Wal-Mart Backs Down, Drops Draconian Reimbursement Case
By SilentPatriot Monday Mar 31, 2008 6:50pm
Chalk this up as a win for Deborah Shank and decency... props to the blogoshere and Keith Olbermann, who hammered Wal-Mart all last week as his "Worst Person" for their shameful treatment of a former employee. We've been exposing this horrendous story for a while now.
CNN: (h/t Andy K & Dr. Hussein Matt)
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) is dropping a controversial effort to collect more than $400,000 in health-care reimbursement from a former employee who suffered brain damage in a traffic accident.The world's largest retailer said in a letter to the family of
Deborah Shank it will not seek to collect money the Shanks won in an injury lawsuit against a trucking company for the accident.
Whatever explains Wal-Mart's change of heart, this is great news for Mrs. Shank.
Login or Register to post comments.
Excellent!! I'm so happy corporate greed didn't win out. And it doesn't change my mind about never shopping at Wal-Mart either. Just glad they eventually "did the right thing". Too bad they needed to be reminded to do so in such a publicly humilating way.
Thanks Keith!! You rock!
Are you sure this isn't an April Fools joke from Wal-Mart?
Finally, some good news.
Chuckling Canuck @ 2:
[dark, cringe-worthy laughter]
You bastard!
Hey Silent,
Heads-up: small typo in the second line reading "fro".
Walmart paid hundreds of thousands in legal fees, and all it bought them was a big-box store full of bad publicity.
April fools, indeed.
Walmart needs the cash to fund the presidential campaign of a former board member.
Shame on Wal-Mart for being shamed into doing what was honorable.
Well at least THAT family may find some small peace of mind on the money end of their problems...I'm sure they have more than enough to deal with without looking at forced bankruptcy brought on by a former employers myopic greed.... Generally speaking though, it's a damn shame ya gotta beat (name that person of business) over the head with bad publicity, ridicule and public shame before anything decent happens..... I don't know why it seems like that in every instance... But that's just the way it seems these days..............JD
Bad PR for Wal Mart.
Too bad KO and MSNBC are a joke with their Obama bias.
Credibility tossed like our freedoms.
Hells yeah!
doesn't mean for a minute I'll being going back to Wally World any time soon, or ever.
Piss on 'em. They obviously don't need my money.
It's really quite simple- the lost sales from people who would have quit shopping at Walmart as a result of the publicity this story brought them would have been greater than the $400,000 they were seeking from the former employee they were suing. Don't be so naive as to think the legal department at Walmart suddenly grew a concience.
Great News.
President PNACcio @ 11:
You nailed it. Bad reputation = less sales. Bet the Legal Dept. at Walmart is
having a hissey fit.
Should Olbermann claim this as a win or should all of us moral people who were outraged claim this as a win?
YES!
Sonnaofa B, Keith! You did it!
Way to go. You have to feel good about this, but also realize that the rest of us feel good about this.
Nice going!
Good job Keith and all......Now let's get bush to resign.
CD @ 14:
In reality, neither. The higher Court had ruled in favor of Walmart, so Walmart is the loser and the family is the winner.
CD @ 14:
Americans should claim this as a win. That SOB chain should be ashamed that this ever went this far. No amount of money could get me into one of their stores.
Great, so I get to be the "troll" again. The woman won a payout for her injuries after Wal*Mart had already responsibly paid for her medical bills. WalMart's employee insurance is collective; the money they demanded be returned from Shanks' technical double-dipping was still less than they paid out to her to begin with.
Yes, this looks like a case of giving up to drop the PR horror now, but it's been a big spin about an evil corporation and a poor, injured worker which ignored the fact that WalMart had paid all her medical bills and was not only entitled to reimbursement but was legally obliged to seek it, with that money going toward the health care of other employees.
There are lots of reasons to hate WalMart; this was never one of them.
Geez Louise:
Would any other corporation held onto that $400K as long as WalMart while they lost millions of dollars every day in sales and good will?
I think the family who won't be rendered destitute because of this cancelled greed should consider it a very small relief... The rest of us should leave it alone and be happy for those folks...
Victory??? Given the state of things... I think victory.... in this nation, in 2008 under any circumstances on any subject is a bit of an overstatement... When they haul Bush, Cheney and some other big shot assholes in politics away in leg irons and cuffs??? Then, I think, we might be able to 'begin' to 'think' some kind of real victory 'might be possible'...Until then... Victory??? Ehh not so much.....JD
I don't understand how anyone could shop at WalMart. Never have, never will.
'Win'.... Substitute win for victory in my above post... It was a response to CD@14........................JD
[Deleted. Off topic. You're half right. The thread IS about Wal-mart. But it's not about Hillary Clinton-Sitemonitor]
ReallyEvilCanine @ 20:
I do not consider you a troll. The legal merits of the case favored Walmart under the
"rule of law", and a judge so ruled.
I'm a little confused - from what I read Walmart drained the woman's trust fund - emptied it! How is this any kind of victory? If Walmart wanted to do the right thing, they would have paid the bill out of their PR fund and set up ANOTHER trust for the woman.
David.
ReallyEvilCanine @ 20:
With all the money Wal-Mart is making it's insane that they allow collective employee insurance to be hurt.
We need to make sure that Wal-Mart doesn't do what ReallyEvilCanine has described.
Wait, I'm confused. The link said that WalMart is only collecting the $277k that was left in the trust fund. Where does it say that they are dropping the case and giving back the money?
Oh, wait, never mind, I see it in the CNN link.
[Deleted. Off topic. You're half right. The thread IS about Wal-mart. But it's not about Hillary Clinton-Sitemonitor]
Took'em long enough.
[Deleted. Off topic. You're half right. The thread IS about Wal-mart. But it's not about Hillary Clinton-Sitemonitor]
your troll-fu is weak.
RGKMJ1985 @ 25 and 31: Get a life
i bet you guys still shop there don't you. got to buy your tv guide and beer and packers t shirts somewhere dont you?
yay keith!!
Bless her heart. Hopefully she can live in peace now.
RGKMJ1985 @ 31:
CD @ 14:
All of the above.
Every time Walmart loses all of us can take it as a victory.
But KO definitely deserves props for everything his show did to build the momentum.
abarts @ 33:
Are there any factual errors in #31?
Sounds right to me.
abarts @ 33:
marko @ 37:
[Deleted. Off topic. You're half right. The thread IS about Wal-mart. But it's not about Hillary Clinton-Sitemonitor]
This still doesnt change the way I feel about walmart. Will never shop there.
"intelligent people require?"
Good job for fighting for the little guy (or gal in this case), Olbermann. You were right to keep the heat on Wal-Mart.
Surely that pinhead O'Reilly will award you patriot of the day for this! LOL!
ReallyEvilCanine @ 20:
Wal-Mart didn't get sued out of money from their health insurance fund, did they?
And even if they did, they picked a plan that's not in their employee's interests.
From the way I see it, the moneys coming from two separate places, so it's not "double-dipping."
Sitemonitor: You are correct, as usual. Probably need to delete my No. 34 also..
[I saw it. I left it. It was decent advice-Sitemonitor]
I am glad to see this work out, regardless of who gets the credit.
Doggiebobo @ 47:
with all due respect to author, john, sitemonitor, all who comment and the entire staff of c&l, the deletions of the above comments as off topic seems a bit overreaching.
1. walmart is bad...we all know this
2. its an election year
3. walmart, tyson etc own the clintons
4. interconnections, free exchange of thoughts in agreat community
where is the chain linked free speech zone?
ReallyEvilCanine @ 20:
Nonsense.
Walmart's medical costs in the aftermath of Mrs. Shank's accident, and the damages awarded to her for pain, suffering, future lost income and ongoing care are two completely separate amounts, intended for different purposes.
Walmart's obligation appears to have ended with emergency care, the resolution of her accident injuries, and her emergence from her coma. If you read the stories, Walmart had no ongoing responsibility for her long-term care.
That's where the damages award came in. The $700,000 (net amount after lawyer and court costs: $417,000) she got from that was all for care for the rest of her life. She had every moral right to this money. It wasn't double-dipping, it was a legitimate award for money she needed to compensate for her inability to work or care for herself. Walmart's attempt to take back the damages money was a cash grab, pure and simple.
Why do the people who take Walmart's side not get this? Mrs. Shank PAID for her insurance, it wasn't a gift from her employer.
And the kicker: Walmart probably wasn't out of pocket at all for her medical costs to begin with. Like any prudent corporation with thousands of insured employees, the company would certainly have had a separate insurance company on the hook to cover this liability. Just like it insures its directors against liability, and its stores stores against fire.
Good to see they backed down, but still, to heck with them.. they should have never brought it up in the first place.
Too bad it took public outrage spelling out "what the right thing to do would be" to bring common sense to Wal-mart
Annoyed Canuck @ 50:
Exactly right
I am kind of a cynic. I think they caved in on stealing errr 'getting reimbursed' because they were losing more money per day than the amount they were taking from this poor woman.
Either way, it's good for the Shanks.
Willie ain't to smart to run a big company. I would never sue (verb, not a noun) my employee. I would have gone after the company, person or insurance company that represents the cause of the harm not to my employee.........................get it?
Gee simple. Recover damage from the "responsible party" if it hasn't been said already......see post 20.
She could have done the right thing and not sought medical attention until this was all sorted out. Sorry it doesn't work that way. Damage should be collected from the responsible party. Until that is determined you rely on "your health care", if you have any.....IMHO
I once read that the criminal mind is not motivated by right or wrong,but what it can get away with. WalMart gets away with a hell of a lot-but not this time, not on this one. Kudos to Keith-O, the blogosphere. To the Bentonvillains ,we should all tell them ,"Goodbye ,good luck,and good riddance"-never to shop there again.
So glad to hear it.
THIS is the power of the media.
This is why the powers that be keep such a strangle hold on the minds and mouths of too many talking heads.
I was hoping it would go a bit further- forcing KO to release a list of the Walmart board of directors. I think many here would be surprised at who is (and has) served there. More than one of the presidential candidates...
I'm sure it's been said above, but it's incredible to me that Wal Mart blew millions of dollars of positive press for a miniscule sum to them, especially towards a damaged woman who's son was killed in Iraq. Whoever is in charge of this debacle should be fired immediately for total incompetence!...
It's sad that Olberman had to shame Wal Mart into this...now they get nothing but bad press.
Keith Olbermann is a blowhard.
I never knew Wal-mart had a heart. Shouldn't the last link read change of heartless?
Good, shaming Wal-Mart worked!
SK @ 59:
You have anything to support your statement? Or are you just spamming C&L with nonsense.
So as a former Wal-Mart "associate", this is likely Wal-Mart's course of action:
- Shooting up the cost of health care
Trust me on this one. Their original point was that not re-couping the $400,000 was going to drive up their health care premiums and make it cost more for every associate on their health care plan (usually always run by some independent company that actually is owned by Wal-Mart). Becuase of the public backlash, they will likely turn around to the associates and tell them, that due to the fact the public has made it quite negative for Wal-Mart to recoup those settlement expenses, they are going to make it more expensive for Wal-Mart associates to receive health plan benefits. They will gouge people on flimsy health care plans and say, "We have to. We have no choice".
Do not ever consider this company to have a heart. If it had a heart, it would not be the richest retailer in the world. It is a very efficient, well oiled, well slicked machine and its not made to feel. Again, if it felt, it wouldn't be so rich.
The only reason that Wally World backed down is because the Tibetan Monks threatened to boycott Walmart during the Olympic Shame Games.
Annoyed Canuck @ 50:
You don't understand medical liability. If she accepted a settlement from the party liable for her injury, then her medical insurance is entitled to reimbursement. It's easy to make Wal-Mart the bad guy here but the real party to blame here are the injured woman's lawyers! They should have known quite well that her medical insurance would be entitled to reimbursement and should never have advised her to settle for such a small amount. And for that piss-poor legal representation, they pocketed nearly $300,000 of her settlement. How come the press isn't going after them?
Do you not get that the employer usually subsidizes insurance premiums?
Also, as for your "kicker" you should realize that a corporation as large as Wal-Mart is almost certainly self-insured -- both for medical insurance and fire.
To anyone who believes that Walmart is a moral and upstanding citizen of our country: Have you ever shopped in a Walmart town?"
The portrait of a Walmart community:
The only new book source is a 20x20 foot zone in Walmart.
The only electronics store is Walmart.
The only deli is at Walmart.
The only pharmacy is at Walmart.
The only toy store is at Walmart, infested with poisonous Chinese crap.
The only shoe store is Walmart.
The only fabric store is at Walmart.
The only source of home small appliances and home supplies is at Walmart.
The only lawn and garden center is at Walmart.
The only jewelery store is at Walmart.
The only photo processing store is at Walmart.
The only optician is at Walmart.
The only hunting and sport source is at Walmart.
In fact, the only store in town is Walmart as the population has been brainwashed into believing that the only store in town is Walmart.
SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL COMMUNITY. BUY FROM LOCALLY OWNED AND OPERATED BUSINESSES. PAY A FEW SMALL PERCENT MORE FOR A PRODUCT OR SERVICE TO SUPPORT YOUR COMMUNITY, NOT THE COMMUNISTS AND FASCISTS IN ARKANSAS AND WASHINGTON!
Media Muncher @ 66:
WAAAAY ahead of you.
Never been in one- never will.
Knew this instinctively from the first time I saw one.
I don't drink coffee from a f@ing Starbucks either:p
steveATpsu @ 65:
Who are you? You are obviously a Walmart corporate employee or slimy corporate lawyer. Walmart is always spouting their "love their community and employee" propaganda. Where is the love the employee attitude here? You should be ashamed of yourself and Walmart and their corporate and government masters. Just because the Walmart insurance program and employee contracts specify that they may be entitled to this poor woman's legal award does not mean that they are ethically entitled to the money. Why didn't Walmart sue for the legal judgement? It is obvious that coorporate Walmart GREED is the motivation. GET YOUR PRIORITIES STRAIT! WALMART AND THEIR LEGAL ARGUMENTS ARE ETHICALLY AND MORALLY CORRUPT AND JUST PLAIN WRONG!
Indeed, it's excellent news.
Crooks and Liars.com can take some real credit too for helping to make some ripples which turned into waves.
I cried when I saw this story tonight. But it made me think about the larger picture and the F-ed up healthcare system in this country that makes stories like this all-too-common. To paraphrase Michael Moore in "Sicko": Why should health care be for-profit? I realize that we are a capatalist society, and I accept that. But when the law requires corporations to maximize profits for shareholders, it is an absolute no-brainer that health care will be denied whenever feasable (sp?).
It is my hope that Americans will wake up soon and demand change on a scale we have not seen since Nixon made that deal with the Kaiser devil nearly 40 years ago. My grandparents never had to worry about this stuff--why should we?
Greymoose @ 70:
The law does not require that corporations maximize their profits for shareholders. In fact, by offering true compassion to employees, customers, consumers, and ultimately taxpayers, the corporations would benefit the returns of their shareholders for a much greater return than what the "get it now" greed philosophy of today's corporate culture now promotes. The concept of delayed gratification has been completely lost by the "NOW" generation. The old philosophy of building customer loyalty with service and quality has been replaced by corporate greed. The results of the current "greed" mentality of corporate America is just now being realized with the low value of the dollar and hidden inflation. Wake up people. Its not liberal or conservative. Its not money. If you want to be truly free and prosperous, be ethical, think of the consequences of your actions, consider who you do business with. Be compassionate and loving to your neighbor. Be a good citizen. DO NOT SHOP AT BUSINESSES WITH THE WALMART GREED PHILOSOPHY!
BennyP @ 67:
Good for you! You obviously understand basic economics. Buying from local merchants supports your local economy and tax base, thereby keeping your taxes LOW! Buying at Walmart only ultimately INCREASES your taxes as all the money collected goes elsewhere! Wake up America! You are only destroying your communities by shopping at anti-American businesses like Walmart. Chinese junk has no benefit to you or your community. Chinese junk only perpetuates the Chinese communist subjugation of people like the Tibetans who only want to live in peace and obscurity. Shopping at Walmart is ultimately unamerican and really only harms YOU!
SK @ 59:
And you base this stunning revelation on what, exactly?
www.WakeUpWalMart.com
Occasionally others help us step back and look at a situation in a different way. This is one of those times.
--Pat Curran, Executive Vice President, People. Wal-Mart Stores, U. S.
Dear Friend,
Over the past few weeks, the Debbie Shank case gave us a tremendous opportunity to teach Wal-Mart a lesson about corporate responsibility.
Check out the Wal-Mart workers' petition to Lee Scott and Shank case overview
Today, the backlash against Wal-Mart's lawsuit finally drove the company to drop its claim on her settlement winnings. Consider this concrete proof that Wal-Mart must change when supporters like you take action.
After years of being dragged through the courts, the Shanks can finally begin to piece their lives back together. We couldn't be happier for Debbie and her family. But, we still can't forget the other Wal-Mart associates who have been treated unfairly by Wal-Mart.
Let's not forget Olga Sanchez, who lost her job because Wal-Mart wouldn't let her see her son before he was deployed to Iraq; or Sean Thornton, who lost his job while he was on active duty. We can't let Wal-Mart forget the 1.6 million women involved in the largest certified gender discrimination lawsuit in history.
We can change America's largest retailer just by raising our voices. That's an amazing thing. If we all remember this day, we'll see better things to come for Wal-Mart's associates.
Thanks for all that you do,
The Team,
WakeUpWalMart.com
WakeUpWalMart.com - America's Campaign to Change Wal-Mart
WOW.
Never thought I'd see this one reversed. Good for Keith. Yech to Walmart, as always.
Keith should keep hammering Wal Mart.They`re scumbags.
steveATpsu @ 65:
Again, does Wal-Mart sue the employee or the party responsible for the injury??? Employers btw give health insurance in lieu of better wages. They subsidize nothing, they compete for employees. Many do so with wages and benefit packages. You the taxpayer subsidize many Wal-Mart employees.
This is the form letter they sent to me, when I reamed them for their money grubbing actions.
This was my reply to the above:
Your excuses ring false. With an $11 billion profit, this bloody
minded company could have left the pittance she got as a settlement to
pay for her care in a nursing home. I will be forwarding this rather
lame excuse of yours to appropriate media, let them air it as they
please.
I will still be telling family, friends, etc etc to not shop at
WalMart or any of your affiliates, and with the internet, I am sure my
blogging about this will make the news of your coldheartedness cost
you more than the $470k you took from this poor woman.
You should be ashamed that you sued her. Just because you CAN do
something doesn't mean you should, but that sort of morality doesn't
come into your greed.
This is the 2nd time people power and the internet have shot a big greedy company of chickinshits in the foot. We citizens need to pull the charters of these snakes or corps as they are called now. Corporations by law(used too) have to prove that they were a benefit to the good of the people. The people held open hearings and regularly pulled the charters of any corporations not following rules. Now corps have been given the same rights as a living breathing,human being! Big corporations are just as much to blame for the state of america as gwbush and his pack of little peckers.Untill we get their big money out of our goverment,reinstate and inforce anti-trust laws and media ownership rules ---nothing will change. How fucking stupid are people who vote against their own best interest! Well gee he said he was honest and that he was a war hero,that was good enough for me or I like his haircut. What does it take to slap you out of it? And every time I hear HRC speak I hear the voice of the martian commander in the movie mars attacks! Raaah---ra-ra---raaah----we come in peace!---don't run, we are your friends!----they came in peace.
I'm surprised they backed down - but they deserve credit for doing the right thing. (Boy - they must have been really feeling the heat . . . . )
*
The real shame is that if the Olbermann's of the world didn't pursue this - the mongrels at Walmart would have continued with this disgraceful lawsuit!
I guess their claims that they look after their employees are up there with Fox News "fair and balanced" and George W's "Iraq is a success".
You don’t understand medical liability. If she accepted a settlement from the party liable for her injury, then her medical insurance is entitled to reimbursement. It’s easy to make Wal-Mart the bad guy here but the real party to blame here are the injured woman’s lawyers!
No, the real parties to blame are the insurance flacks who dreamed this abomination up, the politician who would dare to write this anti-citizen dreck into law, and the judges who (like their political cohorts) seem to forget that they were elected or appointed to do the PEOPLES business. The real problem is that we have been taught to believe that corporations should not just have rights on PAR with a citizen of this country, but that their rights should be paramount.
Happy little slaves - obey the corporation, obey the state, obey the church!
What We Are Made Of
First, let me say thank you to Kieth Olbermann. His efforts to expose this terrible wrong doing ended with very feel good results. I have been turned off by Olbermann's "follow the leader" attacks on Hillary Clinton. I thought he was objective enough to speak in neutral terms when reporting Clinton's election issues.
In a lot of ways, this points to my own tendency to look at people in a untrue duality -- good or bad; a form of black or white thinking. Maybe my first assessment of Olbermann was correct. He does have a unique quality not scene in many commentators associated with today's media. I guess it is good to look at one thing about a person as one among many in a complexity few understand outside of the person in question. Maybe it is okay to like very much what Olbermann did to make this incident come out the way it should. Go Olbermann.
Joseph
Great news for Mrs. Shank, but jeez, did you catch Anderson Cooper and Randi Kaye talking about this on CNN? The whole piece tonight was a grand self-congratulatory yay for CNN piece of propaganda. Never mind the fact that I'd heard about this story from C&L and Keith Olbermann before CNN touched it, but Cooper said they were the first to cover it and completely gave credit to CNN for shaming Wal-Mart into decency. Give me a break. Anderson Cooper has occasional, brief flashes of integrity, but he is still a part of CNN which is too far up its own ass and too accommodating to the right. Ugh.
ReallyEvilCanine @ 20:
So the fact that it wasn't money awarded them is irrelevant?
I have a BIG problem with entitled to reimbursement. If she had not won the settlement would WalMart have gone after her still? I thought your insurance policy was there to cover your expenses. It wasn't a motherfucking ARM loan!
Actually, yeah, this is one of them. Wal-Mart's asshole policies are part of their corporate culture. If this was a few misbehaving execs causing all this trouble you could say that. But apparently this is the screw-job every Wal-Mart employee signs up for. And let me ask you as a final question: DO YOU THINK THE EMPLOYEES HAVE A CHOICE WHEN THEY TAKE THAT INSURANCE?
So yeah, you don't just get to be the troll, you get to be the dickhead.
Why is everyone picking on Walmart when her lawyer walked away with more than she did? Our legal system is totally hosed up when she is suffering and her laywer gets over 50% of her award.
Admittedly, I didn't read all the above threads so please forgive me if I repeat something someone else said. I just wanted to put my $.02 in.
I was so angry when I first read the article on CNN about Walmart going after the settlement the Shanks got. The money they got doesn't even come close to compensating what happened to Deborah and how it affected her and the rest of her family. For Walmart to pursue reimbursement of the $400,000+ they paid out in medical bills is both disgusting and greedy. When Walmart was told they could only get $200,000, they were still going to take it and that floored me! My whole argument is that they're a multi-billion dollar company and that money is a drop in the bucket to them.
Personally, my first thought was that I'm never shopping there again and had actually thought of getting a petition going to bring others on board. I'm not fooled by Walmart's recent change of heart. The only reason they changed their minds was due to the public outcry against them when this story made news. Bad publicity such as this will cause them to lose customers which of course = losing money so we all know that's what this really was about. I'm still not going to shop at Walmart. They're nothing but a greedy, blood-sucking corporation and I don't feel like supplementing that. We have enough of them in this country already. Besides, there's nothing to say they wouldn't do this to someone else in the future.
They've since modified the clause in their policy that they will seek reimbursment of medical bills when someone gets a settlement "on a case by case basis" - well that just tells me that they won't seek it if they get another reaction like this one. If unchallenged, I don't doubt for a second they'd take the money from someone else. They would have in Deborah's case if it wasn't for so many people standing up for her. I'm so glad for her and her family. I hope Walmart sales suffer dearly for this.
it did seem like her lawyer took a huge slice -- that said, to all the old school/new school, old media, new media, bloggers, KeithO, all of ya, whomever who spoke up about this - from my vantage point and to paraphrase Larry The Cable Guy you "getter done"
It's not because of any humanitarian gesture. If they take the money their insurance will have to continue paying her medical expences for life even though she will not be paying her part for the premiums.
This way gets them off the hook.
This is great news!
And the blogosphere must be congratulated. If it were not for you, we'd probably not even know this story, or if we did, we wouldn't know how to help. America has some great people whose visibility is often hidden except on the blogs, those who are truly committed to making America better. No wonder "the government" wants it controlled. Keep your freedom!
I have not heard this discussed,but does anyone have any info or insight as to how much tax write off that WalMart receives every year for the expenses associated with the employees health care? Surely the employee health care expenses are a lucrative source of tax "reimursement" to the corporation. With the dead janitor policies of the past, the interest on the loans was a lucrative write off(before cashing on in the death of the employees)for WalMart. BTW, I wonder if there was a COLI(Company Owned Life Insurance )-better known as dead janitor's policy on Mrs.Shank?
Great job Keith.
getalife @ 9:
I've heard Olbermann say that he is refusing to endorse anyone, and he admitted that he considers himself to be a friend of the Clintons. We know that Tweety loves McCain. So I assume this is a flip remark.
hmmm maybe O'Lielly sent over the Faux Noise Police to have a talk with Wal-Mart
getalife @ 9:
It's not so much that KO and MSNBC are bias toward Obama, than they are anti-Hillary with her constant lying combined with Tonya Harding bullshit tactics. The real joke is reading you, Getalife, accusing anyone of political bias.
Wal-Mart had damn well better pay her legal bills, too!
In a proper world, Walmart would be on her side of the suit to get their health cost reimbursed AND to get her future care assured. And the taxpayers would provide a foundation under the health care infrastructure so it wouldn't bankrupt the person(s) at fault for the accident or their insurance company.
As it is, Walmart and the insurance company are on the same side and, absent Keith Olberman, she get sscrewed.
Thanks, Keith Isn't it wonderful what some bad PR can achieve? I never shop @ WalMart because I think their business practices stink. This was just one example. Please keep up the good work. Countdown is indispensable in the world that BushCo created.
Media Muncher @ 68:
ha ha ha... that's funny.. I'm an engineer and currently a PhD student. I am not and never have been employed at Wal-Mart and in fact prefer not to shop at Wal-Mart whenever possible, partly because of their predatory labor/competitive practices and partly because in an effort to reduce their costs to bare minimum, these days Wal-mart only sells cheap crap. Sure, the prices are low, but most time so it the quality.
As someone else said, there are LOTS of reasons to dislike Wal-Mart, but this isn't one of them. The woman received a "settlement" meaning she and her legal team AGREED to end a lawsuit for a certain amount of money. Her lawyers should be punished for allowing her to settle for less than her medical bills. And instead of punishment, her lawyers walked away with a quarter of a million dollars.
Did anyone actually read this article? They still milked the poor woman for the remaining money in the trust, a whopping $277,000. This isn't going to change my mind about never spending a dime again in Walmart for the remainder of my life.
Agreed. I think this is a perfect example of the lows Wal-Mart will stoop to. I will never spend a penny there.
That being said, I think groups like Wake Up Wal-Mart are doing a lot to raise awareness and put pressure on Wal-Mart. Debbie Shank did get some money, but our job is certainly not done.
steveATpsu @ 99:
I won't design anything if you don't tell people you know about insurance and the legal system. I've done insurance for 35 years. The attorney's didn't do anything wrong because the trucking company probably paid out the limit on their policy, a million dollars. Truckers are pretty much broke in this country so there is no more to get.
I'll bet Wal-mart filed the suit in Arkansas, so the courts are owned by them (why do you think in contracts it always specifies where suits have to be filed, It's because there is no unbiased justice system in America really). Wal-mart is self-insured but that is because the large number of employees makes the risk very stable. This claim is within that stability there is no need to go after this lady if they don't want to.
Anyone who says that it's justified for Wal-mart to go after this woman's medical trust is just selfish. We are all going to pay one way or another, by higher prices at Walmart, higher premium co-payments by their associates (but remember they then do not have the risk of the same problem this woman had then), or the taxpayers (all of us) paying the medicare cost. The expense of this woman's care does not go away, it is just shifted around. Now, as a good liberal I would like misfortune to be borne by the many not just the one, because how do we then each and every one of us save up enough money to assume the risks that could befall one of us?
Too late. Cold day in hell before I'll ever patronize a Wal-Mart.
Quarter of a million? Try over half a million! And more than 50% of the take! People should be complaining about the legal payment system in this country and not about Walmart! Sheesh!
steveATpsu @ 99:
When Megalo-Mart claims in their commercials that they're "slashing prices", they're actually referring to the price of labor.
BTW, since Megalo-Mart recouped the cost of the benefits they paid out, are they going to refund the insurance premiums she paid them? After all, that would only be fair as her coverage cost them nothing.
OK, are the lawyers she hired going to give back the 300k they collected? Of course not, they aren't Walmart. You people are clueless. Almost any company in this country including all insurance companies have the same policy and all collect whatever they paid for medical fees once the patient collects a settlement. Look at your own insurance policies! Its in there!
And to all of you that think the measly dollars you love to proclaim you wont spend at Walmart will make a difference, please, get a clue!
Don't be so gullible. Walmart pushed this case to the brink to get law that favors their interests on the books. Namely, that they get all their money back first before the injured person is paid a dime regardless of whether the responsible party has enough insurance to cover the full amount of the losses and regardless of whether there will be anything left over for the injured person. They now back off of the case in what can only be categorized as a shameless publicity stunt. How do you think Walmart is going to treat future employees that are injured that don't get the publicity of this case now that they have the law they wanted on the books? Open your eyes people, Walmart could care less about the $400K they are giving up on this case considering the millions they will steal from their employees in the future when no one is looking.
Login or Register to post comments.