Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Mike VA — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 22:54:18 GMT

Walmart could care less about her this just became a publicity nightmare. All this is nothing but an accounting problem of how much bad publicity $470,000 can buy you.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Charles Perez, Irvine, Calif — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:03:27 GMT

Great News for the "Little Guy!"
Could this be the "Tipping Point" for individuals?

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Mary, DC — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:11:31 GMT

They decided to "modify" their plan. Pull-eeze. The plan was never OBLIGATED to go after the money in the first place. Reserving the right to do so is completely different than having an obligation to do so.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Jim, Greensboro NC — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:13:22 GMT

Everyone needs to check their health policy. Your carrier has the same rule in its fine print.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Roxanne, WI — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:16:49 GMT

BUT it was ok for Jim Shank to admit to "playing the system" by divorcing his wife. Wal-Mart was justified in attempting to collect the monies and the Shanks attorney should now follow and give back the money he collected. After all, why didn't he have the foresight to understand that Wal-Mart of any other insurance company is entitled to reimbursement in accident settlement cases. Tragic yes, put the blame where it belongs.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Hal, Fort Smith, AR — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:19:05 GMT

When I first saw this story, I turned to a friend and told them that Wal-Mart would only NOW do the right thing. Living in northwest Arkansas, I'm here to tell you, this company will not treat people right unless they are called out on it. Low prices at ANY cost, whether it be to U.S. manufacturing jobs, state and federal Medicaid programs, or disabled ex-employees.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

CT — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:21:09 GMT

WalMart did nothing different than any other employer would have done. The victim here should be looking at her lawyer's competence. He should have known.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

New Knoxville Ohio — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:21:47 GMT

Wal-Mart donates money to all types of wonderful causes...why in the world they would want to take this womens settlement..when they really didn't have to is greedy. I have stopped shopping at Wal-Mart for the last several weeks as everytime I walk into the building I think of how gruel it is that Wal-Mart was trying to and remove resources from someone unable to defend, care, or be self suffice in anyway. I say Wal-Mart raise your candy bars a penny...and after selling a millon for an extra penny more profit you would easily have your money plus some. Take care of your employees honestly and what is fair. How silly to pay and work for health care to have to fight a giant like Wal-Mart.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Chris — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:23:45 GMT

Terrible decision, sets precedent meaning healthcare will not only be more expensive, but less likely to be offered at all. Unfortunate situation, but rules are in place for the good of the majority. This is the problem with our society, we think we can buffer hardship on an individual basis. Why didn't the vehicle that hit this woman pay more? Why did the lawyers take a 60% cut of the settlement? These are the questions that need to be asked before Walmart is asked to pay an additional half a million dollars for this woman's care.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Rachel Secrest, Knoxville, TN — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:25:03 GMT

It's too bad Wal-Mart had to give in to the pressure. It's not fair to the other policy holders who abide by the rules of their health insurance contract. And I can't believe her husband viewed it as Walmart's "error". He and his wife were the one's who withheld that money. Jesus said "Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's." He should have paid the amount they owed Walmart, and prayed and trusted God to provide for them. I'm disappointed in him as a Christian, but I do pray that their financial situation works out.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

STEVE BABB,QUEENS NY — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:25:37 GMT

WALMART ACTED AS THOUGH THIS POOR SUFFERING LADY WAS SPENDING THE MONEY ON VACATIONS AND SHOPPING SPREES.
THE COURTS ALWAYS SIDE WITH THE BIG COMPANIES ANYWAY.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Lee, North Dakota — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:30:59 GMT

This is neither the Walmart that Sam Walton founded nor one he ever envisioned. Somewhere along the way they have lost respect for their customers and their employees, and the nation is losing its respect for Walmart. Only trouble is many people have no good alternative, so incidents like this have no lasting impact on Walmart's bottom line.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Larry@ cox .net Tucson AZ — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:32:16 GMT

Bad publicity, one for the little guys? OK, maybe that's all true, but lets not forget Wal-Mart didn't have to do this, as they did win it in a court of law, know matter how disheartening the verdict was. I wish the big oil companies would take a page from Wal-Mart and bite the bullet for a month or so and stop worrying about their profits [123 billion] and take a hit for the American people, by dropping the prices a buck or so. I'm sure that 30 or 40 billion drop in next quarters profits will still allow them to keep going. I keep thinking we are all Americans and on the same team, but some times I wonder who's team their on??????

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

L. Peterson, Braintree, MA — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:36:18 GMT

And why did the lawyers take over 50% of the award? Have they no conscience? I guess we all know the answer to that one!

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Nick R, Oakland, CA — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:36:34 GMT

As much as I hate admitting that Wal-Mart is right, I will. The trucking firm paid for damages relating to the accident including medical bills. The lady abused the system by having Wal-Mart pay for the bills. Wal-Mart may be bad at times, but it only did what is right. What if Wal-Mart received the money and increased benefits? I doubt that would have been the case, but I can dream.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Denise , St. Louis, Mo — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:37:17 GMT

I am so glad that Wal Mart did the 360!!! Since reading the orginial article by MSNBC I had stopped shopping at Wal Mart and had convinced several friends to do the same thing. Mr Shank is right if we all stand up things can change. My heart and prayers are with the Shanks!

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Jacob, New Mexico — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:38:38 GMT

Walmart has a history of demeaning their employees, as I have seen it done to my father who has worked for Walmart for the past 12 years. Hes is physically disabled retiree, but they continuously treat him like trash. They dont take into account his physical limitations, just because he might "appear" to be ok. He gives them medical letters saying the limitations of his work, but they try to ignore them.

He has just gotten to the point that he just goes to work, gets his low pay, just to have something to do. This company shouldnt treat its workers like this, but they do on a daily basis.

Every one of their employees should be making $24-26k/year before benifits! Not the $19k with benefits (they include $5k in medical and stock programs which most workers dont actually do), that Walmart now claims to pay the average worker. Taking that into account, the average worker is below the poverty line!

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

OhBrandi, Sykesville, MD — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:48:16 GMT

Yes, a tipping point for me. Too late, Walmart. You have completely lost my business. I will be utilizing local grass-roots to get the Walmart in my community shut down. We don't need a company that treats it's employees so poorly, whose bottom line ignores the welfare of the factory workers in factories of third world countries, a company that basically steals from the wallets and pulls jobs out from under Americans. Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish, I say.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Joe R. VA. — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:48:56 GMT

I see nothing wrong with WalMart looking to recover the ungodly amount of money that was spent on this woman's health care. she had signed paperwork at some point in her career with WalMart agreeing to this very issue. This is business no matter how you look at it. Regardless of how much money WalMart has, this was a justified recovery effort. It is built on principal and nothing more.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Chris, Santa Clara, CA. — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:52:04 GMT

This Wal-Mark fiasco wouldn't have happened at all if we instated a National Health Insurance program. The $470,000.00 cost would have been absorbed by the government. The program isn't perfect, but would be better than what we have available through private insurance companies... Find out for yourself at: HR676.org

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Matt — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:52:31 GMT

Wal-Mart is always about the money. Had this not turned into a publicity nightmare for them they never would have dropped it.

They made the right decision but it wasn't their first choice.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Down on Walmart, Proud American — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:53:04 GMT

Nobody can afford to alienate a potential customer in today's market. When word came down that multi-billion-dollar Walmart couldn't let $470K slide, they realized boycotting would be emminent, & so have backed off. By letting her win the battle, they won the war. But guaranteed, the next employee to get in a car crash won't be so lucky - without a little press, at least.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

mary, IL — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:54:57 GMT

Most settlements usually include medical expenses incurred and therefore should re-imburse any insurance company that already had paid these expenses. Otherwise it is like double-dipping.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Debra Jennings — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:58:36 GMT

Good for her! But people need to be aware of the fact that medicare and medicaid are likely to get a cut of any personal injury settlement they get, especially if they may have to rely on those programs for future medical care. It is the law, and has been for at least ten years now, that lawyers have to set aside an amount of the settlement to reimburse those agencies. The amount is based on either the actual amount that is received to pay for future medical expenses or the amount that was negotiated in the settlement.

The life of a disabled for can be pretty awful. Usually you have the poverty level and a lifetime of doctors visits to look for to. You really have to believe that suicide is wrong to survive that type of life.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

K Flock, Santa Cruz, CA — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:02:29 GMT

The family might want to thank Keith Olbermann of MSNBC..that's how I heard about the issue and he wouldn't let go of it. If it wasn't for him reporting on it, how would we know as he's the only one I heard speaking on it (I could be wrong). It's just that the news media is not reporting on the public's interest but favors the multinational's. Even the Supreme Court wouldn't hear her case...this does not reflect well on multinational's or this administration! Congratulations on your hard won victory.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Rhonda Johnson, Worthington, IN — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:08:45 GMT

This was the right thing to do- this story kept me up at night-no amount of money can take the pain away from this family but perhaps this gentleman knows his plight touched a lot of hearts.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Mitchell, South Bend, Indiana — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:10:16 GMT

Congress needs to go in and fix this problem. I am a physician and it is unbelievable how much it is all about the bottom line with these insurance companies. The decision to drop the case is also about the bottom line. When my son and I saw the news report we said that we would not shop at Walmart if we could get the same service elewhere.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Jules M, Fayette City, Pa — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:10:30 GMT

Think about who the "big dogs" of the retail sector used to be 20-30 yrs ago...look where they are now. Now it's Walmarts' turn....you can bet that their corporate greed will be their downfall, like all the others that came before them!!

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Beth, Toledo, OH — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:11:32 GMT

Thank you CNN and NBC for bringing national attention to Mrs. Shank's plight. It is sad that it took public outrage for WalMart to do the right thing.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Chris, Seattle, Washington — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:16:03 GMT

Union stores are unable to compete with non-union stores such as Wal-Mart because they do not pay their regular employees a living wage. This just proves that Wal-Mart is going to be the downfall of all living wage retail employees, even their own. That lady gave her employer a tremendous service and all she got in return was a disservice. If you shop at Wal-Mart for a rock bottom price, please think of why the price is so low. Spend your money where it benefits your community, the small things we do affects us all.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Jesse, Bowie tx. — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:22:44 GMT

I have stopped doing buisness with the wal-mart chain due to this story. I hope other's due the same.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Neelam, Chicago, IL — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:23:43 GMT

It's about time American's started speaking up against mega-corporations! This government; whether Democrat or Republican, could care less about their people. Now we need to speak up about Big Oil. This proves that things really must change.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Me, Anchorage, Alaska — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:25:32 GMT

This is the first I heard of this. Good thing Walmart re-adjusted its thinking. As a shopper of Walmart, small-minded corporate thinking that would cause Walmart to take from a family going through a terrible situation would definately cause me to shop else where. Especially with gas prices as they are. However, you can guarentee that employees of Walmart who receive health benefits will need to read the fine print from now on. Chances are Walmart will revise its health benefit policy regarding employees receiving settlements for health situations -- where the employees sign and give Walmart entitlement rights to medical settlements.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Lou Chattanooga, Tn — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:26:31 GMT

Fantastic!!! One victory for the little guy...Big Bad Walmart finally gave in to the public pressure. Thanks a bunch NBC.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Jim, Philadelphia, PA — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:27:38 GMT

This shows that even large successful companies still have executives in powerfull positions who do not see the stupidity in their actions. From the beginning, even if legally they could collect this money, the execs at Walmart should have known better, for moral and business reasons.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Chris, San Clemente, CA — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:28:34 GMT

Boycott WalMart because of its unprincipled business practices that have been well documented over the past several years. It's incomprehensible to believe a company who claims to be family oriented would use such tactics. I'm taking my business to Target.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Rob - Grand Rapids MI — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:28:34 GMT

A lot of older Americans are on disability and it is amazing the number of creditors that care more about getting what is owed to them then just writing the debt off for humanity sake. That is why they charge 28% interest to cover for the losses of those who become medically disabled through no fault of their own making.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

M. Johnston, Mobile, AL — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:30:40 GMT

This should not be construed a victory for the 'little guy'. It is only a sound business decision for Walmart. The initial damage is already done to this family. Big money buys much.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Janell Jester, Ooltewah, TN. — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:38:54 GMT

Okay, but will they re-imburse the family for the fortune that was spent for legal counsel over the past 2 years in this legal nightmare? When they do that, then they will be truly a compassionate company. To take no additional money still has eroded the bulk of money awarded for her care, which might be for many years.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Krista Allen — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:45:33 GMT

What amazing news! While I find it deplorable that Wal Mart put this family through 5+ years of grief, I praise God that someone at Wal Mart finally came to their senses. The next step is for Congress to step in and enact legislation to prevent this from happening to another family, since the clause in question seems to be a common inclusion.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Sharon, Lynnwwod, WA — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:46:04 GMT

I glad that Wal-mart had a change of heart. I was going to boycott Wal-mart and never shop there again. It's amazing that the power of the people can still make a difference. Even if Wal-mart had a legal right; sometimes doing what's right goes against that. This woman has to live on that money for the rest of her life for her care.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Carol Anglin Garden City, Utah — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:46:16 GMT

My hat is off to Walmart for this magnanimous decision to spare Debbie Shanks and her family any further pain and suffering. Their actions to collect money from Debbie caused this family a "double whammy" of stress. It just shows that sometimes, even if you are right, it's best to do the "right" thing. Congratulations Shank Family and congratulations to the American people for having their voice heard. We are indeed, "We the people". Let us stay vigilante to cases such as this and to the important issues in our society. Let us never give up!

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Stephanie Meincke, Hattiesburg, MS — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:47:41 GMT

I was horrified to hear of Wal-Mart's greedy and myopic actions toward this family. Even if it was the negative publicity, I am glad to hear they finally did the right thing. Was their initial decision worth the legal costs & $470,000 worth of bad publicity? I am sure they aren't going bankrupt from this decision. Power to the people (and the sensible heads at Wal-Mart that finally prevailed)!

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

ROCCO L.A. CALIFORNIA — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:53:44 GMT

I AGREE IT'S ALL ABOUT THE BAD PUBLICITY .. IM SURE IT'S ALREADY COST THEM MILLIONS. THIS IS ONLY TO COVER THE BLEEDING OF THE ADVERSE AFFECT IT'S HAD ON WALMART.. GOOD, THEY DESERVE IT. THEY'VE BEEN CLOSING MOM AND POP SHOPS ALL OVER THE USA SINCE IT STARTED OPENING THOUSANDS OF STORES..

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Lara D, Princeton, NJ — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:54:05 GMT

It would be nice if corporations would do the humane thing without being forced by bad press. (PS, COUNTDOWN with Keith Olbermann has been talking about this story every day since last week.) Walmart made $11 billion last year, and they can't put a lousy half mil in their employees' health plan? And I'm sure most employees, if they knew about Ms. Shank, would gladly help pitch in with the costs of her care.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

John W., Iowa — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:57:02 GMT

Walmart has contributed to the demise of the American culture we all cherish so dearly. Walmart won't be satisfied until there are no small business owners left. We all need to support our locally owned business.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Tom Rachio, Milwaukee, Wisconsin — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:58:34 GMT

Let's see she gets a settlement which includes money for medical expenses. But wait, she did not pay medical expenses - her employer did. A sympathetic case does not a rational argument make. Any insurer would have done the same thing. Now who is going to make up the $470K loss caused by double dipping? Look in the mirror.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Rose Glennon, St. Louis — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:58:52 GMT

I guess Walmart found out quickly that the negative publicity they were receiving would translate in much bigger loses than the $470K that they were going to re-coup. Nothing has changed... Walmart doesn't give one rat about that woman or her family... if they did, they would never have sued her to begin with.

I personally do not shop there... before it was because of how they have ripped apart small town America up... this only reinforces how they are not good corporate neighbors to anyone, or any town.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Pier, Hayward California — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:01:25 GMT

Yes, thank God and thank all of the people who stood up and said that this was just plain wrong. WalMart should be ashamed of its self and should be greatful for all of the little people that work there!

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Lori Independence MO — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:12:59 GMT

Wal Mart was the company that paid medical bills
while the trucking company and their insurance
company cheated this lady. How about the lawyer
that had her settle. Thank You Wal Mart for all you did for this Lady.You were not the ones who
hurt her but took care of her.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Mark Davis, Falls Church — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:13:40 GMT

Great! Wonderful news. I't's incredible how dumb corporate america can be sometimes. This might very well prevent other families from being bullied by a giant corporation that all too often forgets that we the consumers have the last word. Let's not forget this. Awesome.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Kacie Jay, Macon, GA — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:15:36 GMT

This is why people have to stick together! Also, read your own health insurance policy, they all have a subro clause and will try to get their money back if you win a settlement, or worse, refuse to pay for treatment because the injuries are the result of third party negligence. Then you are in a real catch 22 - your health insurance won't pay, the at fault insurance doesn't have to pay while you are incurring your medical expenses - they only pay at the end when there is a judgment or settlement. Now you need treatment, can't work and no one will pay for your medical expenses. WE NEED INSURANCE OVERHAUL!

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Paul, California — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:18:14 GMT

We the people need to keep the sunshine shining on issues like this. What's $278,000 compared to the millions in bonuses that a CEO and executive board can make each year? Shame on Wal-Mart.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

SL — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:25:00 GMT

My co-workers have made a promise not to shop at walmart again. It is really sad to see such a huge company try to take away money from a family in need. What difference does it make to them when it means the world to that poor family. I know two people that are employees and have been told that there is a program set up so familys in need can get help when its needed. Where is that program for them?

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Cindy W., Knoxville, Tennessee — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:27:55 GMT

Wal-Mart is not doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. Unfortunately, since it became a public issue, they realized their losses would be greater if they persued this. My heart goes out to this family.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Kay, Southfield, MI — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:28:10 GMT

Good Job Wal-Mart! This shows that your company has compassion for their workers and circumstances they faced. Well done! After all money isn't everything when you have billions..this family needed it the most. So thank you for being there for them when they needed you the most. Remember the Golden Rule it is better to give than to recieve.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Erik M, San Marcos, TX — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:28:21 GMT

I don't shop at Walmart for a host of reasons, but at least they did the right thing this time; albeit, after much pressure

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Tim salem, or — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:31:21 GMT

When walmart does something right it goes and changes it because of bad public relations. Walmart had the right to seek reimbusement for the funds. It is sad of what did happen to this person ,but this is something that is in most health insurance policies. Walmart health plan does have it flaws but as a company is donates millions of dollars every year. Thats all i'm going to say.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Jim Perez, Massachusetts — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:35:25 GMT

Wal-Mart saw the "error of their ways" and corrected it after torturing this family (loss in sales would probably exceed anything they could collect from Shanks). Is this a corporation you want to patronize? Express your opinion with your wallet, don't shop Wal-Mart.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

H.L.Pitts — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:37:42 GMT

God please bless this family and relieve their suffering. My family and I had decided we would no longer shop at Wal-Mart. Corporate greed is out of control in this country. One other thing that needs to be addressed is that this poor man actually had to divorce her so that she could get more medicare benefits. That is so sad. Marriage is still sacred to some of us despite the high divorce rate in the U.S. That must have been terrible for this good and decent man who intends to keep his marriage vows no matter what.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Jim Walters, Colorado Springs, CO — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:38:52 GMT

I agree with Mike. Walmart is the big guy who just got caught picking on the little guy and was exposed. Another customer service nightmare.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Diamond Head Tony — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:43:26 GMT

With no more than a self-congratulatory summary from NBC you make Wal-Mart out to be the bad guy. Wrong. Like most Americans (say sub-prime nightmare, say Katrina) the Shanks didn't pay attention; specifically the policy they had through employment at Wal Mart clearly stated what would happen in their situation. They signed up for the policy...now like every other person who doesn't like the outcome they didn't prepare for, they want to change the terms.

I am extremely saddened by Mrs. Shanks medical situation, but that's not the point here, is it?

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Dan NY — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:44:52 GMT

I don't like Wal-Mart very much. I try really hard not to shop there; I don't think much of their business practices. In this case however, Wal-Mart's position was correct, as evidenced by the fact that their position was upheld in court after court. The practice of suborgation is widespread in this country, allowed by current law, and likely to spread as healthcare costs continue to increase. While it pains me to admit it, the Shanks are wrong and relied on the currently fashionable anti Wal-Mart hysteria to drum up public support for cheating Wal-Mart out of what they were entitled to under current United States tort law. By the way, I thought nobody at Wal-Mart had health insurance?

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Jay, Hampton, VA — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:52:16 GMT

Not to be too cold in the face of the woman's tragedy, it should be remembered that these unreimbursed medical costs will be shared by the health plan's participants. Without knowing the terms of the court ruling, it is probable that a portion of the settlement was for medical costs resulting from the accident. It is not unreasonable that any plan would want to get reimbursed for these costs. The few times I have gone to the emergency room, they always ask if the condition was the result of an accident and if so who was involved.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Richard Atoka, TN — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:02:40 GMT

The $470,000 should have been part of the lawsuit. It's Walmart's insurance company's fault for not suing the responsible party with Ms. Shank.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

RR, North Carolina — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:06:21 GMT

I think it is a sad state of affairs that Wal-Mart caved in and allowed this individual to back out of a contract that plainly stated that the money would be repaid, in the event of a lawsuit payout.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Brenda Washington Terrell, Texas — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:08:20 GMT

Walmart should feel bad and give this Lady double that amount for putting her Family thru this ordeal. That would show kindness of Walmart and maybe help with the negative publicity.

Thank you,

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Dalton Rawson, Atlanta, GA — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:11:48 GMT

It still doesn't change my mind. Neither my wife nor I will ever shop at a Wal-Mart or Sams Club. We joined Costco right after reading about Wal-Mart's greed and will not be renewing our Sams membership. I may reconsider if they pay the legal fees that this family has had to pay to try to keep their money.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Jen, Philly PA — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:14:05 GMT

Walmart has the right to reclaim their expenses for the paid medical costs. This expenses are typically included in the settlement awarded to plaintiffs in their judgements. Large claim payouts like these are the reason why health insurance premiums are as high as they are and the reason why health care costs will continue to climb. Walmart has just as much as a right to this claim as any other insurance carrier. Your car/homeowners insurance would do the same, so you can't fault Walmart.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

John, Tulsa, OK — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:18:48 GMT

I think Wal-Mart should have stuck to their guns on this one. This opens up a big can of worms for them. But the bad publicity was obviously costing them. The Shank's shouldn't have settled with the trucking company for such a small amount. At the very least their lawyer should have been competent enough to read the fine print on the insurance policy provided through Wal-Mart and told them that this was going to happen.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

cathy vesely, sparks nv — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:21:40 GMT

i'm just glad that walmart decided to let this poor family keep this money.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Greg Kessler , New Oleans ,LA. — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:23:11 GMT

I personally have made a decision for my business and myself not to ever shop at Walmart ever again.This was a disgrace. How much more shameful behavior have we never heard about?

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Roger Seattle, WA — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:23:19 GMT

By rolling over on this, Wal-Mart employees will find their medical insurance costs increasing. The fact is that the money Shank won from the trucking co. was determined in part by looking at her medical expenses. Expenses paid by the Wal-Mart insurance trust!

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Gerry - Clinton Twp MI — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:27:03 GMT

I am still upset that Walmart that would not support their (people)employees in their time of need. If companies negates their responsiblity to help their people - why should people help support their companies? Walmart being the largest US retailer should have taken care of one of it's own, not sueing them.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Suny5, Kansas City, MO — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:30:08 GMT

I had stopped buying from Walmart because of this court case. Since Walmart is not seeking money from this poor woman, I'm a return customer.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Al, Texas — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:31:28 GMT

"Husband" is spelled incorrectly.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Shirley Coleman, Pioneer, Ohio — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:31:39 GMT

Wal-Mart has so much money. Why not let these people keep what they have gotten so they can have a better life. They have suffered enough already. Glad to hear Wal-Mart got over their greed. Good luck to the Shank's.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Donna — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:31:39 GMT

It wasn't Wal Mart seeking to recover the amount. It was the health insurance company that Wal Mart chose. The health insurance company sought to enforce a subrogation clause. These are very common in health insurance plans (probably any kind of insurance actually)

The "theory" (right or wrong) is that when an insurance company pays out under an insurance plan (for example for medical bills) and then the insured person recovers a damages award for those SAME injuries the insured person has recovered twice.

I wonder why the lawyers for the Shanks didn't seek a higher settlement.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Kim Huggard — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:32:59 GMT

Why is it that people nowadays think the legal documents they sign are worthless?

I've been seeing people cry the blues because they lost six figure incomes and now had to live on $1800 a month and because they signed mortgage contracts they couldn't have possibly paid for under normal conditions. Do you really think these people thought about us when they were living the high life?

If these people were so important in their field why is it they're out of work for so long?

How could someone making $25,000+ a month make the rest of us feel sorry for them when their pyramid scheme busines went bust?

Just like every working person in the country this woman signed papers before being hired that sets down the rules for employment.

This womans husband should be thankful to Walmart first that they are not pursuing the money and thankful to God he doesn't have to pay it back.

Walmart doesn't worry about bad publicity because everyone will forget about it by next week anyway.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Joann Mittelsteadt (jrmitt@ccaonline.com) — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:37:32 GMT

I'm certainly glad Wal-Mart decided to end this
fiasco with the Shank family. I'm sure it has
saved them millions of dollars as the public was
very upset and threatened to stop shopping at their stores. I was one of them.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Mike S, Oakland Park, FL — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:39:47 GMT

Walmart has shown their true colors. Despite their change of mind, I will not change mine. They will get NONE of my hard earned money.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Mike, Dallas, Texas — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:41:14 GMT

Walmart made no "error" - they were legally entitled (and legally obligated less they get sued for preferntial treatment) to collect the money. The terms were laid out clearly. They backed off only because of the negative publicity. I think Walmart did the right thing because they could afford to, but the husband really should re-think his choice of words.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Paula, Idaho — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:43:02 GMT

In all reality, I think Wal-Mart should be reimbursed. This is how the system really works. You can't get in an accident anywhere else, have your basic health coverage pick up the tab & then get to keep all of the settlement.
Walmart backed down because of the publicity...the lady, as unfortunate the accident left her, should legally & ethically pay Walmart back for the medical coverage that was supposed to be covered by the settlement.

yeah, yeah - Walmart is big. Walmart has money. yadda yadda yadda.... I get that much

Part of the lady's settlement is for medical bills - Which Walmart has covered. Why shouldn't she have to pay it back???

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Rob Atlanta, Ga — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:45:56 GMT

I give Wal-Mart credit. I do think they gave in to this publicity nightmare but they didn't have to and could have kept on fighting. I still don't care to shop there but they did the right thing.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Josh, Saint Paul, MN — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:55:02 GMT

This isn't great news for the "little guy." This family's double-dipping - taking money from both the truckin company and the health plan for the same medical bills - ripped off all of the "little guy" Wal-Mart employees who contributed to the health plan, and all the "little guys" who shop at Wal-Mart because they can't afford Macy's.
No, this is a victory for Big Media sensationalism. All you bleeding hearts stand up and applaud for that.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

J., Virginia Beach, Virginia — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:55:05 GMT

Walmart did the same thing that health insurance companies have been doing for years. Why are they suddenly the villian of the piece? If Walmart employees were covered under Blue Cross or Aetna, bet your bottom dollar that those companies would have been asking for reimbursement from the settlement. Just because Walmart is a giant doesn't make them wrong.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Howard, Raymond, Wash. — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:56:04 GMT

Looks to me as if Wal-Mart is trying to toss a steak on the black eye the story gave them. I have to wonder though how much this story has cost Wal-Mart at the cash register I have talked to a lot of people that shop there and after this story aired were asking me about my boycott because of their labor practices.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Elizabeth, Atlanta, GA — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 03:01:41 GMT

The greed within Walmart continues to astonish me. I used to be a faithful customer and I actually knowingly pay more for my groceries to avoid feeding into that greed. We the people can change things.
I think SAM is probably rolling in his grave.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Bob, CA — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 03:02:26 GMT

Wal-Mart the world's largest retail store and the HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS they make in revenue from their customers every year, they don't even have compassion for a disabled employee. This is why I will won't shop at a Wal-Mart. Why should I give them my money when they don't care to help people in need. Even now the decline for the reimbursement of the money, it still shows how much Wal-Mart doesn't care for their employees. This issue shouldn't have even come about if they weren't so greedy for money!

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

reality check, Iowa — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 03:04:35 GMT

this was a sad case, but they did sign and agree to the plan. it's just a shame that people cry fowl when something doesn't go there way - I guess personal responsibility doesn't exist anymore.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Jeff, Seattle, WA — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 03:06:09 GMT

This is a very common occurence. My health insurance company would do the very same thing if I received a settlement after they laid out money for my medical care. Whoever the Shanks lawyer was should never have accepted a settlement that didnt cover ALL medical costs, including those already paid by her insurance company. It is immoral(not to mention bad business) for Wal-Mart to do what they did, but they are just acting like every other insurance company in the country.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Rita W, Oakland Park, FL — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 03:10:33 GMT

Too little, too late. Shame on a multi-billion dollar company like Walmart to ever have made the initial decison to take this families' money, let alone to ignore appeals made by this family to keep the monies they won for the long term care this poor woman and caregivers will be enduring for the rest of their lives. The addage, "this is business, not personal" has been taken to a new low. Until computers take over for the human relations that all companies succeed by, it is personal. Equally, shame on the judicial sytem that would allow this giant to take away from this family that will never be the same. Walmart, never will you see my money in your revenues. EVER.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Jay, asheville NC — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 03:14:22 GMT

I think it's junk that her husband divorced her to get her additional care. Is anyone else seeing what the real story is? He divorced her and put her in a health care facility and now he is sole caretaker of what is left of the money she was awarded in the lawsuit. There is more to this story and to make walmart the bad-guy in all this is just the tip of the iceberg. I want to see more on this story and don't let this be the last one on it. She is a human being with feelings and too many men are abandoning their families these days.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Chris Michigan — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 03:21:34 GMT

Wal-mart finally did the right thing. But the emotional and mental toll this had on the Shanks is unforgiveable.

Look for the Subrogation provision. Even Medicare and Medicaid have this clause and unlike private companies that are willing to negotiate a percentage of the cost the federal government will not. Look out if you are on Medicare and Medicaid and get a settlement.!!

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Eric, Toledo, Ohio — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 03:28:13 GMT

Do you people who are cheering this situation realize who is paying for this ... it is You and I ... Joe Public who shops at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart paid out $470,000 for her care and when the responsible party was made to pay $700,000, Wal-Mart got $0.00. The only way Wal-Mart can afford this is to ultimately add into the expected cost of doing business and raise the prtice of the goods to cover for these type of expenses. So you and I pay for it through higher prices at their stores, or worse yet, to save this they demand more price concession from ther suppliers which depress American wages or force these companies to move overseas. Try putting your small business in these situation, one of your employees get hurt and it someone else's fault but you provide health insurance to them and it costs your company $200,000. That employee gets a settlement for $500,000 and you get nothing to reimbuse you for the money you spent caring for them ... and people still wonder why business don't want to provide health insurance.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Bob Walters LaGrange, GA — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 03:33:02 GMT

To Wal-Mart,
Even thought it was in Wal-Marts' best interest to drop the suite at least there was someone who was listening.
I have a MUCH better feeling about the company even though you were put in a bind by the media...you did the right thing. This helps to change the attitude of some about Big Business...being ruthless and uncaring...you helped your image and did the right thing...

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

James, NYC — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 03:33:54 GMT

I'd like to know how much Walmart spent in legal fees. Considering this case was appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court, I would imagine not only did Walmart spend a pretty penny on legal fees but it may have caused Ms. Shank to spend money on lawyers that could have been better suited for her care.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Tina Schoenen, Sacramento, CA — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 03:35:22 GMT

Thank God for news reports that picked up this story. For once the media helped someone. Without this story being broadcast Wal-Mart probably would have made them pay back the money that they don't really need. Wal-Mart should be ashamed of themselves for even pursuing this woman's money. When a big, powerul company such as Wal-Mart is willing to stiff its own disabled worker, do you as a person really want to still shop there?

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Lola, San Francisco — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 03:37:31 GMT

Virtually all insurance companies and health plans seek reimbursement for people who receive personal injury settlements based on treatment that the health insurance company paid out. The rationale is that they don't want people "double dipping" in the funds. It is written pretty much into everyone's contract, which no one bothers to read. This is just another way that the insurance industry has done a fabulous propaganda job in convincing the world that lawsuits are to blame for increased insurance rates for everyone, when in fact personal injury lawsuits put more money back into the hands of the insurance companies. Without these lawsuits and subsequent settlements, the insurance companies would recive millions upon millions less per year.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Pete, Lake Forest, CA — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 03:49:39 GMT

Bad precedent. While this was a sad situation,WalMart should have been reimbursed from the settlement money. Now everyone will pay for the recovery instead of the person or company that caused the problem

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Eric, CA — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 03:59:00 GMT

I am curious what "error" Wal-Mart made? She signed the paperwork which stated Wal-Mart would seek to collect any funds which they may have paid out, should the employee sue and recieve compensation for a claim. They did exactly what they said they were going to do and what she had agreed to. People need to understand what they are signing and make informed decisions.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

EA, San Diego, CA — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 04:03:54 GMT

The amount that was spent on lawyer's fees could have saved them just as much as they would have recovered from the family. It is terrible that Walmart would pull this kind of disgraceful, inhumane treatment on a family.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Ben Rosenberg, St. Louis, MO — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 04:10:23 GMT

If the economy were booming and it wasn't a case of each sale counting as much as it does these days .. they wouldn't have given in at ALL. They gave in because they don't want Target or other discount stores getting what little cash people have in their pockets these days. It's sad really. I don't see why they didn't try to euthanize the poor woman too boot. I mean really, to take money from a woman who has been beaten down so hard by life already .. it's just horrible.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Alicia Watson, Canyon Lake Tx — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 04:30:04 GMT

considering Walmart has always paid the bills in an accident then collected it from people who received that payment from another source it is unfair for people to assume Walmart was at fault. In an auto accident they immediately cover the expense with the option of collecting back from whatever is later paid by the other party. This is a policy many insurers use.... if not then a person could collect on company benefits then also collect from the other party receiving double benefits. Only way to avoid this would be to allow the company to collect back what was returned to the injured person... or REFUSE TO PAY FOR Accident caused by someone... that would have made medical coverage denied to this sweet lady from the start while she tried to settle a claim. In the future companies may refuse to pay upfront knowing collecting back would bring a public outcry... All employees know that if they collect medical payments from an accident they will have to pay back the company when they receive the payment.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

John, North Carolina — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 04:38:19 GMT

Walmart seems to be doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Bruce - Sacramento, CA — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 05:01:04 GMT

Wal-Mart's sorry for the "additional stress?" That sounds pretty disingenuous. I think all they're sorry for is that their already bad name was tarnished even further.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

CV — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 05:33:40 GMT

How about Wal-Mart setting up a fund to help this person and the possibly many more it has allowed this to happen to in the past.
Shame on you Wal-Mart...Shame on you.
I have stopped shopping there and will not enter their doors again.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Gary, Mankato, MN — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 05:35:15 GMT

Thanks also to NBC and CNN for bringing this to light and causing the public outcry that brought Walmart to change it's mind. And my wife wonders why I refuse to go into a Walmart store....

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Gaines, St. Pete,Fl — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 05:59:13 GMT

Wal-mart is another Big company going after the little guy. It just so happens the little guy had publicity on their side this time and embarrassed Wal-mart. I know I would have looked at Wal-mart differently if they had taken the money from this family...what a shame!

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Linda, Farmington, NM — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 06:31:02 GMT

I think Wal Mart's heartlessness, demonstrated in years of pursuing poor Mrs. Shanks' inadequate trust fund through lawsuits outraged every decent human being who learned of it. It obviously was the corporation's will to sue--despite their intimate knowledge of the Shanks' many hardships. Wal Mart lost most people's respect and goodwill. Only the threat of boycotting made the company reverse. Not decency, and not morality, and not a sense of fairness, but possible costs. What a company!

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Greg, St. Louis, MO — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 06:51:52 GMT

This is standard practice for insurance companies. If you win a settle from the other party, the insurance wants their cut back. If your lawyer is any good this amount will be figured in the settlement. This isn't just Wal-Mart, this is any insurance company. The media jumped on this case because it was Wal-Mart. My wife was in an accident years ago when I was in the Navy and after the settlement we had to pay the Navy back for her medical treatment by them. Be mad at the insurance companies, not Wal-Mart (this time).

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Tom Ulcak, CZ — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 07:00:08 GMT

This changes nothing. Walmart and other big corporations will continue to do this... unless, we start regulating them again. free enterprise does not work because greedy people count profit more important than others or doing the right thing... and this greedy spirit spreads itself like the disease it is. Until people realize that it is us, the American people, that must decide how things are done and not business, this and things like this will continue to happen

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Jessica, Hilo, HI — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 07:30:41 GMT

I don't doubt that WalMart execs were probably bombarded with calls and threats of boycotting their stores. I thought about not shopping at WalMart anymore myself as I've had issues with their employment practices for years and this was the tip of the iceberg. I am very happy to see that WalMart, for once, gave the little guy a break and wish this family the best.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

M. Aaron Pittsburgh, PA — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 07:42:49 GMT

I havemuch sympathy for the Shank Family. Why should Walmart and the employees take a loss for Mrs Shanks terrible accident? Money was awarded for Medical Expenses, Pain and Suffering and who knows what else. The money that was awarded for Medical Expenses that an Insurance paid should be paid back. If 2 insurances are avialible to a family member, both insurances don't pay over the Charge and give the extra money to the person... I like seeing the little guy win as much as the next guy when they are in the Right... The one that should be paying is the insurance company the Shanks had to take to Court in the first place to collect any money...
Americans had better start waking up and fight for the Right things...

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Dick Pittman,Tucson,AZ — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 08:12:22 GMT

All you "little guys" out there should read your own company or private insurance policies. They all allow the insurance company to recover money from the injured party any of the costs spent on medical injuries if they are sucessfull in suing the other party.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Dan, Atlanta Ga. — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 08:39:48 GMT

You may not like Wal-Mart because they are big money just like the oil companies. Although I disagree I understand why you may think this, but lets not forget the lawyers who I understand did not do this pro-bono, for the Shank's original suit. Wal Mart is said to be something like the 2nd. most charitable private business in the country. When you are sucessful in this country you are hated. But think about it should you be butchered day in and day out if your business rises to the top? Who says how much money you are allowed to make? I know the democratic party likes to punish success.
But back to the issue I think there may have been other ways for the Shanks to sue or terminolgy that may have protected them. Maybe the lawyer failed them by not reviewing the insurance papers. Nice of Wal-mart to drop their claim but have they set a new standard in a society that claims "victimhood" on the next guy they collect from. It's easy to paint them as a bad guy as the media exploits Ms. Shank's accident only for their selfish ratings war. Come on do you think journalism and reporting today is really for us. No way it is a business just like Wal-Mart insurance rep, and your employer. They have to look out for themselves, this helps keep you employed.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Joe Reed, Tyler, TX — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:13:03 GMT

This situation with Wal-Mart made me more than boiling mad--it only showed how Wal-Mart is as ruthless with its employees as it is taking down businesses that get in its way in order to become the defacto supplier of what we need.

I am happy for the Shank family. It doesn't change my mind about Wal-Mart. I have already decided to shop elsewhere.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Greg Olson — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:27:14 GMT

Bravo to Countdown and other news media for the outcry against Walmart for this injustice. So many things like this happen that don't get this kind of press. Chalk up one for the good guys.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Chris, GA. — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:31:58 GMT

Shame on Wal-Mart. For once I'm glad the media kept this story going to embarass Wal-Mart into changing it's mind.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Frances Moore, Climax, NC — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:36:59 GMT

I agree with Mike in Virginia. What would have happened if the media had not exposed them? Sure they had a "legal" clause in their policy, but what about "moral" clauses and plain old-fashioned integrity? I am glad they have reversed their decision to sue for the funds, but am outraged at even the possibility of this happening - to anyone!

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

mike. broken arrow, ok — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:38:35 GMT

This what happens when bean counters are running the show. No common sense....just dollars....what walmartneeds to do is to step up and give them extra.........

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Laurie, Baltimore, MD — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:40:02 GMT

I am glad that Wal-Mart dropped their case. What about the nice chunk of money the lawyer got? Too bad the news doesn't give them the bad publicity. From what I read it looks like the lawyer got almost $300,000. To me that is the real crime here.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Carol, AL — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:57:35 GMT

Congratulations to Keith Olberman for relentlessly highlighting this story each night. Sadly, sometimes it is only a "publicity nightmare" that will make these big corporations do the right thing.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

G Wood — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:06:12 GMT

This case also raises another issue. Congress needs to be lobbied to outlaw the language that enables this practice to happen. People pay and pay and pay for their insurance and then when they have to make a claim there is every conceivable form of fine print to try and keep from paying as much as possible. Insurance is one industry that I think should be federalized. As important as it is to our health and security, profit should not be the driving force behind this protection. The protection should be the primary goal and as long as it is provided by profit oriented companies protection will always come AFTER if at all.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Melissa Rodgers, Louisville, KY — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:08:48 GMT

A big "Thanks" is needed for the media here and the people who stood up for what they believed. Even though WalMart's intentions were not good and they only retracted because of publicity but who cares, they did it. Take this as a lesson learned and when we all stand together we can achieve our goals in whatever the situation may be. My suggestion to NBC, have these stories more frequently. If that's what it takes these days to hold corporations accountable then I say NBC should be the one do it. Our local NBC station has a Toubleshooter Hall of Shame and it works wonders for our local citizens that get ripped off. They've recovered over $2 Million for people in Louisville, KY. Thanks NBC!

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Melissa Rodgers, Louisville, KY — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:09:23 GMT

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Marcus — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:35:13 GMT

Mike is right. Wal-Mart doesn't care about Debbie Shank. It cares about the online petitions calling for boycotts. They put that poor family through hell, and on top of everything they have suffered they lost their son in Iraq. The money they received was for her ongoing care and Wal-Mart would have taken it all if people hadn't screamed about this situation. God bless those who spoke up.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

P. SMITH — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:39:19 GMT

Thank God that the public gets involved and will not let large corporations continue to take from american citizens............Now if they would just support America with the manufacturing of ALL their products in this OUR COUNTRY

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

M Devoe, Lanham, MD — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:39:49 GMT

This is why medical costs continue to rise. Wal-Mart (and I am not a fan) does have the right to recover monies it paid for medical expenses that the individual recouped as part of the law suit. All major companies do this, as well as the Federal and State governments, when they have paid out for medical expenses that are repaid by settlements. If your medical cossts continue to rise, don't complain, if you condone this crying to the media so that you can double-dip. Wal-Mart should have ingored the media and collected the money.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Beau Thompson Evansville, IN — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:46:15 GMT

How about responsibility. They should have paid the money back. You don't think the lawyers did it for pro-bono do you. Walmart is the number 2 contributor to charity behind the Gates's. Get off thier back.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Susan Harrell, N. Myrtle Beach, SC — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:48:40 GMT

I am very happy for the Shank's. He is right, this should never have happened. His family has such a burden to bear already, but Wal-Mart did not care. The almighty dollar was their main concern. This should be an eye opener to all the patrons of Wal-Mart. Do we want to support a company that would do this to a family that has been through so much already? Go back to your small town stores and support them. They probably would have pitched in more money, instead of trying to take it away. Shame on them. The only good thing that will come from this is...one day, those that initiated this from Wal-Mart will have to stand before their maker and answer for it. I would love to hear that explanation!

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Francisco Garlet, Mountain Home, AR — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:50:54 GMT

This incident and what I saw in the documentary "The High Cost of Low Prices" has turned me away from Wal Mart. I wrote letters to S. Robson Walton concerning both issues and of course did not receive a response. In my second letter I pointed out that my small family normally spends about $600 a month at Wal Mart, and that we intended to stop shopping there. Though we may have to spend a bit more, we could not conscientiously continue to support a company that seems to no longer have concern for either their employees nor their customers. I pointed out that our $600 may not amount to much, but if there were a couple other people, like ourselves, in each of their 3000+ stores, it would amount to a great deal of money.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Fro, Somewhere — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:54:46 GMT

It looks like Walmart is being set out to be the bad guy here. Deborah Shank should pay Walmart back all the health expense she charged the health insurance. Its only right, since it was the trucker that cause the accident. It shows, that the little guy can harm the rest of the little guys. We all will be paying more for this if she does not pay back the insurance.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Tammi Townsley, River Edge, NJ — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:55:31 GMT

This is the right thing to do under these circumstances, however, I will NEVER shop at Wal-mart again. If thats how they treat their employees how will they start to treat their customers?

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Vernon, Dallas, TX — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:55:35 GMT

I'm happy for this family, but ALL of us with insurance are at risk. Walmart, as is the case with all insurance companies, was within its rights to demand the money. Lucky for Shank that there was enough publicity to pressure Walmart to reverse course. Not many will get that lucky. Though the tactic is morally wrong, it is legal

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

John Minneapolis,MN — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:59:29 GMT

Walmart has got much more work to do before many of it's former customers will shop there again.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

KJ, AR — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:00:16 GMT

Walmart received the thrashing it deserved in the media. But I think Mrs. Shank's attorney deserves a slap for winning a relatively small settlement and then taking his fat cut. He knew that Walmart could sue to recover the medical costs it had paid out; why did he not seek a larger settlement?

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Rob, Warwick, NY — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:00:19 GMT

awesome. GREAT news for the Shanks. It's still an absolute embarrassment that Walmart needed to be shamed into doing the right thing. I'm not even sure "shamed" is the correct term. To them, all they see are dollar signs.

My decision still stands.....my family will not give Walmart one more penny of our money.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Bruce Hensley, Clarksville, Tenn. — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:02:47 GMT

I understand the desire to keep all of the money a person wins, but it is standard procedure for a person to reimburse insurance companies for their expenditures.
The lawsuit my wife and I have filed includes the understanding that all insurance companies will be reimbursed for their expenses as well as the large percentage the lawyers get FIRST/right off the top!
It's sort of like one of the people who say "well even if you won the lottery for a million dollars you'd have to pay taxes and wouldn't have but half a million left"! Well, I think half a million would be wonderful to have!
Just remember, money can't buy happiness AND a lot of people have found more misery because of it!
Be thankful for what you have. God is good!

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Ralph P. Maryland-home of taxes on the rise and O'Malley — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:02:57 GMT

Mike (above) hit it on the head. Wal-mart or any large corporation does not have a conscience-they have lawyers. Whatever they say-goes.If they see it as bad for business,they change direction. If it makes for good press and free advertisement,they have done their job.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Don Gordon Peoria, IL — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:04:31 GMT

I think it's great that Walmart finally came to this agreement of not pursuing collection. It should of never happened in the first place. And if it wasn't televised, and the publics out cry, this would of been a different story. I hope Wal-mart has the decency to re-imburse attorney fees or expenses that the Shank family had to spend in the days of seeking support and resolution of this matter.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Bob, Indiana — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:08:33 GMT

Little Guy... her COMPANY paid an enormous amount for her health care incurred during an accident on her own time. While the accident is horrific, and I am extremely sad for her plight, the thought that Wal-Mart initially trying to recoup some of the loss is somehow taking advantage of her is ludicrous.

Yes... it was about bad press. And YES... I agree that they should not have even thought about it. But I am sick of the people of the world believing that they are ENTITLED to someone elses money, simply because they have more of it. Wal-Mart has helped so much of the world simply by it's existence. The people 'without' can have so much more simply because Wal-Mart gives them both the opportunity for a job as well as a place to purchase products at the lowest price.

I am not in retail at all... I am in medicine. But I am so sick of people thinking the 'little guy' is taken advantage of all the time. The fact of the world is that you must have something WORTH something. If you choose to derail your education or lack inspiration or perspiration for that matter, it is not the fault of those who do to take care of you. Just because I was willing to go to school an additional 14 years and now have a good income DOESN'T mean that I should be responsible for everyone who dropped out of school.

The tipping point for individuals should be the point where your stomach says "I want to eat today... I better get my butt out there and do something to fill it." The world was a much better place when individual responsibility decided what sort of life you lived.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Chuck G, FL — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:11:57 GMT

As with all insurance companies, Wal-Mart (I assume is self-insured for employee health care) has a right to recover claims payouts. While this sob story looks bad, it goes on every day. Wal-Mart is just the favorite whipping boy for liberal media.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Heather — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:12:34 GMT

She signed the papers agreeing to their terms. Maybe she should start taking some personal responsibility for what she signs.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Will James, Laurel, MD — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:13:09 GMT

Wal Mart did the right thing in two respects. It fought to avoid an anti-business legal precedent and albeit too late, exercised it choice to handle the situation as a case by case issue. Keep hating the business world people and you will foster an economy that makes the U.S. look more like the dismal economies in Europe.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Gale Mahaffey, Travelers Rest, SC — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:15:04 GMT

I was so upset when I saw this story on the news, I thought that Walmart, as large and wealthy as they are, would have compassion on these people and let them be. I know that the attorneys probably initialized this, whether the were working for Walmart or the insurance company, but lets be human and no so business oriented and care for people and their situations. All we have is each other!!!!

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Paul Rogers Columbus, Ohio — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:22:13 GMT

God bless the USA . The People"s voice has been heard. May the family have a little peace in the world. God bless your family.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Jim Moran, Ann Arbor, MI — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:26:12 GMT

You should have also mentioned that on MSNBC's "Countdown", Keith Olberman had announced that they were planning to run the story nightly on his mocking "Worst Person in the World" segment until Wal-Mart reversed its decision.
Jim Moran

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Marc Archambeau Chicago — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:27:38 GMT

Well, WalMart, Sam's etc already got my member card sent to them shredded. Take the buying power of 1 30's customer and multiply that over the next 30 years of buying.
If Walmart wants me back as a customer they need to reimburse the family for the money spent fighting goliath.

It sickens me that the WalMart Conglomo wasn't concerned and devasted for this family and only decided to be good citizens when they feared losing money.

Shame on you WalMart.
Do the right thing.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Wally D. World — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:31:43 GMT

Thanks also to Olberman for putting walmart on the worst person in the world list everyday until it was cleared up.

Walmart caved to the publicity, kudos

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Snok Pum Ontario Canada — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:32:25 GMT

That is good that Walmart has stepped up and not put this family in any more heartache. They have been put through enough. It makes you not want to shop in Walmart. I know rules are rules but have a heart. I had tears in my eyes when I watched the show on NBC. Good for NBC for airing the show. It is good to have those stories on the show. Best of luck to the family .

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Selina, Wilmington, Delaware — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:33:53 GMT

Good for the Shanks. I don't understand how these types of clauses can be put into a health insurance contract to begin with. Just another way to step on the little man.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Stephani B, Appleton, WI — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:33:54 GMT

I think this is further proof of the power we have as group. If we, as Americans stand united, our voice will be heard and we do have the power to change things in this world! Way to go America!

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Wayne, NC — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:34:24 GMT

Well now they have just set the precedent for all future claims of this nature where the victim of an accident wins a settlement against the person/company responsible and the insured will not have to honor its portion of the insurance agreement. It is a win win for everyone but the employer who was trying to do the right thing. Shame on the little guy who wants his cake and eat too..........the unresponsible people of the USA spoke loud and clear....No rules for me just take care of me no matter what I agreed to!....

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

M.E.S., Lansdale, PA — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:38:05 GMT

Wal-Mart never should have gone after money earmarked for future care costs. Greedy, greedy, greedy.

I can understand the splitting punitive awards which are just extra money in the pocket to spend as one wishes. But this money was not the case.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

MP, Kansas CIty, MO — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:39:35 GMT

Why does anyone shop at Wal-Mart?

The tragedy not only stems from greedy corporate giants like Wal-Mart, the insurance companies also run totally amuck, unfettered in what they do. They have the full freedom to get out there and screw with the health and financial lives of all of us while the officals we vote for to represent us sit back and allow it.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Charles Hill — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:43:17 GMT

It is time we the american people stood up. That is what WE the people means. We the people have to take a stand.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

S, Onalaska, WI — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:44:17 GMT

I'm glad that the entire world has had the opportunity to see what a horrible bunch of folks WalMart management can be. It's just sad that it was at the expense of this family. I worked for WalMart for a year - trust me - what they were trying to get away with didn't surprise me one bit. The way they handle insurance for their "assosiates" is laughable - unless you really need it.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

MARVIN GRICE, PITTSBURGH, PA — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:50:32 GMT

WE HAVE THE SAME TYPE OF PROBLEM, THE LITTLE GUY FOLLOWS THE RULES AND LAWS THEN THEY GET STEPPED ON BY THE BIG BOYS.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Pam Ar — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:52:32 GMT

I am glad to hear this news, I watched on NBC news and couldn't believe what I was hearing. Congrats to the family, Sorry for what they were put thru and I think a Thank you needs to be said to Wal-mart. They could have still taken the money bad publicity or not. with God's help now the family can concentrate on Deborah.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Bob, San Antonio, Texas — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:53:16 GMT

I'm glad that WalMArt reversed their decision but I'm wondering how this case is any different than when an Insurance Company sues to recover losses in an accident. What if WalMart's attorneys had been first to sue and succeeded in collecting damages, would they have been expected to return those monies to the family?

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Michael, Tampa, FL — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:55:59 GMT

Amen Mike VA. I'm getting so tired of public policy in this country. Corporations and the rich consistently dominate our society at the expense of individuals and this was a fine example. Where's our sense of community and social justice that we had in the 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s?

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Teeter, Miami, FL. — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:56:24 GMT

I agree with Mike from VA. Too much publicity called attention to it and they felt it was better to leave the Shank family alone than pursue their money. They made some $10.3 billion last year versus $470K in medical expenses. Poor taste on their part.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Ben — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:56:58 GMT

Absolute agreement with Mike in VA. This has nothing to do with Wal-Mart's "benevolence" and everything to do with the PR nightmare they are facing by stealing money from an invalid.

I used to manage Wal-Mart stores. You'd be amazed at the number of times corporate policies were shifted *for a one-time case* because public opinion was in the balance. Then, when the public opinion focus lifted, Wal-Mart went right back to business-as-usual--wrecking the local economies and exploiting the poor.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Bob johnson Akron oh — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:57:12 GMT

This shows the power of the press. It can take a 5% unemployment figure and scare the 95% who are working into believing they will lose their job. it can take a 3% forclosure rate and make 97% of the paying people feel like their going to lose their home. Keep up the good work

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Edward, Washington, North Carolina — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:59:39 GMT

Walmart was shown as the only "bad guy" in this situation, but what about the attorney/s who represented Mrs. Shank in her suit against the trucking company? The settlement awarded for this suit was right at 1 million dollars. Out of this total sum, Mrs. Shank received $470,000 and the attorney/s got $530,000. Personally, it appears to me that the attorney/s were the ones with the real greed. No wonder they advertise so much on television!

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

c Missouri — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:02:00 GMT

She should be able to pay her own bills if she was awarded a big settlement.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Dalton Galois, Fort Worth, TX — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:02:30 GMT

The Media should be just so proud of itself. By invoking the sympathy trifecta of "the little guy", "Jesus" and "disability", they have managed to cloud the issue here.

The injured lady seems quite happy to double dip - first from Wal-Mart Insurance and then from a legal settlement.

While I am sympathetic to Mrs. Shanks injuries, lets lable this exactly what it is - Insurance Fraud!

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Rob Terry, Kansas City, Missouri — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:07:38 GMT

This story wouldn't have been media worthy if it hadn't been a big company like Wal-Mart. As I believe the article stated, this type of clause is typical. Companies won't do anything about these type of things until they are forced to.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Dennis Haskins, Coral Springs, Florida — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:09:20 GMT

I feel bad for her, but imagine all the people who've had to pay Walmart back in the past because it's their policy.

I guess the same rules don't apply to everyone after all, huh?

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Mrs. Miller, Ada, OK — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:09:38 GMT

The so called clause in the insurance policy sounds like a scam to me. These people should never have had to go through this and I will not be shopping at Walmart anymore. Walmart makes more than enough money they shouldn't need to take money from a disabled person or any other person they insure as an employee as we all know that medical expenses are outrageous. Praise the Lord that this family can rest a little better now even though Walmart did already take a good chunk of their money already. How greedy can this company be?

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Mike Krauss Milford, CT — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:11:37 GMT

Kudos to Keith Olbermann for exposing Wal-Mart's outrageous corporate greed and predictable behavior.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

James, Grand Rapids, MI — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:12:49 GMT

First off, I understand Walmart's position in a general sense not taking into consideration the tragedy of this case. However, I believe it should be legislated that company health plans should sue those at fault with their own lawyers and bear those costs. The person who was hurt should sue for pain, suffering, negligence, etc. and recieve those damages and bear those costs. Unless I am understanding this incorrectly, the lady in this situation had to pay for the lawyers so that Walmart could recoup health care costs. I think that these clauses were set up because people were abusing the system and because of that people that really need the help suffer.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Lee Ann Garcia, Big Spring, Texas — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:15:20 GMT

Horrah for the working people! We all need to take a look at the so called common practices of the large corporations and the benefits they offer. When they came to out town at least 15 years ago we watched as they knocked out 4 grocery stores one by one leaving HEB and Walmart in a town of 26,000 not to mention 3-4 locally owned clothing or boutiques stores.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Oscar — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:17:14 GMT

They stopped their greed only after all the press they received. Shame on them for not doing it sooner, and I'm glad that they at least stop. Sorry Walmart, with this you lost another customer.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

George, Northern Virginia — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:23:28 GMT

This is STANDARD practice for any insurance company. She's "double dipping." Insurance paid for the medical care, and then the trucking company paid it in her settlement. There's nothing "evil" there. It's just made a good story about the big bad company going after "the little guy." There's no tipping point if people are going to try to get something for nothing. I was involved in a car accident and may have to sue. If I win, I know I'll be giving some money to my insurance companies who have already paid for some items, and I won't whine to the news media about it.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Dale Curry, Havelock, NC — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:24:50 GMT

It is criminal for an insurance company to be able to go to a person that has been injured and received money for their pain and suffering and demand that they refund the insurance company for claims that have been paid out. What is an insurance company for, why do you pay premiums if not to pay your medical claims. The person that was injured, the person that suffers with that injury is the one entitled to the money...not the insurance company. When the insurance company can trade places and suffer from the pain and disability instead of the injured they can have the money. I know I would have been willing to give up the little bit I received if they could have taken away my pain and the disability that I will have for the rest of my life.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

L. Plunkett, Waterford MI — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:26:04 GMT

Good for you Lisa Myers....now, when are you going after the attorneys and court cost???? This totals nearly $300,000.00!!
Why should the attorneys and court reap from this womans horrible situation! Go after them just like you did Wal Mart!

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

John, VA — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:26:25 GMT

The only reason Wal-Mart chose to reverse the decision was because of the negative publicity that was generated. Had NBC and CNN not broadcast the story of this greedy, heartless, and purely financially motivated stupid decision, they would have proceeded with the collection. Yet another reason why I refuse to shop at Wal-Mart.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Reginald Williams, Anaheim, CA. — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:29:48 GMT

For the life of me, I just cannot understand why "Corporate America" is so greedy and obsessed with money. Don't they understand that they have sold America down the drain. Mr. Shank, I wish you the very best along with your wife and after all is said and done, I hope you can have some peace and rest in your life!! I salute you!

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

David, Atlanta, GA — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:30:14 GMT

Presumably her winnings in the lawsuit included having the company who injured her paying for these bills. In essence, she made her insurance pay the bill, then made the other side pay the bill also. She's crying from happiness because she just got to keep a half a million windfall. Obviously some idiot in the "public relations" department decided to give away the money. You can pay the difference in higher prices since you couldn't understand the story as it was presented by the media.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:31:23 GMT

why should they be reimbursed from her lawsuit? Wasn't she paying insurance premiums? Doesn't that mean they are expected to pay for any medical issues that may come up? Why do we have insurance companies, paying them equally when we are healthy and when we are sick , if they hold the right to sue us for their money back later? They are not banks who loan us money for our medical bills, they are health insurance providers and we pay for their services! Disgusting.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

M Rosenstein, New York and Paris — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:31:56 GMT

The US needs universal health care now. I can't believe that America can claim to be a land of liberty and leave people to fend for themselves like this. That this man had to divorce his wife for her to qualify for more benefits is disgusting.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

James, Houston, TX — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:33:40 GMT

The fact that they were seeking this money to begin with is ridiculous. And now they're acting like they have a halo over their heads. Human compassion obviously has no meaning to Wal-Mart.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

J. Doe - Spokane, WA — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:35:22 GMT

I can't believe Walmart would generate this kind of bad publicity. Someone wasn't looking out for the company when they made the original decision. At least they finally came to the right decision.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Ron, Des Moines IA — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:43:22 GMT

The thing people are forgetting here is most health insurance plans have stipulations that require reimbursement for health expenses if a recovery is made specifically for medical costs. So in this case, Wal-Mart is doing what most other employers do when a settlement is reached and monies are paid specifically for the cost of medical expenses. The only reason this is even an issue is people somehow think Wal-Mart is the evil empire incarnate.
I challenge anyone to look at their own health plan and tell me there is no clause included that requires repayment of expenses related to medical care if it is recovered as part of a settlement. The problem here is the families lawyer was too stupid apparently to have the wording changed so that the recovery was not specifically tied to medical expenses.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Stephanie, Louisinana — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:51:54 GMT

Good Works!!! This story just scared me to death. In a time where we all talk about health care for all... this was one of those stories that had it all wrong. To even think the outragagious cost from her stay at the hospital to begin with was out of wack; but... to have to pay that back when her care had just begun was insane. The fine print on health plans and health care itself is enough to make you wonder if "health care for all" could work. I am so glad that Wal-Mart saw the light and made this right. They do alot for the communities they are in by giving through their Good Works campaign. It is good to see they are practicing their motto.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Michelle, Kansas City, KS — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:52:00 GMT

Its about time Wal-Mart gives back a couple dollars to someone that needs it. And thats exactly what $470,000 is to Wal-Mart, POCKET CHANGE.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Darlene hastings darlenehastings@veruzon.net — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:54:05 GMT

Hoooo ray Wal-Mart. I was really worried what would happen to that family, after all the settlement was to care for you medical needs which is obviously life long, isn't it. With the remaining Waltons, all are listed as billionaire catagory, as were all 5 of the family members, all billionaires year after year in fortune mag.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

MonteC, Seattle, WA — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:55:01 GMT

I agree with the comment on this had become a PR problem for Wal-Mart. I can only hope that it was the outpouring of disgust and anger that others communicated to Wal-Mart corporate offices along with myself on this situation that finally resulted in them seeing the economic mistake they were making. Chalk one up for the "litte guy"

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

NV Carmel, NY — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:12:07 GMT

Walmart did the right thing. This family has had more than its share of suffering.
Good for you Walmart! I will continue to shop at your stores.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Bob - Santa Clara, CA — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:24:45 GMT

I'm glad Wal*Mart has stopped persecuting this poor family but their attack on them would have continued without the outcry of the general public. Wal*Mart seems to take a perverse pride in being a company that cares nothing for its employees, suppliers, community or nation. Next time you're at WalMart saving a nickle on some purchase, realize that you're endorsing this corporate bullying!

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Brad, Milwaukee, WI — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:26:20 GMT

Well, it isn't necessarily Wal-Mart who paid the medical expenses, it was likely an insurance company (and if self insured, then from a private pool covering all the other Wal-Mart employees). So Wal-Mart's insurer was looking for reimbursement, which isn't uncommon. So who ultimately pays? EVERYONE ELSE IN THE INSURED POOL with higher premiums. People seem to think that this was all about Wal-Mart fat cats chortling, rubbing their hands together for the sheer pleasure of it. Money doesn't come from nowhere. If there is an understanding that X amount of bills paid will be reimbursed from any lawsuits, what's the problem? If Wal-Mart proper then pays to make up the difference in the insurance fund, stockholders, and all our 401k's and State retirement funds invested in Wal-Mart suffer incrementally then. SOMEONE has to pay, and if it is reasonably understood that Wal-Mart will front money for medical care but have a claim for a portion back out of any settlement, and it helps keep costs down for everyone else in the pool or those who are invested in Wal-Mart stock AND the victim is left with a pile from the trucking company's insurance company (which will drive up costs for everyone else in THAT insurance pool) it is all reasonable. We're not going to get anywhere with all this populist rhetoric.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Nick Hafar, Branson West, MO — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:29:51 GMT

Nice change of heart for a former employee... but ONLY after its was brought to the forefront. This does not change my opinion of their operation. I will continue to minimize my shopping at Wal-Mart whenever possible. In my opinion, Target and others are getting it right, from cleanliness to courtesy.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Lisa, Milwaukee, WI — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:40:02 GMT

Reading this made me so happy! I saw the original story about what Wal-Mart was doing to this poor woman on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann," and it just made me sick.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Al Orlando Florida — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:51:24 GMT

Why should WalMart have to pay for a accident it did not cause. Thats the problem with how people think today, somebody else is allways responsible for there misfortune.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Pissed Off, FL — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:58:53 GMT

This is disgusting! Regardless of the situation, Wal-Mart had a policy in place to be reimbursed for medical expenses. Although I feel horrible for the Starks' plight, what kind of precedent does this set? I was in a very similar situation, albeit not injured nearly as bad, however I am now disabled. Additionally, my employer has recently laid me off. Upon receiving a settlement, I was forced to reimburse the insurance company! What makes this so special? America = Equality. If they are willing to do this, maybe I should contact my insurance company!!!

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Jake Atlanta, GA — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:02:19 GMT

But you know what.. Walmart was NOT in error. They had the legal right to go after and recoup the money they spent on her healthcare. Walmart shareholders will expect Walmart to try to manage the amount of money spent on healthcare as all companies are expected to do. In the end all taxpayers will pay for the healthcare mess that we now find ourselves.. and it all started the downward spiral when Hillary tried to introduce reform when Bill was President.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Adrian Starland; Honolulu, Hawaii — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:20:37 GMT

I'm almost willing to bet that the turning point that led to Wal-Mart's decision to drop this heartless predatory lawsuit came as a result of thousands of people inundating Wal-Mart with calls & letters expressing their outrage over their mishandling of this case, and a huge chunk of those persons likely also expressed that as a result of this mistreatment they would no longer choose to shop at any Wal-Mart or Sam's Club stores -- and of course, if in fact the Wal-Mart execs were being faced with this pressure, the loss of $400K would have seemed like a spit in the ocean in contrast to the loss of all that potential revenue, not to mention all the bad PR. (P.S. - Thanks to Keith Olbermann of MSNBC for keeping this issue alive and not allowing it to fade into the "Memory Hole" until Wal-Mart atoned! Good Work!)

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

The Right Girl from San Francisco, CA — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:28:53 GMT

It's not the Walmart is responsible for her car accident - just like SHE is not responsible. The question is more about a moral obligation to the right thing. If I had $1000 saved and someone only had $1 and they owed me that $1 but needed it just to eat dinner, I think I would cut my losses - that's what this 470K is like to Walmart - $1! They won't miss it, they don't need, and they certainly aren't entitled to it - no they didn't cause the car accident, but neither did this poor unfortunate lady! Walmart is greedy and if the media wouldn't of picked up the story - believe me, Walmart would have picked up that money - without any hesitation!

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Lee, Minneapolis — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:39:53 GMT

I am no Wal-Mart fan, but a contract is a contract. No company can afford (even WaL-Mart) to throw hundreds of thousands of dollars to every employee who finds themselves in a unfortunate situation.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Paul D, Oklahoma City, OK — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:40:05 GMT

The fact remains that while sure, this is a really sad story about the lady; however, her lawyer did a terrible job representing her and the blame for the situation should have been placed on him, not Wal-Mart. Any lawyer that was half way competent would have known that after winning a settlement, some money would have to be paid back. He took his $300,000 cut.. the husband said he deserved it for the hard work he did, I say he would have deserved it more if he had read the contract with Wal-mart, and not settled for NOWHERE NEAR ENOUGH MONEY for the family.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

BJD — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:48:16 GMT

Big news flash to all that think they understand this story: the money in question wasn't Walmart's. The money would have been repaid to the company's health insurance plan. This plan is paid for by the Walmart employees. Walmart only administers the plan. Walmart's move isn't a big surprise: they get the bad press and it's not even their money. So all those who feel sorry for Walmart employees should be a little more unhappy...the $470,000 was their money...not Walmart's.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Neets — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:19:51 GMT

All employees of Walmart should make sure their own health plan through Walmart doesn't have this same clause in the contract. If it is still hidden in the fine print Walmart will do it again,
which is completely unfair. Action needs to be taken to change Walmart's health plan policy.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Matt, NJ — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:38:14 GMT

Legally Walmart was just trying to get its money back for the costs it incurred while caring for someone who got hurt on another person's account. The lady got this money to pay for her medical expenses. If Walmart gave her money to use for these expenses while she waited for her settlement then they should be commended and paid back. It doens't make any sense that she/her heirs should get that money. Sympathy is not an excuse for welshing on a debt.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

klb somewhere, usa — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:02:36 GMT

We pay premiums for health insurance to pay for medical bills. If insurance was free then yes she should have to pay walmart back. Her settlement is
to help her to live the rest of her life. To help
pay future medical bills and for her physical
suffering, and to help make ends meet in the years ahead.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Tanner Jones, New York City, NY — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 22:02:41 GMT

People have become so distracted by the real issue here. Both the WalMart health fund and Deborah Shanks had absolutely no part in the cause of these medical bills and neither party should be responsible for paying for her future care. Neither should the innocent public.

The small trucking company whose driver caused this injury did not carry enough insurance coverage to pay for a catastrophe like this. The WalMart insurance fund deserves to be compensated for the medical bills, and Deborah Shanks should have been paid tens of millions in pain and suffering in addition to money for the medical bills and future care.

The real problem is that the law is not currently requiring drivers to pay for the full costs of driving (including accidents like this) through mandating higher coverage minimums. Instead, we get situations like this where people are limited to settling for $1 million ($470k after legal expenses) when their bills, future care costs, and pain and suffering amount to tens of millions.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Stacey, Portland, Oregon — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 23:56:38 GMT

I wonder why so many people see this is 'double dipping' she had her health insurance as an employee of Wal-Mart and then she won a settlement for her ONGOING care. This isn't a woman that is going to be able to work again in her life. The settlement was supposed to keep her secure in a good home so she can live out her life.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

David, El Paso TX — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:43:51 GMT

Come on, what is so different from welfare fraud.
If you get overpaid you are not allowed to keep it, but reimburse it back. Tragic, yes to her circumstances but in reality it is nothing more than double dipping. The medical check should have been made out directly to the insurance company and then this fiasco would have never have happened as she would have never been tempted to keep it.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Freemark, York, PA — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 05:03:01 GMT

Anyone thinks this family should have to pay has got a screw loose. She paid into the Wal-mart health plan that is self funded by Wal-Mart. Yes in very fine print Wal-mart reserved the right to go after settlements but it should be done in a case by case basis.

If someone receives a 'pain and suffering' settlement and is able bodied it is one thing. But in her case her settlement was specifically for her future care as she is fully and permanently disabled. It was not for past medical bills. Wal-mart had a chance to join the lawsuit to try to get past medical bills taken care of but decided not to do so.

Wal-mart had no reason to go after this settlement other than greed.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

David - Portland Oregon — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 07:16:48 GMT

I'll never again in my life visit Wal-mart.

They did the right thing in the end, but in my mind - only because they HAD to. They had to because of Keith Olbermann, who was at them like a Dobermann and wouldn't let go.

I've gained A LOT of respect for MSNBC, but as a former Walmart shopper I guarantee I'll never ever buy a thing there again, no matter how good the sale.

These people have no heart. They don't belong in my country.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Kim Huggard — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:30:46 GMT

Boycotting Walmart will only increase the unemployment in your town.

How many towns across America have Walmart as their major employer?

What about the charities that Walmart sponsors in your neighborhood.

How many folks across America have come to rely on Walmarts $4.00 prescriptions, I know I have.

I really do feel bad for the Shanks, as my family has been hit with similar problems in the past but we have to be realistic here, it was a double win for the Shanks.

What about the low down lawyer they had, has he donated any of the HUGE fee he collected defending them back to the family?

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Brandon ,Sacramento, CA. — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 22:57:24 GMT

Oh my god....how can anyone say "good job Wallmart" after this. They do not care about the family at all. If they didn't think the cost of pursuing the suit was going to be greater than what they could recoup in it...They wouldn't have dropped it. This will happen again because that's what corporations are all about....THE MONEY!

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Stan Reed — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:45:11 GMT

Why does't Wal Mart sue the trucking company. That's who owes them the money! I feel sorry for all you people who have never had anything like this happen to you. It's real easy to sit back in judgement of someone else. Just put yourself in the husbands sitution. Our stupid laws force you to do things like divorce your wife so you can afford to take care of her. He doesn't strick me as a deadbeat, with two jobs already. Think about it!!

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

cerilo fernan, manila, phil. — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 11:25:26 GMT

many things are legally right, and for the right amount of money you can make it stick, but is it morally correct? remember these are two different thing.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Mark NJ — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:52:04 GMT

What's funny to me is all the idiots on here posting "Well I'm glad Wal-mart changed their minds. Now I can continue to shop there."

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

David - Saratoga NY — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:12:11 GMT

Insurance collects money from all of us as a business... They are betting that the majority of their customers won't get injured or sick and they won't have to pay out. But it seems that the Insurance companies, (and I believe Wal-mart is self insured - meaning they are the insurance company) don't want to cover claims when submitted. She paid her premiums and the settlement won't event cover her on going medical expenses. Wal-Mart has made more than 10 times that amount in the time it took me to write this comment. Shame on Wal-Mart for even considering reclaiming benefits this woman paid for.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Bill W. Wichita, Ks. — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:40:35 GMT

The courts always side with the person in the right. In this case the courts sided with Walmart because they were right. Essentially Walmart gave this lady the 450K rather than put up with bleeding heart bad publicity. If any of you people spent money for somebody's hospital bills then that person won a lawsuit reimbursing them for all the hospital bills would you not expect that person to repay you. Yes you would and I expect you are all hypocrits because Walmart has a lot of money not because they were wrong in asking for it back.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Frank Waters, Cheyenne, WY — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:29:29 GMT

Isen't it wonderful that since Sam Walton died and Wal-Mart has gone global and now buys everything from China? Sam Walton was a man that believed in AMERICA. Wish I could say the same for his heirs, seems like all they want is MORE MONEY.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Gordon, Huntington, NY — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:48:53 GMT

If you raise the price of a candy bar by one penny, and sell a million, walmart would not make the 400,000 it was looking for. Please, be educated in here. Perhaps if you made a statement, if they raised all the prices in the store by a penny.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

CMHHPR47@MSN.COM — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 18:52:50 GMT

I have a different view of Wal Mart.When I go thru the door often there is a senior citizen standing or sitting in a chair or wheel chair to greet me. I am a senior also. I am fortunate and do not need other income.Look around at the workers and some are on oxygen. you will not see this in other stores.This lady needs help and she got it.Every Insurance policy has the same rules. Get their money back so all other policy holders do do not get their premiums raised on the next renewal.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Sharie, Seattle — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 20:42:42 GMT

Good Job Keith Olbermann!! If you want to know about real news, and the truth watch Keith.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

George, OR — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 22:41:23 GMT

I wonder how much it cost Wal-Mart to try to recoup the money. Attorney fees, court costs, etc.?

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Bubba HOllis, McGehee,Arkansas — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 02:27:50 GMT

Walmart is entilted to the money back , after all she was paid the medical bill money as part of the settlement. shame on you lady

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Shawn Sisler, Lovilia, Iowa — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 13:42:38 GMT

If we look at the situation as Wal-Mart only going after what is their right to go after, then we must say that the Shanks should get back all the money they paid for health insurance through Wal-Mart. Around here insurance through them usually cost 150 biweekly, so averaged out over how long she worked and paid in what is that going to come to? It is approximately 7,800 dollars a year here for individual insurance not even the family plan. If the company gets to ask for their money back why doesn't the indivual who paid in get their money back when the insurance refuses to pay? The insurance takes our money and uses it to make a profit by investing it, then they have the right to refuse to give any of it back by refusing treatment, people this is extortion, if they want their money back then they should have to reimburse the amount paid in by the employee and the interest from the where they had invested it. Why should they be allowed to profit without upholding their end of the contract. If a private citizen were to take 150 dollars out of someone elses paycheck and say I'll invest this for you and when you need it I'll will give it I'll give you what you need to pay for your medical bills, then refuse to give it back when it was needed he/she would be charged with extortion. Just because insurance companies have lobbyist doesn't put them above the law.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

All Americans, Phoenix, Ariz — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 08:55:11 GMT

The law has always provided that a person be made whole for damages. This family is receiving a windfall at the expense of Wal-Mart. The settlement money was to cover all medical costs relative to the accident. Wal-Mart's health plan should not have to 'eat' these costs. Deals like these help to drive up the cost of health care for all with little or no health care!!

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Janie — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:26:03 GMT

Walmart is only trying to prevent a marketing nightmare. Walmart could care less about her or they wouldn't have went after the money in the first place. I will never shop at Walmart again, I would rather pay more for a item elsewhere than to give this greedy company another penny!

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Michael, Atlanta, GA — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:18:40 GMT

While Wal-Mart was legally within its rights to collect the money, it was a totally amoral decision. And to those who say that Mrs. Shank was trying to bilk the system, remember: she can no longer work. The money will have to support her for the rest of her life. She can no longer work, thanks to the accident. Wal-Mart will do nothing more to help her, and more's the shame for that.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Linda Gonzalez, Cochit Lake, NM — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 21:24:49 GMT

I only shop at Wal-Mart when I have to. I live in a small town, and a long way from any other store. I guess what Wal- Mart and others have forgotten is COMPASSION. I worked for Wal-Mart years ago and I can tell you this they are not employee friendly. I hope the Walton's reap what they sew.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Ryan M. Concord NH — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 19:15:53 GMT

GOOD FOR YOU MSNBC! Thanks for fighting for the "little people" Walmart shame on you... we all know you would of not reversed your decision if it wasn't for the bad press...

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Deb, Ashland, OH — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 19:52:25 GMT

My mother works at a Wal Mart and she and others of her age are treated as though they are throw away people. It is a same because of the state of our society these people are treated in the manner that they are. Wal Mart is only concerned for the bottom line. I saw Keith Oberman and he was right on about this. Yes, the lawyers involved need to take a hard look at themselves too. However, isn't this was we are seeing all over our government. Capitol Hill is not suffering the gas prices, etc. They live in posh homes, have always been wealthy and have limos to go to work. How could they understand!!!!

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Steve — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 22:21:24 GMT

There's a reason that all of the courts sided with Walmart, and it's because they weren't in the wrong. People just want to whine and moan about how they have lots of money and should just eat the costs.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

djhollyhill@aol.com — Tue, 13 May 2008 21:01:30 GMT

I've been waiting to see if the true villans in this story would be exposed - the attorneys. Could Countdown get their researchers to form a list of all attorneys who billed hours for working on this case for any/all of the litigants/defendants? Between the auto/truck insurances and the self-insured (?) Walmart, and the appeals and subrogation suits, I would guess that the $ number is in the millions.
I am disappointed that Countdown let it seem that Walmart was the bad guy for exercising their subrogation right. I am also disappointed that Countdown let is seem that Mrs. now has money for her care. Clearly she is going to require life-long total care - catastrophic costs. As long as she has cash on hand, she will no longer be qualify for Medicaid. Medicare will pay some of her bills, and any supplement plan she may have will pay part. Half a million dollars will be gone in a heart beat. And as an earlier commenter pointed out, the lawsuit settlement probably designated this money as being for future medical bills, and therefore she can't even go out of the nursing home and eat at McDonalds on this money.
It is actually a good thing if your health insurance through work is willing to pay medical bills for you when the cause f tour injry is the fault of someone else. You can get care while the lawyers fight it out, and subrogation is a good thing.
Bashing Walmart was unfair unless you showed the whole story/truth. Will you?
Other commenters wanted to hear the whole story about "had to divorce his wife to get Medicaid". What lawyer thought that one up?
And what about the accident itself. Who was at fault?
I can't say I ever felt Countdown was "inflating" a story for headline attention until this sad story. I hope to see it made right.
A faithful 8 p.m. every weeknight viewer.
Dee, Daytona Beach, FL

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

Cindy Burnett, Carbondale Illinois — Wed, 21 May 2008 23:34:12 GMT

Yes. Wal-Mart did finally do the right thing--but why? Because of the enormous anger and disgust that the people of the world expressed.
What would Sam say about their actions. Do they ever even consider Sam and his work ethics and morals. No, I do not think so. He stood for the people and what was right. They stand for the almighty dollar and what ever the cost.

Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker

ricardo,magnolia,texas — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:14:37 GMT

yeah wal mart is not a very good company to work for they under pay you and they take your money too...
i worked for them for like 8 months
boy i wish sam walton was still alive maybe then it would be cool ..

HEB is way better like a million times better..