Walmart sinks to a new low.

March 28, 2008, 2:14 AM

Well, to sum it all up, this is utter bullshit. I'll let you read it for yourselves.

Taken from http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/wal...tle/index.html

Quote:

JACKSON, Missouri (CNN) -- Debbie Shank breaks down in tears every time she's told that her 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq.

Debbie Shank, 52, has severe brain damage after a traffic accident in May 2000.

The 52-year-old mother of three attended her son's funeral, but she continues to ask how he's doing. When her family reminds her that he's dead, she weeps as if hearing the news for the first time.
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.
It was the beginning of a series of battles -- both personal and legal -- that loomed for Shank and her family. One of their biggest was with Wal-Mart's health plan.

Eight years ago, Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart's health and benefits plan.
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.

The family's attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money.
"We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to," Graham said.

The Shanks lost their suit to Wal-Mart. Last summer, the couple appealed the ruling -- but also lost it. One week later, their son was killed in Iraq.

"They are quite within their rights. But I just wonder if they need it that bad," Jim Shank said.
In 2007, the retail giant reported net sales in the third quarter of $90 billion.
Legal or not, CNN asked Wal-Mart why the company pursued the money.
Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, who called Debbie Shank's case "unbelievably sad," replied in a statement: "Wal-Mart's plan is bound by very specific rules. ... We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank's case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan."
Jim Shank said he believes Wal-Mart should make an exception.
"My idea of a win-win is -- you keep the paperwork that says you won and let us keep the money so I can take care of my wife," he said.
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.
The family's attorney agrees.
"The recovery that Debbie Shank made was recovery for future lost earnings, for her pain and suffering," Graham said.
"She'll never be able to work again. Never have a relationship with her husband or children again. The damage she recovered was for much more than just medical expenses."
Graham said he believes Wal-Mart should be entitled to only about $100,000. Right now, about $277,000 remains in the trust -- far short of the $470,000 Wal-Mart wants back.
Refusing to give up the fight, the Shanks appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But just last week, the high court said it would not hear the case.
Graham said the Shanks have exhausted all their resources and there's nothing more they can do but go on with their lives.

Jim Shank said he's disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case -- not for the sake of his family -- but for those who might face similar circumstances.
For now, he said the family will figure out a way to get by and "do the best we can for Debbie."

"Luckily, she's oblivious to everything," he said. "We don't tell her
what's going on because it will just upset her.

March 28, 2008, 2:36 AM

I guess this kind of news shows how heartless they big company owners are, what would it cost them to give the little assistance that this woman clearly deserves?

It's so degrading so see how low our world as came down to.

But according to the newspaper what they did is still legal, meaning they could take the money! What's sad and frustating about this situation is how can a billion dollar company can actually go and collect money from a couple who lives in such dificult situations, let's face the money who means nothing to them could make a lot of differance for the couple, and as we can see it does.

March 28, 2008, 2:39 AM

Talk about greed. Its like what the heck? Wal Mart sure has enough money. They sure do not need to steal it from some poor disabled person. Talk about the bad luck.

March 28, 2008, 2:40 AM

I, for one, plan to never ever shop or support a walmart again. Written or not in the health plan, there is a clear line between right and wrong, and this is dead wrong. They are to damn greedy that they could care less if this woman dies.

I hope all the workers at walmart's now realize what shit their in if they have a settlement.

March 28, 2008, 2:42 AM

Wal-mart dont need the money, im not sure why they even bother for 277,000 when they make 90 billion plus.

but hopefully someone will read the article and offer to pay for their medical expenses

March 28, 2008, 2:44 AM

Ah, capitalism and big business at its finest. Seriously though, how fucking greedy are those people running it when they're trying to get a measly 400 grand? They've all got to be millionaires, they don't need it, and the company certainly doesn't need it.

"Done out of fairness to all associates" my ass.

March 28, 2008, 2:54 AM

I read that on CNN.com. Her son died in Iraq too, ugh I feel so bad for the husband. =/ My god, I can't believe what he's going through. I hope someone is contributing a fund raiser for them.

Why do they need 400K? That's NOTHING to them! It goes to show that these corporate elitists have no sympathy. Really, what a shame! They can't just exempt one family? I hope the woman's husband does successfully bring his case up to the supreme court.

March 28, 2008, 2:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerridwen

I hope the woman's husband does successfully bring his case up to the supreme court.

It said that it wouldnt be heard in the supreme court.
thats because thats not what the supreme court is for, its for making decisions on things that are ambigous or there is no law made, a la dread scott case.
Unfortunately the law is very clear here, and its a moral thing rather than a legal one

March 28, 2008, 3:04 AM

Yeah

it was a legal contract and I can't think of any amendments it's violating. Too bad though, I just hope that people hear them out and donate money to this family.