Wal-Mart sues disabled employee....and wins

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by yg17, Mar 27, 2008.

  1. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #1
    http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2008/03/18/business/031908shankruling.txt



    Just when you thought the company couldn't get any more evil. The company had $11 BILLION in profit. This $470,000 isn't even pocket change to the company. And what the article fails to mention, but was mentioned by Keith Olbermann tonight, was that just days after the settlement in Wal-Mart's favor, her son was killed in Iraq. And because her short term memory has been severely damaged, every day the family has to explain to her that her son has died in Iraq and she reacts as if she has never heard the news before. This company never fails to disgust me. Unfortunately, I still have to shop at Wal-Mart for the next 7 weeks since that's the only thing available in the town I live in, but once I graduate college and move back to a large city, I will never, ever step foot in a Wal-Mart or Sams Club again. I encourage everyone else to do the same.
     
  2. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #2
    >>The subrogation clause, common to employee health care contracts, including the one Shank signed with Wal-Mart, says that if the injured party collects damages from an accident on which the company has paid medical expenses, the company has first dibs on it.

    Read the fine print, people. Don't sign your name if you don't like...

    But anyway,I don't feel sorry at all. Wal-Mart paid for her medical costs. But she collected the half mill from the trucking co. anyway. She signed her name on the contract... Just another silly attack on Wal-Mart to rile the troops.
     
  3. sushi Moderator emeritus

    sushi

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Location:
    キャンプスワ&#
    #3
    Well said, and I agree.

    Don't sign if you don't agree with what the contract states.
     
  4. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #4
    i agree completely. if you agree to it, be able to deal with the results.

    although i feel sorry for her, why should walmart have to be responsible for any more than what they agreed to be?

    this is fair and even saying that, people need to realize life is not fair all the time and doesnt give you handouts...
     
  5. cycocelica macrumors 68000

    cycocelica

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Location:
    Redmond, WA
    #5
    If they didn't do this, it would be unfair to the rest of the employees.

    I hate Wal-Mart as much as the next person, but unfortunately I have to side with them. She signed, so she is at fault, sadly.
     
  6. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #6
    Let's see if I understand this correctly:

    Debbie Shank was involved in a tragic accident and received compensation from the negligent party. Walmart, who has been paying her medical bills throughout this entire process, and will continue to pay her medical bills for the rest of her life, has claimed the money awarded to the Shank family to recoup the money spent on her medical bills. Correct?

    Seems perfectly reasonable to me. When she was awarded the settlement money, it was given to cover medical bills and other expenses resulting from the accident. Since Walmart is the one actually paying for these fees, and not the Shank family, it only makes sense that Walmart be reimbursed for their costs.
     
  7. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #7
    Wal-Mart held their end of the bargain by honoring the healthcare contract. This lady, on the other hand, attempted to swindle the company out of $500,000 that is rightly owed. I don't see how this makes Wal-Mart evil, yg17.
     
  8. benlangdon macrumors 65832

    benlangdon

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    #8
    wait so...
    she got her bills paid by wallmart right?
    then the trucking company paid her a settlement of 500,000, right?
    so if she gives the money to wallmart they are really not paying them 500,000 of their own money, right?


    i think this article is to brief and does not have enough facts to make my opinion
     
  9. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #9
    The following questions are raised:

    1. Was the settlement intended to cover long-term care?
    2. Was any of the settlement intended to cover lost wages?
    3. Was any of the settlement for non-medical damages?
    4. How much did Wal-Mart pay in medical costs?
    5. Is any of Mrs. Shanks long-term care covered by Wal-Mart's health plan?

    Which all have dramatic implications on the fairness of the ruling and of Wal-Mart's health care plan. Without answering these, it's impossible to address.
     
  10. benlangdon macrumors 65832

    benlangdon

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    #10
    see this is why i love MR.
    people on here are not all dramatic and see things blurred by their emotions.
    wow, people on forums, not fighting like kids, only on an apple forum :D
    what a concept
     
  11. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #11
    stick around, that happens too.
     
  12. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #12
    In all fairness to those who have looked at it emotionally, Wal-Mart doesn't exactly have a great history of fair employee treatment. Their average wages fall well below liveable wages, and their health-coverage is far from trend-setting. I don't want to characterize Mrs. Shanks specifically, but I'm sure that considering the low rate of pay, many Wal-Mart employees are poorly educated and wouldn't understand the majority of their employee contract and (in this case) the rights they were signing away. This raises questions of personal accountability vs. corporate accountability.
     
  13. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #13
    What right? The right to be paid twice? :confused:
     
  14. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #14
    The right to some some of the damages paid. See questions 3 and 4 in my previous post as to why this might be relevant.
     
  15. j26 macrumors 65832

    j26

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Location:
    Paddyland
    #15
    Too true. Part of this compensation is likely to have been for non-medical damages (the "pain & suffering", and loss of earnings). While anything paid for medical expenses is validly Wal-Marts, what was paid outside of that should be for her and the family.
     
  16. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #16
    Of course I mean that if the medical expenses are specifically covered by the payout, it is only right that if WalMart covered it in the interim they should get that amount back. Anything not specifically earmarked to cover what WalMart have paid for should be for the victim, including the money raised by WalMart Watch, natch.
     
  17. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #17
    After all the questions asked so far, I still don't really understand that story entirely.

    I interpret the story this way: Walmart has spent a total of $470,000 on medical expenses for this lady, and is no longer paying anymore bills. They paid for the cost of medical. That's it. Walmart has a right to claim back what they paid in medical costs if the victim reaches a settlement with whomever was to blame (ie: the trucking company). Since the family's winnings is only around $500,000 from the case, Walmart pretty much gets all that money back (this is where I think I may be wrong. Maybe the family gets more than this, but only has around $200,000 or $300,000 after paying back Walmart, which they don't expect to be enough money to care for the wife). The family doesn't get money from Walmart anymore for their expenses, and now have no extra money from this case to help them pay their expenses.


    I don't know. I don't think much of employee contracts because it's usually just a "sign here now" type of deal for really basic jobs. It's the equivalent of internet contracts where you click on "Agree" without reading it. I know this doesn't mean the family deserves the money though. Legally, they don't.
     
  18. WildCowboy Administrator/Editor

    WildCowboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #18
    The issue is that, after attorneys' fees and such brought the woman's settlement with the trucking company down to $417,000, Wal-Mart asked for $53,000 more than that amount. Plus interest and Wal-Mart's attorneys' fees, as allowed by her contract.

    Her settlement money was paid directly into an irrevocable trust to be used only for her long-term care and set up at the request of the court.

    My understanding is that the court ruling said that Wal-Mart can only have what is left in that trust fund, which is about $277,000.

    CNN article
     
  19. elcid macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    #19
    First of all, the husband even said that it was their right to take the money, he just wishes they didn't.

    But how do you give the money back while no setting a precedence?

    And how did the lawyer not look at the wal-mart contract when coming up with an amount for the trial?

    This is like the sub-prime bail out thread. Contracts are set up so that emotion doesnt get in the way. Everyone knows going into it what the terms are and it is signed. Walmart was in their right, and if they caved on this one it would set a precedence for every employee to challenged such clauses in their contract.

    Can't let emotion get into these things.
     
  20. Full of Win macrumors 68030

    Full of Win

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Location:
    Ask Apple
    #20
    If she settled for just her med bills - then her lawer should be held to account for this.
     
  21. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #21
    What is a 'livable wage?' The fact that they do offer healthcare packages and pay over minimum wage says they do treat employees fairly. Being a Walmart cashier isn't meant to be a job for those who are primary earners for a family. It is a job mostly for immigrants' wives (at least in my area) the elderly/retirees, high-school and college students, and the mentally and physically challenged.
     
  22. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #22
    Wal-Mart is Satan. Every time I think I've heard the worst thing they're involved with something like this happens. I can say no more.
     
  23. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #23
    What is it about this case that makes you think Walmart is Satan?


    Ideology stops at the wallet.
     
  24. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #24
  25. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #25
    So you don't shop there because K. Olberman doesn't?
     

Share This Page