Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis - Brain-damaged woman sued by Wal-Mart

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/index.php)

- General Discussion (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)

- - Brain-damaged woman sued by Wal-Mart (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=30568)

Brain-damaged woman sued by Wal-Mart

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/walmart.insurance.battle/index.html?iref=newssearch

JACKSON, Missouri (CNN) -- Debbie Shank breaks down in tears every time she's told that her 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq.

The 52-year-old mother of three attended her son's funeral, but she continues to ask how he's doing. When her family reminds her that he's dead, she weeps as if hearing the news for the first time.
Shank suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident nearly eight years ago that robbed her of much of her short-term memory and left her in a wheelchair and living in a nursing home.
It was the beginning of a series of battles -- both personal and legal -- that loomed for Shank and her family. One of their biggest was with Wal-Mart's health plan.

Eight years ago, Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart's health and benefits plan.
Two years after the accident, Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank's long-term care.
Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank's medical expenses and later sued for the same amount. However, the court ruled it can only recoup what is left in the family's trust.
The Shanks didn't notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart's health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit.
The family's attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money.
"We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to," Graham said.

The Shanks lost their suit to Wal-Mart. Last summer, the couple appealed the ruling -- but also lost it. One week later, their son was killed in Iraq.

"They are quite within their rights. But I just wonder if they need it that bad," Jim Shank said.
In 2007, the retail giant reported net sales in the third quarter of $90 billion.
Legal or not, CNN asked Wal-Mart why the company pursued the money.
Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, who called Debbie Shank's case "unbelievably sad," replied in a statement: "Wal-Mart's plan is bound by very specific rules. ... We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank's case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan."
Jim Shank said he believes Wal-Mart should make an exception.
"My idea of a win-win is -- you keep the paperwork that says you won and let us keep the money so I can take care of my wife," he said.
The family's situation is so dire that last year Jim Shank divorced Debbie, so she could receive more money from Medicaid.
Jim Shank, 54, is recovering from prostate cancer, works two jobs and struggles to pay the bills. He's afraid he won't be able to send their youngest son to college and pay for his and Debbie's care.
"Who needs the money more? A disabled lady in a wheelchair with no future, whatsoever, or does Wal-Mart need $90 billion, plus $200,000?" he asked.
The family's attorney agrees.
"The recovery that Debbie Shank made was recovery for future lost earnings, for her pain and suffering," Graham said.
"She'll never be able to work again. Never have a relationship with her husband or children again. The damage she recovered was for much more than just medical expenses."
Graham said he believes Wal-Mart should be entitled to only about $100,000. Right now, about $277,000 remains in the trust -- far short of the $470,000 Wal-Mart wants back.
Refusing to give up the fight, the Shanks appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But just last week, the high court said it would not hear the case.
Graham said the Shanks have exhausted all their resources and there's nothing more they can do but go on with their lives.
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/...ertisement.gif

Jim Shank said he's disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case -- not for the sake of his family -- but for those who might face similar circumstances.
For now, he said the family will figure out a way to get by and "do the best we can for Debbie."

"Luckily, she's oblivious to everything," he said. "We don't tell her
what's going on because it will just upset her."

This is why I don't shop at that shithole. Hooray for Wal-Mart, scum of the earth!

Seriously, they fucking sue her for more than she WON after legal fees?

"We're being fair to the associates." Right, ask the other associates what they think of this.

This should be the exception that MAKES the rule.

Funny, I just read and watched this at another message board I go to just about 5 minutes ago...

Anyway, here's a video regarding that report: Brain-damaged woman at center of Wal-Mart suit - CNN.com

I could only imagine if Wal-Mart was responsible for death. I wonder what they'd do then.

I don't understand. Wal-mart paid her medical expenses, that's like if the truck accident was worker's comp? I assumed it was a separate health plan (Blue Shield and etc) that paid it. But good god, 470,000 medical expenses? That must be some accident.

I didn't know Wal-mart has it OWN health plan. Or am I missing something here?

wal-mart is seriously messed up. they don't care whether she lives or dies. maybe i should stop shopping there....

Yeah, this is the sort of thing I hate Wal-Mart for. I don't boycott the place, but I avoid it as much possible.

"Company pursues legal rights and abides by contract!"

GOD DAMN EVIL BASTARDS HOW DARE THEY ARGARGALGREALHGALKDSGAJSLFASF. I AM NEVER SHOPPING THERE AGAIN*.

You people.

*After the next time I go there, I swear I'll never go there again! You guys believe me, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leknaat (Post 588271)

"We're being fair to the associates." Right, ask the other associates what they think of this.

This should be the exception that MAKES the rule.

Lawl-mart ihas never been fair to their employees. Every single person I worked with during my slave time with them, all hated it, but couldn't get a job anywhere else, so were stuck with it.

Won't even get into their work ethics and the amount of kiss-ass you have to endure/supply to get anywhere, but this shit takes the cake and is probably going to be the nail for me to never ever work for them again. (Well, I shouldn't say NEVER, but it's definately going to be a last resort option.)

I feel real bad for the lady in this situation with them though. Wal-mart has enough damn money and I could see if the accident was wal-mart related where they could try to recover "damages" they paid out to help the person recover, but this wasn't even a wal-mart related injury, was it? Yeaaaa. I can almost bet if this accident happened while she was working, then they would try to prolong paying anything out and having all sorts of investigations going on to NOT pay her the money. I know that this is the case from not only having to deal with sexual harassment and being called a liar and that I "misunderstood" everything said to me and that it "didn't need to go to court" from when my mother fell down and just about shattered her ankle at wal-mart due to negligence from their employees not keeping clean floors.

This shit here just pisses me off even more. I agree with her husband, they on't need the money. All they're doing is robbing someone who needs it and the money had NOTHING to do with Wal-mart at all. I can imagine Sam Walton is just spinning in his grave about all this shit.

Skills, are you talking to me? Because I haven't bought a damn thing there in well over 5-6 years. And what's outrageous (aside from this provision existing in the first place) is that they're asking for more money than the lady wound up walking away with--money that is going straight into medical care for her.

Skills, come on. Even if it's completely in the company's rights to do what it is they're doing, it doesn't change the fact that they are heartless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Griffin (Post 588296)

I'm not refering to anyone in particular, just the general semblance of "holy fuck I'm not going there again after hearing this news" that's in this thread.

What the company was asking for is within their legal rights to do so, however, and I think the overall negative reaction to the enforcement of a bloody contract, no matter how unfortunate it is for the family involved, is silly and hyperbolic. It's not like they're breaking the law, here.

I guess the devil is in the details.

While it's an upsetting story, I'm going to have to go with Skills on this one.

Knowing how Walmart tends to treat its employees, this should come as no surprise from anyone here, or elsewhere. They're infamous for "fine print" clauses, and anyone who considers signing a paper with Walmart really, really really ought to read everything thoroughly.

Like Skills said, Walmart is legally under no obligation to let the family have their money.

Don't act like Walmart is the only major corporation to fuck people over. You guys with you "I AM NEVER SHOPPING AT WALMART AGAIN" are in for a rude awakening: many, many, many corporations give people the shaft.

They're not out to lose money - they're in it to make money. They're not expected to be the moral pinnacles of society.

Yes, it's a sad story. I recognize that. But really.

Apart from the whole "F U WALMART" shit, why would the family constantly REMIND her that her son is dead?? Seriously, she's braindead. Why cause her more pain - EVERY DAY - telling her that her son is dead when she has pretty much no short term memory? That's AWFULLY cruel if you ask me. You know those situations where white lies are permissible? I think this is the perfect time for that.

Need I remind you, Skills, that morality and legality are not the same? Nobody's debating the legal process here. But saying "shit sucks, get on with your life" isn't a whole lot better than the LOL BOYCOTT reaction. What will probably ensue from this publicity is the possibility of the family getting volunteer donations, and that's a good thing.

I don't think I ever said they were, actually. I certainly wasn't saying "You're SOL, get on with it" either, I was just thinking it was silly to run around with a boycott threat because of a situation which is pretty much unsurprising as fuck considering the corporate entity we're dealing with here.

The morality/legality link is pretty strong in this case, though. You either do the right moral thing and the wrong legal thing, or the wrong moral thing and the right legal thing. Doesn't seem to be a win win, really. Shame there is no real way to seperate it. Even if that's what I tried to do, that's what people are focusing on. =\

Quote:

[03/27/08 - 00:37:39] <+Bigblah> make sure you insult me somehow

You smell like pickles. >=(

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colonel Spreadsheet (Post 588315)

You smell like pickles. >=(

Well, I hope one day you get brain-damaged in an accident while washing a pair of pants and Wal-Mart sues you for the compensation money AND the pants.

As callous as it may sound, I can understand Wal-Mart's position. Foremost, they're abiding by the legal terms of their insurance contract. It's an entitlement that they're allowed to pursue. Their existence isn't as a charity organization; it's unrealistic to expect them to serve as one.

But more importantly, I can see how the corporation is trying to prevent itself from being wedged into setting a precedent, one that could be milked by others. It might be the morally correct act to absolve the Shank's debt but is it fiscally responsible in the long-term? The answer is a crystal clear "no."

See, if the Shanks are given favor, it will open the next similar case up for a similar claim, citing the Shank's case as precedent. Should Wal-Mart decline to absolve that debt, unlike the Shank's, they'd be setting themselves up for a lawsuit, likely one claiming "preferential treatment." If the plaintiff is a member of a minority, it could easily become a race or gender issue. This is only more bad publicity, not to mention the associated legal fees, unrecouped medical expenses, and settlements for nebulous claims of "defamation", "anguish" and "suffering."

You have to see it in the long-term. Today's charity is tomorrow's day-to-day expectation. Where does this money come from? Paying out to exorbitant medical claims, legal fees and damage control only drives prices up in compensation. This is a horrible business strategy and Wal-Mart is intelligent enough to avoid setting foot down that path.

Yes, I sympathize with the Shanks. I sympathize greatly. No amount of money can negate the damage. But this is a matter of black and white print, not what is morally just. Even as a judge, I couldn't, in good conscience, rule against Wal-Mart here.

(However, an equitable solution, one that is practically disingenious, is for Wal-Mart to officially collect the due total from the Shanks - who do have the money. Then, Wal-Mart could cut the Shanks a check for an equal sum and present it as a charitable gift. This satisfies the terms of the insurance contract, warding off precedent. Yet it also provides a happy ending for the Shank family, and significantly saves Wal-Mart's reputation. Additionally, the money could be used as a charitable deduction on Wal-Mart's taxes and the two figures would approximately cancel each other out. Everybody wins!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigblah (Post 588317)

Well, I hope one day you get brain-damaged in an accident while washing a pair of pants and Wal-Mart sues you for the compensation money AND the pants.

That'll only happen if I'm unfortunate enough to have bought the pants at Wal-mart in the first place.

I'm observant enough to note that the tag says "in case of accident while cleansing these pantaloons, Wal-mart reserves the right to recall this article of clothing and take your wallet."

Considering the amount of things Walmart does that are actually illegal, this should surprise no one. I have various reason I never shop there, including the fact that I don't have any perticularly close to here. The only things I've ever bought at Walmart was City of Heroes: Good vs Evil Edition when it was a Walmart exclusive and a Wii.

You know, I don't quite understand this knee-jerk tendency to boycott Wal-Mart whenever they get bad press. I follow the reasons one would boycott a corporation in general, but Wal-Mart certainly seems to get the brunt of it. It's hardly proportionate. Verizon, McDonald's, Texaco, United Airlines - they've all done some shitty things in the past but they've escaped a lot of their aggressors. Not Wal-Mart, though. They fire a single mother over a possible false positive on a drug test and suddenly idiots come crawling out of the woodwork. ARGH WE WILL NEVER BUY CULOTTES FROM YOU AGAIN! People who have no connection to the issue at all are up in arms. If you were a single mother, or a druggie, I could understand some indignance, but cripes. If your only purpose in visiting Wal-Mart is videogames and Little Debbie cakes, what the fuck do you care?

Yeah, Wal-Mart does some shitty things. I still shop there because I require objects now and then and do not want to pay more than is truly necessary for, say, Listerine. I don't particularly care for Exxon's business practices but dang if I still don't need gasoline every few weeks. Practicality outweighs principle, sometimes.

Folks, if you're going to draw a line somewhere, don't do it over your own throats.

This proves that Capitalist Companies drain the money out of the free people!! LET US JOIN HANDS AND ENTER THE REVOLUTION!

You know i was just gonna suggest the same thing Crash suggested, i think that's the sound choice , because a kind act here might secure them a lot of sympathy and well let's face it, people are gonna shop there more 'cuz they feel "warmer" to them.

The real question here is, can anyone actually convince them of doing that? As i think their lawyers must have suggested something similar.

I already never shop at Wal-Mart so~

it's still a major-league bummer that they won't let this one go. I'm not saying they should be obliged to because that's something that only an expert in contract law and medical plans should say, but it's still a seriously douchebag move.

Furthermore I'm seconding the guy who said that the publicity should attract personal donators to the poor lady's cause. I wonder, though, if Wal-Mart will feel obliged to that money as well?

shit sux

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colonel Spreadsheet (Post 588286)

Fuck your cynicism. This shit is polluting society.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leknaat (Post 588271)

"We're being fair to the associates." Right, ask the other associates what they think of this.

This should be the exception that MAKES the rule.

Wal-Mart's plan is supposed to be a stop-gap for their employees which can't afford their own medical, which is why they're seeking to recoup losses in the case of an applicant winning suit.

She can still cover her expenses even after the case (assuming legal fees did not run them dry), it just looks really bad because she's mentally stunted and her son just died in Iraq.

If I was Wal-Mart I would not attempt to be flexible no matter how bad this case may be, because it gives a lot of other people room to try and wiggle out of contract with their sob stories.

This is really bad, and it sucks for the Shanks, but I have to side with Wal-Mart.