Thursday, March 27, 2008

A damn good reason never to shop at Walmart, EVER!

You may not have heard of the Shanks and their legal encounter with WalMart. If not, here is a synopsis of their plight.
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.

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.
Note that the court, and not WalMart, had the decency to restrict the recovery to the settlement only. Lord knows what those morally depraved corporate bastards would have gone after had they been allowed the full amount allowed by law. Life has been very kind to WalMart and the Walton family. That kindness has not extended to the Shanks.
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.
And to add greater injury to this family, their 18 year old son was killed in Iraq. I know that WalMart has no responsibility for that tragedy but after seeing what those ethically bankrupt SOB's will do, I wouldn't put it past them.

Keith has it right.

// posted by montag @ 6:07 PM
Comments:
The CCN story is incomplete. CNN left out a key fact, that being that Wal-Mart had "sent Mr. Shank several notices that he was to inform Wal-Mart's health plan before he settled any suit" (reference Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119551952474798582.html?mod=hpp_us_pageone). The Shanks -- or more specifically their attorney -- should have brought Wal-Mart into the suit before settling. The attorney clearly knew Wal-Mart had a stake otherwise why would he have written Wal-Mart a letter afterwards? On the other hand, had the Shank's attorney involved Wal-Mart up front then he probably wouldn't have been able to collect a half million in attorney fees from the Shanks. Want to tell me again who did the Shanks wrong? Maybe it's the attorney who should be paying back Wal-Mart instead of the Shanks.
# posted by Anonymous Anonymous : 12:42 PM
 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]





<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]