Comments on: Brain-damaged woman at center of Wal-Mart suit

By: Maggie

Maggie — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:35:33 +0000

Even if Walmart is legally bound to sue for this money – there's certainly nothing stopping this conglomerate from donating money to the family as a charity. I don't see them doing anything like this.

I don't like Walmart's policies about a lot of things, but this takes the cake. I don't think I'll be shopping there anymore either.

By: Doug

Doug — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:24:59 +0000

Our family discussed this yesterday, and we unanimously decided to boycott WalMart. My wife suggested we also transfer our prescriptions. We have already started shopping at other stores. It costs a tiny bit more, but we feel nauseous saving money at her expense. We will have nothing to do with WalMart until they change their policy and give up all current and pending claims.

By: Jacqui Chan

Jacqui Chan — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 07:02:30 +0000

This is the saddest story I have heard in a long time. Walmart is a horrible company: the public should band together and not shop at their stores.

By: Brian Miller

Brian Miller — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:56:25 +0000

It makes me laugh how people are saying Wal-Mart is a soul-sucking mega corporation and in the same breath say that you will switch to Target – anonther sould sucking mega corporation.

Americans – you make me howl. You guys are so materialistic you can no longer see how hypocritical you have become. Why shoul Wal Mart pay when the family is going to be compensated by the person/company who injured her? The rest of Wal Mart employees' rates go up if they have to fork out for injuries caused by someone else.

I also think the people who are slamming the Shank's lawyers need to go back to elementary school and take grade 2 math again. Follow along with me now people:

$1,000,000 (settlement)
-$ 470,000 (medical expenses)
-$ 417,000 (in trust)
=$ 123,000 (legal expenses)

Sure $123,000 seems high, but remember they wouldn't have got the million without the lawyers in the first place and there have been several appeals since then. If you have a problem with the figures I suggest you complain that the $1,000,000 wasn't enough. In today's world of overpriced health care, $1,000,000 doesn't go very far, I'm afraid.

It sucks! It's sad! But, it is hardly Wal Mart's fault. I'm not a fan of Wal Mart by any means. Wal Mart is guilty of plenty of dubious practices, but this is a media-created scandal. Shame on CNN for appealing to American hearts instead of American heads.

By: David C, New York, NY

David C, New York, NY — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:52:45 +0000

PEG: the exact figure is a NET of 90 BILLION! A NET not a gross! That is pure profit!!!!

By: Jessica

Jessica — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:25:31 +0000

Since I read the story about this poor family I have not and will not be shopping at walmart any longer and I will be telling this story to as many of my friends as I possibly can. This is one of the worst stories I've heard in a long time and it makes me sick.

By: David C, New York, NY

David C, New York, NY — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:21:42 +0000

Wal-Mart made something like 90 Billion dollars last year! 90 BILLION!!! They do not need the $470,000 back from this family. Nor should the employees as co-group members be paying for it... WAL-MART SHOULD BE. They can afford it.

By: Tommy

Tommy — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:11:00 +0000

Another reason to stay out of the two faced company. Wal-Mart once again turns my stomach. The top executives dine on the best food and drinks money can buy and this tragic story shows what scum they really are! That $470K is probably only a small portion of one of their executive bonus. Corporate America Screws another middle class family. I hate Wal-Mart the evil corporation even more. Sure is interesting that the link to the corporate site is not working on their website.

By: Peg

Peg — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:05:39 +0000

To Ken–

$90 billion in SALES does not equal $90 billion in profits. Economics 101. This is the kind of ignorance that drives the tort system.

By: Peg

Peg — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:59:41 +0000

The Shanks' story is very, very sad. But WalMart is bound by federal law to treat everyone according to the terms of the health care plan it has established; it cannot provide special treatment to the Shanks because their son died in Iraq.

Recoupment of lawsuit awards by the health insurer is standard and has been standard for decades. The insurer agreed to pay medical expenses NOT otherwise paid for–in this case, the trucking company paid for the medical expenses in the judgment. The Shanks should have had a brighter lawyer structure the settlement differently.
Medicaid will also recoup the health care costs it pays if a recipient ends up getting a tort award.

As it stands, Medicaid will provide–at taxpayer expense–all the medical care Mrs. Shanks needs.

"We didn't read the fine print" is a nonsensical argument and I'm tired of it. Just because someone has suffered a series of tragedies doesn't mean that someone else (in this case, WalMart) has a moral obligation to be the deep pocket.

Finally, this is undoubtedly another piece being publicized by the anti-WalMart (union) folks.

By: Josie

Josie — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:40:57 +0000

I will not be buying at Wal Mart any more–and I mean EVER!! If this was a foreign corporation we'd have Senators making an overseas phone call. Wal mart–this is MY phone call!

By: Little Lance

Little Lance — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:26:56 +0000

Maybe it is time to boycott Wal-Mart for human rights violations.
Besides they are going to spend a half a million dollars in lawyer fees just to recover a couple hundred thousand. It seems common sense and decency have once again flown the coop. I vow as of today to never spend one more cent at Wal-Mart.

By: Gary

Gary — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:01:01 +0000

I haven't set foot in a Wal-Mart in over seven years and plan to keep it that way.

Many of my friends work at Wal-Mart and some of the horror stories about how employess are treated are inexcusable.

Where is George Bush's government now?

By: Annie Kate

Annie Kate — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:57:38 +0000

Unfortunately most insurance policies are structured this way. Its not so much Wal-mart as it is the insurance company unless Wal-mart is self-insuring. I feel for this family; I'm disabled and know the worries that occur daily to ensure that there is proper care and that the rest of the family is taken care of – especially the children that have not yet gone to college.

Wal-Mart like most corporations publicize the charitable donations they make each year – couldn't they find it in their hearts to consider this money as a charity donation to a former employee who through no fault of her own can no longer work ? The goodwill such an action would generate would probably far outweigh the money they are trying to collect back.

Annie Kate
Birmingham AL

By: Janis

Janis — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:42:15 +0000

I can fully understand about Wal-Mart. Five years ago, my handicapped, twenty year old son who has been in a wheelchair all his life from Spina Bifida was run over in the crosswalk at Wal-Mart by a Wal-Mart employee who was driving an Explorer that he had purchased about 3 months prior. He was talking on a cell phone. He did not have insurance, inspection sitckers, tag, nor drivers' license. He hit my son and totaled his new wheelchair. He dragged him for twenty-three feet after he tore the front wheel off his wheelchair. We know this because the metal that attached the wheel to the chair dug into the parking lot for 23 feet. It took about ten feet to tear the wheel off before it began digging in the blacktop. My son was trying to hold the SUV off of him with his hands. He was strapped in the chair by his seatbelt. This vehicle totally destroyed his chair. If you had seen it when they brought it to me on a pallet and a fork lift, you would have wondered how he survived. He was skinned from head to toe and had shoulder problems for about 2-3 years.
Anyway, to get to the point, Wal-Mart was NOT responsible in any way. And my lawyer did all of his work for free. I was the only person responsible for anything! My uninsured motorist insurance had to pay for all his medical expenses and I had to buy him a new electric wheelchair (about 8,000).
I don't understand and NEVER WILL. This boy should have at least had to follow me home and see how I had to get my son home had to hire an ambulance He should have had to live with us and see that my son had to lay in his bed for 11 days because I could not get him a chair. I do NOT understand what our country is coming to.
And on top of all this, the police let him drive the vehicle away. And son's health insurance would not buy him a new chair until it had been five years. We are just this week (after 5 years) getting a new chair that his insurance will pay for.
I don't think Sam Walton ever meant for Wal-Mart to become the monster they have. But they have become one..........
Janis in Philadelphia, MS

By: David C, New York, NY

David C, New York, NY — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:38:39 +0000

I find this whole story unreal. WalMart should be ashamed! There is a time to throw policy out the door...I am a business owner and employer of 35 people... we give our employees the day off if a beloved pet dies! But this situation takes it to a whole new level..I am tempted to stop shopping at WalMart!!!!

By: Jen

Jen — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:12:08 +0000

this is exactly what's wrong with society today- hasn't anyone ever heard of PAY IT FORWARD? we're supposed to be the greatest country in the world- and something like this happens every day. it's all about money and greed. walmart needs to back off and give a hardworking family a break.

By: Jan from Wood Dale, IL

Jan from Wood Dale, IL — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:52:55 +0000

My sympathy does go out to this family. However, usually one of the first things their lawyers should have done was check to see if the medical bills WalMart had paid would have to be paid back. In lawsuits like these, attorneys would normally look at everything that would affect the woman's future, including loss of income, long-term care costs, etc. The family also should have known what their attorney fees would be upfront. This might be a case where they settled for less than what they might have received from the trucking company. I'd be interested in hearing Jeffrey Toobin's take on this.

By: EJ - Ohio

EJ - Ohio — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:48:16 +0000

This woman has the short term memory issue, so why keep telling her over and over again that her son is dead? If someone has a condition like that, wouldn't it be more humane to tell her that he is in Iraq and that he is is doing ok?

I don't understand how she has to hear this over and over again knowing that she will forget it in a few minutes and when she hears it again its hitting her like its the first time.

What do experts and psychologists say about something like this? Is it really best to keep telling this woman her son is dead again and again? Can't something happen to a person's brain/mind when they continuously hear something as distressing as a child dying (and its like hearing it the 1st time each time)?

Hopefully the publicity of this story will make Walmart think twice about suing her.

By: Bill

Bill — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:27:31 +0000

Nearly all employer-provided health care plans give the health care plan the right to be reimbursed for the payments it made if the injured employee recovers money from the person or entity who caused the injury ( in this case, the trucking company). Wal-mart is far from being unique. In fact, it's the norm. And it's not in fine print. It's in every employee's manual and health care booklet – you know, the materials most people just don't take the time to read "cuz it's not important , interesting, or will never apply to them". By having the ability to recoup payments, the insurance coverage is much more affordable for both the company AND the employee. It helps keep the premium payment low for all employees!. The problem in this case is that the woman's attorney failed to do a number of things. From day one, he knew or should have known of the health plan's right to seek repayment, and should have negotiated a release or reduction early in the litigation. He should have structured the settlement with the trucking company via the use of annuities that pay over time. He should have set up a medical needs trust for the woman. He should have worded the release to indicate the settlement was not for past medical expenses, but only for pain, sufferring, loss of enjoyment of life, and future medical care. I'm not impressed by the "newsworthiness" of this article. It singles out Wal-mart for bad publicity when this situation exists every week in the legal profession across the U.S involving school districts, counties, and hundreds of corporations. I suspect if the reporter checks her own employer-provided health care plan she will find the same provisions. And no, I'm not an employee or fan of Wal-mart.