Archives
7:22:00 PM CDT
InQuestOf the Beast Wal*Mart
WalMart is suing a severely brain damaged woman for $470,000.00
It appears that self-insured, multi-billion dollar Wal*Mart is indeed going after the brain-damaged, wheelchair bound, nursing home resident Debbie Shank. Seven years ago, Ms. Shank was involved in an auto accident with a semi. The shanks sued and won nearly 1 million dollars, and after lawyers and other expenses, she netted $417,000, which was put into a trust for care her remaining days.
Wal*Mart's insurance has a subrogation clause, which, according to Mr. Shank, they were aware of. Most insurance companies have such a subrogation clause. Most companies, however, do not attempt to recoup medical expenses. Wal*Mart reserved the right to do just that, and a federal judge and an appeals court backed Wal*Mart when the Shanks appealed. The Supreme Court has refused to hear the case.
It looks like the Shanks could actually be indebted to Wal*Mart $53,000 above the $417,000 that they netted.
To add to Ms. Shank's grief, her 18 year old son was killed in Iraq within days of the Shanks being told they’d have to repay Wal*Mart for the medical expenses. I read that Ms. Shank's short term memory is so damaged that she has had to be told many times that he died. (I believe if I were the family, though, I would just put off answering her, and not make her relive that.)
A Wal*Mart spokesperson says that Wal*Mart must be impartial, and no matter how sad the Shank's plight is, they must do what is best for the company.
Was the best PR move Wal*Mart could have made? I would like to think that people will boycott them to show them that yes, legally they have the right do to this, but really, was it necessary?
Knowing that Wal*Mart probably will have everything we want at one location, reasonably priced, will make it a sacrifice to boycott them. I have to wonder if my own convictions will override my greed, or will greed win out and I continue to shop there? I know that I do not agree with their decision. However, I do not know if I would disagree so strongly if it was a small company in the same circumstance, doing the same thing. If it were a locally owned and operated company with the same clause, would I be feeling the same animosity toward them as I do the giant Wal*Mart? Probably not....but I feel Wal*Mart can make that kind of profit in one day...
UPDATE: WalMart regained their senses and dropped this case.
Written by inquestoftruth Blog about this entry |
Add to del.icio.us | 
digg this
-
As someone has already mentioned, Walmart has since vacated their claim to the monies received by the Shanks. Estela
-
I agree with your post. I very rarely shop at Wal-Mart. I mean maybe once or twice a year. I despise the place and their philosophy. I feel like the customers incovenience the employees there. It amazes me thought that people will stand in line for 30 minutes to get checked out but in my store they start giving dirty looks if I take more than 2 minutes to ring out a customer. It is also amazing that we as American tolerate it and keep going back to be treated like crap. Wal-Mart is just getting richer while we are getting poorer.
Becky -
I agree, however since your post, they've backed off and dropped their demands. Although my hope is they had a change of heart, I know that they're so embarrassed they had to withdraw.
Thanks for stopping by my journal.
Jimmy
http://journals.aol.com/jimsulliv3/jimmys-journal/ -
Leave it to Walmart for doing something so cold hearted. We have not been shopping there at all except for one pack of diapers every two weeks for 7 bucks. And we may stop doing that! Because of things like this and for small little businesses like Linnpoohs going out of business we refuse to shop there anymore. And we have done some shopping homework and walmart many times is more expensive then the store we shop at for many items. AND we also tend to OVERSHOP when we are there and get things we don't need.
4/5/08 8:53 PM
Monica
http://journals.aol.com/photo