Just one of the many ways Wal-Mart cheats the world and passes the savings on to you.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Dion

She shouldn't have sued at all. It was never her money to begin with.

Wal Mart could have stepped up and sued the trucking company themselves, and recouped their costs. They didn't, and she did. So they sue her. You don't see anything wrong with that?

In the meantime, left out of all this, what about her future medical costs? No one - not the trucking company, not Wal-Mart - will cover those. She has medical problems facing her the rest of her life. And Wal Mart will make the $470,000 look like pennies.

Future medical costs should have been put into account when her settlement was given to her by the insurance company. Maybe she should have fought for enough money to 1) pay back Wal-Mart 2) pay future medical costs 3) pay lawyer.

$470K being pennies for Wal-Mart really has nothing to do with it. They have a business to run, stock holders to keep happy and not put themselves in a situation where people could take advantage of Wal-Mart not taking action on that clause.

Its funny to me because I would love to see the reaction of the people who say "Wal-Mart is the bad man in this" if they had shares in the company that this was happening to.

From what I read the lawyer knew of this clause.

The judges wasn't very understanding at all. Wal Mart ended up getting more than the money they were owed. The family had to pay all of Wal Marts legal costs.

I meant the judge who gave her the $700,000 settlement not the judge ruling on the money she owned to Wal-Mart. If she had a good lawyer when she settled for the $700K, they would have taken the clause into account when asking for X number of dollars from the semi truck driver.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Future medical costs should have been put into account when her settlement was given to her by the insurance company. Maybe she should have fought for enough money to 1) pay back Wal-Mart 2) pay future medical costs 3) pay lawyer.

The money she recieved was put into a trust fund to help pay for her future medical costs. Wal Mart has that now - she has squat.

She could have done a lot of things in hind sight. The family didn't have a good lawyer and probably got they best they could for what they could afford.

$470K being pennies for Wal-Mart really has nothing to do with it. They have a business to run, stock holders to keep happy and not put themselves in a situation where people could take advantage of Wal-Mart not taking action on that clause.

It has a lot to do with it. This could been handled in private as opposed to going through the court systems. They could have agreed to let the family keep some of the money in the trust fund and Wal Mart could have in turn repaid that amount to it's insurance company.

Its funny to me because I would love to see the reaction of the people who say "Wal-Mart is the bad man in this" if they had shares in the company that this was happening to.

If this was handled privately no one would know.

I meant the judge who gave her the $700,000 settlement not the judge ruling on the money she owned to Wal-Mart. If she had a good lawyer when she settled for the $700K, they would have taken the clause into account when asking for X number of dollars from the semi truck driver.

If you have the money you can afford the best lawyers - something this family didn't have. I agree her lawyer didn't handle the case very well.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Dion

If this was handled privately no one would know.

Maybe it did and does happen all the time. We just don't hear about it.

I would have to say we won't agree on this because I am looking at it from business side of it, while you are looking at the personal side of things. I am just glad we have both sides of the argument else this world would be a dark

[Dion]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Maybe it did and does happen all the time. We just don't hear about it.

I would have to say we won't agree on this because I am looking at it from business side of it, while you are looking at the personal side of things. I am just glad we have both sides of the argument else this world would be a dark

I wouldn't say that i'm totaly personal on this. I understand why Wal Mart did what they did - just feel they could have done some things a bit different to help eliviate the corporate greed image they have.

No problem with agreeing to disagree.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Its funny to me because I would love to see the reaction of the people who say "Wal-Mart is the bad man in this" if they had shares in the company that this was happening to.

I would love to see the reaction of people who are shareholders in this company when they see this story on Dateline, or being bandied about on the internet.

Anyway, good ol' Wal-Mart. Real surprising.

Interesting to see some of the "defence" of them in this thread. We are talking about a woman with a severe brain injury and she's been referred to as a "chick" and called stupid because she didn't (to some) look after herself when she was in a coma. Very nice. I wonder if any of you folks consider yourselves Christians.

Oh sorry, that's the other thread.

[LouCypher]

Capitalism at its finest, goes to show even for a multi billion dollar corporation its employees which in this case could have easily been covered mediacally for such a large corp. were not more valuable then the all mighty dollar.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I would love to see the reaction of people who are shareholders in this company when they see this story on Dateline, or being bandied about on the internet.

Anyway, good ol' Wal-Mart. Real surprising.

Interesting to see some of the "defence" of them in this thread. We are talking about a woman with a severe brain injury and she's been referred to as a "chick" and called stupid because she didn't (to some) look after herself when she was in a coma. Very nice. I wonder if any of you folks consider yourselves Christians.

Oh sorry, that's the other thread.

Wal-Mart doesn't care what kind of press they get as long as they are getting it. Who competes with them?

I see a few people stay away from Wal-Mart and go pay more at other places but guess what for every 1 person that don't care about saving a buck, there are about 50 that do.

[FlamesAddiction]

I already boycott Wal-mart, but if I didn't, this would have pushed me to.

I can't understand putting money ahead of what is right. If I was a shareholder, I would be ashamed.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I already boycott Wal-mart, but if I didn't, this would have pushed me to.

I can't understand putting money ahead of what is right. If I was a shareholder, I would be ashamed.

Likewise.

[CaptainCrunch]

Is Walmart the best global citizen due to its treatment of its employee? Not really, but there's nothing in their corporate mandate beyond making a profit, and looking out for its shareholders best interests.

I feel bad for this lady and what she's gone through, however the health plan that was in place was lived up to, to the letter, and her lawyer really failed her. Its not wise or prudent for Walmart to make exceptions to their healthplan because once they do it for one person they have to do it for everyone.

Besides isn't this more of an issue between the victim and the health carrier?

We can rail about how evil walmart, but honestly Walmart didn't do anything wrong, or even immoral, they followed the rules that were clearly laid out, so they really don't deserve the whole kick in the balls thing.

just to add on, the point about protecting the healthcare plan for all employee's is entirely valid. If they start making $400,000 exceptions for every health issue, there won't be a health plan in the end.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Wal-Mart doesn't care what kind of press they get as long as they are getting it. Who competes with them?

I see a few people stay away from Wal-Mart and go pay more at other places but guess what for every 1 person that don't care about saving a buck, there are about 50 that do.

I know it's a fun old cliche, but "any press is good press" isn't true.

As for "who competes with them", I don't know and I don't really care. I bet Wal-Mart does though.

[LouCypher]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Is Walmart the best global citizen due to its treatment of its employee? Not really, but there's nothing in their corporate mandate beyond making a profit, and looking out for its shareholders best interests.

I feel bad for this lady and what she's gone through, however the health plan that was in place was lived up to, to the letter, and her lawyer really failed her. Its not wise or prudent for Walmart to make exceptions to their healthplan because once they do it for one person they have to do it for everyone.

Besides isn't this more of an issue between the victim and the health carrier?

We can rail about how evil walmart, but honestly Walmart didn't do anything wrong, or even immoral, they followed the rules that were clearly laid out, so they really don't deserve the whole kick in the balls thing.

just to add on, the point about protecting the healthcare plan for all employee's is entirely valid. If they start making $400,000 exceptions for every health issue, there won't be a health plan in the end.

Very solid point and while many of us would leave to see a company such as Walmart do the humanitarian thing they did do what is right by them as a corporation. More blame could be placed on the lack of a universal healthcare plan in the US which does have an obligation to look after its people. 1 case in many that will get lost in the shuffle.

[blankall]

Regardless of how morally right you think walmart is, this particular story has nothing to do w/ walmart. Of course walmart will recoup here. The other person was found liable and the party that is found liable must pay for damages. Its kind of like if you get into a car accident that is not your fault, the other party is held liable for your repairs. If your insurance company pays for your repairs, they will later recoup the cost. The problem here is w/ the court settlement. It clearly wasn't enough money in light of the ridiculous US health care system.

Walmart has done nothing wrong.... in this case.

[OzSome]

It should be the trucking company's insurance who should foot the hospital and medical bills. If Wal-Mart's health insurance pays for it while her lawyer is settling with the other insurance, I agree Walmart should get reimbursed for it. The accident was not Walmart's fault. I can see it if Mrs. Shanks gets injured while working or hurt herself while leaving work.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by OzSome

It should be the trucking company's insurance who should foot the hospital and medical bills. If Wal-Mart's health insurance pays for it while her lawyer is settling with the other insurance, I agree Walmart should get reimbursed for it. The accident was not Walmart's fault. I can see it if Mrs. Shanks gets injured while working or hurt herself while leaving work.

Was Walmart even involved in this case apart from the fact they provided the health plan in the first place? Walmart probably uses an independent health plan. It would have been the company that provides the health plan that would have both made the initial payment and recouped. In fact, I doubt Walmart ever payed a cent to this woman or requested a cent back.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by blankall

Was Walmart even involved in this case apart from the fact they provided the health plan in the first place? Walmart probably uses an independent health plan. It would have been the company that provides the health plan that would have both made the initial payment and recouped. In fact, I doubt Walmart ever payed a cent to this woman or requested a cent back.

Correct, Wal-Mart itself was never out of pocket it was their health insurance division. But what some people want is the insurance to get their money back and then for Wal-Mart to write her a big fat check because "they have so much money".

[Dion]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Correct, Wal-Mart itself was never out of pocket it was their health insurance division. But what some people want is the insurance to get their money back and then for Wal-Mart to write her a big fat check because "they have so much money".

To be fair large corporations often give large sums to charities or special interest groups. Yet helping the woman seems to be a no no.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Dion

To be fair large corporations often give large sums to charities or special interest groups. Yet helping the woman seems to be a no no.

Probably can't write it off.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Dion

To be fair large corporations often give large sums to charities or special interest groups. Yet helping the woman seems to be a no no.

Because if they give her $500 000 then they have to give it out to any employee who gets hurt. Pretty ridiculous precedent for a company with such deep pockets to make.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by JayP

Because if they give her $500 000 then they have to give it out to any employee who gets hurt. Pretty ridiculous precedent for a company with such deep pockets to make.

EGGG-ZACTLY