agree that what they have done is unconscionable, but what are we to do?What action are we to take?It reminds me of a quote I read somewhere "He who is a slave to wealth can never be moral".This definitely applies here.
Katz @ 129:
You simply don't get it, but then again neither did Walmart. There is a reason movie makers have a golden rule to not kill the dog in the flick. When you make 11 billion, and you go after a women who lost all that she was and will be, you will never look good period. How much does Walmart spend on PR and advertising? Half a million is nothing. They could have dropped it into the PR department budget and made her situation a moment to show how they can shine and gotten more mileage out of that than their entire advertising budget for the year, what a bargain deal it would have been. Unfortunately some shortsighted bean counter couldn’t see the big picture.
lori @ 132:
I'm glad I live in Vegas and have a choice. Here the bottom of society’s gene pool shops at Wal-Mart and so I do not shop there very often.
Josh @ 21:
Wal*Mart also donated $500,000 to the Clinton foundation.
Hill and Bill like to talk about guilt by association, I say bring it on!
Pursang @ 110:
I haven't stepped foot in a Wal*Mart for over 4 years. I'll be damned if my hard earned money goes to supporting China.
Maybe now after hearing this Wal-Mart tale, you will admit your sins of having ever shopped there and vow to never do it again. It is really worth saving $.25?
>Bad choice by Keith O. as to Walmart being "Worst in the World". Sure, we all feel
>sorry for the family and they have our heart felt condolences and sympathy, but
>if Keith and his crew would do a little investigating as to the law and what Walmart's
>rights were thereunder, he'd find that NO law was broken irrespective of how "unfair"
>the decision may appear as rendered by a Court.
The Law??? Are you kidding me. The Government is complicit (and Conspires...criminal charge for You and I) in working with Corporate America (in violation of Logan Act...Bilderberg!) to screw anyone and everyone except the Elitists! Our Judicial Government is a disgrace and I have been to 3rd World countries that would put us to shame. Wake up people....www.infowars.com
Jeon Ji-Yung @ 124:
Okay, but put in a time limit - say, five consecutive election cycles after the previous member leaves office. That would hold them to about how long it took for John Quincy Adams (elected in 1824) to follow his father (left office March 1801). If it was good enough for the Adamses to wait that long, it ought to be good enough for anyone else.
Regarding the main subject: there's legal, there's ethical and there's moral. And while they are roughly in the same territory, they don't always overlap. You can be legally right, but ethically AND morally wrong. As Wal-Mart is in this case.
If they had simply agreed to forgo the settlement money - and then made a big PR ballyhoo about how kind and generous they were being - it would have offset some of their intense negative PR and (probably) gotten enough new/returning customers to pay them back many times over. Instead, they rob their ruined, crippled, brain-damaged ex-employee of her last dime and LOSE many times that pittance in business when the PR stink spreads.
Makes me want to stand outside the local Wal-Mart with a "Honk if you Hate Wal-Mart" sign.
Impeach cheney and bush @ 111:
The sad thing about your statement is that Wal Mart doesn't have the lowest prices anymore ,but uninformed shoppers still think they do.Other stores sued them long ago to make them stop saying they were the lowest and won. It was to late for most of them ,now people have to shop at Wal Mart because most of the other big name stores don't exist anymore and Wal Mart is the only store in town.
obscene @ 120:
The trucking company insurance was a max of 1 million !That's why they couldn't get any more.
I'm not sure if obscene read my comment at #103, but it's apparent that some people have a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of liability insurance. Terry740 and many others on here "get it." Folks like obscene are apparently woefully uninformed.
Free advice from your friendly neighborhood attorney: Carry the highest UM and UIM limits on your auto insurance that you can afford. Otherwise, you put yourself at the mercy of the insurance company of the person who injures you.
Well said Keith. I'd address the first poster but that's already been done. Despite the law being on it's side, clearly, Wal-Mart could've let this one go. I'm not surprised at the level of callousness displayed by Wal-Mart and other posters in this very thread. Now I'm beginning to understand why so many Americans can look the other way while their fellow citizens were disenfranchised in Florida during the 2000 election and how to this day we haven't re-built New Orleans and the gulf area to what it was while it's totally fine to pump 12 billion dollars a month into war in Iraq that only benefits a select few in this country.
As for that Wal-Mart article, I don't think Senator Clinton was more than a figurehead not a decision maker and she hasn't even held that position for 16 years. If you don't like her that's fine but find something that she's done while in the Senate to pin on her.
Login or Register to post comments.