So what if it was settled?
When exactly are the criminal charges for theft to be filed?
Why do I feel like I just stepped into a ens novel?
So what? They gave in to an insufficient amount to cover the legal costs. That is their fault, not Wal-Marts.
Charges have been filed. Just not under theft. Wal-Mart is sueing to get their money back that the family is wrongfully witholding.
Wake-up... stop dreaming...
This is real life.
So the family made sure they got something rather than risk it all in trial.
That's not a criminal charge.Charges have been filed. Just not under theft. Wal-Mart is sueing to get their money back that the family is wrongfully witholding.
ROFL. As opposed to having your employer turn the screws on you after you end up brain damaged and lose your 18 year old son in the Iraq War. That's just a fantasy.
Wake-up... stop dreaming...
This is real life.
We must protect Wal-Mart and George W. Bush at all costs, which apparently includes sticking it to those who bear the costs of their policies.
sourceThe case was complicated by the fact that the small trucking company the driver worked for had few assets and the absolute minimum of liability insurance required by law. We were eventually obliged to make what we called an inadequate recovery of damages because of that. They didn't want to pay anything initially because they said it was her fault.
Our evidence was that her future damages for health care, loss of income, pain and suffering, all of those, would well exceed $2 million. Had we been dealing with a solvent, responsible company, she would have recovered much more than the $1 million we received in 2002. It took a lot of work and time to achieve what we did because of the cir stances.
eh?
And why should the stock holders and customers of Wal-Mart pay for their stupid decision?
Did you miss my point that they would have been better off to loose? Do you not understand they wouldn't owe Wal-Mart or the Lawyer anything, and not have to go to court again?
When I said steal, I meant it as a technicality. Not as a criminal action. You said criminal, not me. I pointed out legal action is being taken to recover the money. Please keep your facts and perspective in check.
It is not Wal-Marts responsibility.
My God man. This nation is screwed up because of people like you, having an "en lement mentality."
LOL... I strike back when people make unfounded attacks...
I understand now. You suffer from "Bush Derangement Syndrome."
President Bush doesn't have anything to do with this. You are now showing utter stupidity by bringing such a statement into this argument.
Wal-Mart has deep pockets, and therefore are targeted by unethical asses like yourself.
The law and contracts are there for reasons. To just demand they be changed because it appeals to our emotions is a pretty poor reason.
This is a decision for Wal-Mart or their insurer to make. I can just about guarantee this. Now that people have made them out to be the bad guy, they are less likely to step up and make a charitable contribution that they might have otherwise made. Making a goodwill gesture under duress is not the best interest for a corporation. It lays the groundwork for others to follow.
Did you miss the quote above that made it clear that they would not have been able to recover a larger judgment?
It's a bit amusing that you deem the decision made to take the cash in hand rather than to risk it all as "stupid."
If it's theft, where is the criminal charge?
When I said steal, I meant it as a technicality. Not as a criminal action. You said criminal, not me. I pointed out legal action is being taken to recover the money. Please keep your facts and perspective in check.
Funny how it's now an "en lement" to think that a business might not put a faithful employee who's been seriously injured and her family in a bind, especially after they were forced into a settlement in part due to the fact that the other party had minimal assets. Not to mention that she lost her son on the battlefield. For such a hyperpatriot you certainly don't seem to care about that fact.It is not Wal-Marts responsibility.
My God man. This nation is screwed up because of people like you, having an "en lement mentality."
The woman lost her son in part due to sycophant morons like you who cheer on wars without putting your own ass on the line. It's not too late to join the good fight; visit your local recruiter.
You suffer from Bush's nuts on my chin syndrome. You have no concept of service, of ethics, or of anything that would be noble, wise, and right.
LOL... I strike back when people make unfounded attacks...
I understand now. You suffer from "Bush Derangement Syndrome."
President Bush doesn't have anything to do with this. You are now showing utter stupidity by bringing such a statement into this argument.
Wal-Mart has deep pockets, and therefore are targeted by unethical asses like yourself.
The law and contracts are there for reasons. To just demand they be changed because it appeals to our emotions is a pretty poor reason.
This is a decision for Wal-Mart or their insurer to make. I can just about guarantee this. Now that people have made them out to be the bad guy, they are less likely to step up and make a charitable contribution that they might have otherwise made. Making a goodwill gesture under duress is not the best interest for a corporation. It lays the groundwork for others to follow.
Bush has destroyed the GOP in no small part due to useful idiots such as yourself.
If making goodwill gestures is not in the interest of Wal-Mart why exactly do they have a foundation set up for that express purpose? Duh.
Interesting. They managed to show the trucking company at partial fault when the accident was her fault:
I don't care that thy convinced a jury the truck had time. They don't turn on a dime or stop as fast as some people think. She pulled out in fromt of him, and he might have had traffic to the side! It would be reasonable under some cases to also expect she would get out of his way in time. Truck tivers mis calculation in some possibilities, but still... She caused the accident!Mrs. Shank was driving her mini van on a straight and level state highway in clear weather during the day and apparently made the decision to turn around and go back the way she had come. She pulled over and pulled back onto the highway to turn around, and as she did so a transport truck coming down the highway saw her, but did not stop or swerve out of the way. It was our position that the driver had enough time and distance to swerve or stop, but he didn't. He struck her broadside.
We established with an accident reconstruction expert that the truck driver had had room enough to stop or swerve even though she had pulled out onto the highway, and also that he had been driving somewhat over the speed limit. In Missouri, we define this as a "comparative fault" case. There was no doubt that Mrs. Shank had made a mistake, but the truck driver had also contributed to this unfortunate incident. It was a contested case that required accident reconstruction experts.
This next part, he speaks of compassion. Why isn't he then compassionate, and charge less of a legal fee?
Now as for waiting three years? Maybe they did, and what is left out? Did Wal-Mart send letters for three years asking for the money back, and was forced into a lawsuit? What is left out is as important as what is said. I'm likely correct here since it wasn't addressed in a manner to stop such a question.It's our position that the court needs to look at what comprises an "equitable recovery" in cases like these. The court ruled that full recovery of Wal-Mart's expenses was an equitable recovery, but in the original case, we had to bring in outside lawyers to help us get the best settlement we could. The interpretation of the federal law was not as clear then as it is now; there was a division in the interpretation of cases—some cases upheld employers getting all their money back, others didn't. The law was uncertain then.
Wal-Mart waited three years before filing for their settlement. I don't know why, but it was very strange that they would wait three years before they would ask for their money back. They said they were en led to a full recovery of their medical expenses; they said that they were en led to all of it, but we argued that they had to share in the employee's loss. They said they wouldn't; they said they were en led to full recovery and that's what they received.
I also find it ironic that the lawyer expects no recovery to Wal-Mart with a settlement that is not equitable. Under the same standards, he should not take payment for a settlement that is not equitable!
I will assume the following:
$1,000,000 settlement
$350,000 attorney fees
$100,000 attorney costs
$550,000 net settlement
$133,000 spent (move to a wheelchair friendly house, daily care, etc.)
Wal-Mart gets $470,000 back. The net settlement is $530,000:
$100,000 cost
$185,500 attorney fees (35% of $530k)
$244,500 left for the family.
Isn't 35% of the recovered money net more fair than 35% money recovered gross?
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-01-2008 at 04:46 PM.
Especially when they pull out in from of one. Ever drive one? Know how long they take to stop, how slow they are to swerve without losing control?
Blame the victim. Predictable. , she shouldn't have been driving on a public road! Those are for businesses to move their goods. How dare she get in the way of commerce.
Blame the attorney, etc.
I'm just being real. Stop being a propagandist activist for a moment and look at the facts.
Are you denying the claim by her lawyer that she pulled out in front of the truck?
You know, such an incident should make us all want to increase our medical coverage on our automobile insurance. Our fault or others in an accident, we should protect ourselves.
Real? What's real? The world in which the average working stiff has to fend for themselves in some kind of objectivist fantasyland?
Once upon a time conservatives believed in doing the right thing, regardless of what was technically legal. If you find yourself turning to the law to divine what is right in this case you are neither conservative nor right.
just relax.
wal-mart dropped the suit.
Damage control.
http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/...01/848981.aspx
Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker
Posted on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 6:26 PM PT
By Rich Gardella and Lisa Myers, NBC News
On Saturday's Nightly News, NBC News Senior Investigative Correspondent Lisa Myers reported on Deborah Shank, a former employee of Wal-Mart permanently disabled in a car accident eight years ago. Wal-Mart's health plan had moved to collect some of the settlement money she won in a lawsuit against a trucking firm in order to reimburse itself for the more than $470,000 in medical expenses it had paid for Shank.
Although it had just contacted Shank's attorney to begin the process of actually collecting the money from Shank and her husband, Wal-Mart announced Tuesday it had reversed its decision and said that it no longer will seek any reimbursement from the Shanks.
No. I hate the law at times. It is there and if we don't like it, we change it.
You are an idiot, assuming I determine right and wrong by law. The law is seldom moral, but it is the law. I was not trying to say the law in this case was moral. Actually, I'd say the trucking company got screwed here. Still, morality does not dictate we take from one to give to another. That in itself is immoral.
It is Wal-Mart's choice to give their money away if they want to. It is evil to force them to do so. They would be showing a moral character to help their former employee, but it should not be demanded. It should be by choice.
Corporations are not moral beings, they should not be given the benefit of doubt as if they were.
Good for them. It shows they do have moral character. I knew that, didn't some of the rest of you? I'll bet not. Too many of you hate Wal-Mart because you are liberal and/or union lemmings, and think as your masters say.
Now before anyone says they should have done so earlier, No. I disagree.
Wal-Mart took it to a court win and didn't change their stance until all appeals by the family were exhausted. Now that the precedent is set in Wal-Mart's favor, they can let the family keep the money without fear of this happening again by force. They keep their charitable choice his way.
I'll bet if we saw the whole letter that it would point out needed to set the precident.
You should keep that bigoted viewpoint to yourself when it comes to Wal-Mart, because you are wrong. They plan green, contribute to local charities, and do other good things that most corporations don't.
Looks like you are one of the "I hate Wal-Mart lemmings..."
PR calculus is not "moral character".
My brother is a manager at Wal-Mart, so I understand the difference between the real life human beings who work for Wal-Mart, and the corporation itself, which is not a human being and shouldn't be confused as such. Legal en ies aren't moral beings, they don't act out of a "moral" sense.
Please tell me you're not that naive.
Don't think for one second that wally world wouldn't have raped this family for all they were worth if this story hadn't gone national.
Speaking ill of a corporation make you a "bigot", doncha-know?
Okay.
Her son dying has to do with Wal-Mart.
Her problems, again, have to do with Wal-Mart.
She signed on the dotted line about her heath plan while working for them. Once again, her problem.
Sure bad PR, but it won't make a damn difference to people they will just keep earning more and more.
This is all perfectly legal and to me, right.
I am truly sorry for her personal losses. They have jack to do with what Wal-Mart is doing to her however and in court of law they careless about your personal problems.
Wal-Mart is just doing its thing, no biggie.
lolersk8z
lame
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
