PDA

View Full Version : Walmart Suing Brain Damaged Woman for a half a million dollars...


memyselfI
03-27-2008, 08:10 PM
don't know if this has been posted already but I find it reprehensible even for Walmart. I hope the negative publicity surrounding the story will get them to back off.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/walmart.insurance.battle/

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

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

The 52-year-old mother of three attended her son's funeral, but she continues to ask how he's doing. When her family reminds her that he's dead, she weeps as if hearing the news for the first time.

Shank suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident nearly eight years ago that robbed her of much of her short-term memory and left her in a wheelchair and living in a nursing home.

It was the beginning of a series of battles -- both personal and legal -- that loomed for Shank and her family. One of their biggest was with Wal-Mart's health plan.

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

Two years after the accident, Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank's long-term care.

Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank's medical expenses and later sued for the same amount. However, the court ruled it can only recoup what is left in the family's trust.

The Shanks didn't notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart's health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit.
Don't Miss

The family's attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money. Video Watch this couple's story »

"We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to," Graham said.

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

"They are quite within their rights. But I just wonder if they need it that bad," Jim Shank said.

In 2007, the retail giant reported net sales in the third quarter of $90 billion.

Legal or not, CNN asked Wal-Mart why the company pursued the money.

Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, who called Debbie Shank's case "unbelievably sad," replied in a statement: "Wal-Mart's plan is bound by very specific rules. ... We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank's case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan."

Jim Shank said he believes Wal-Mart should make an exception.

"My idea of a win-win is -- you keep the paperwork that says you won and let us keep the money so I can take care of my wife," he said.

The family's situation is so dire that last year Jim Shank divorced Debbie, so she could receive more money from Medicaid.

Jim Shank, 54, is recovering from prostate cancer, works two jobs and struggles to pay the bills. He's afraid he won't be able to send their youngest son to college and pay for his and Debbie's care.

"Who needs the money more? A disabled lady in a wheelchair with no future, whatsoever, or does Wal-Mart need $90 billion, plus $200,000?" he asked.

The family's attorney agrees.

"The recovery that Debbie Shank made was recovery for future lost earnings, for her pain and suffering," Graham said.

"She'll never be able to work again. Never have a relationship with her husband or children again. The damage she recovered was for much more than just medical expenses."

Graham said he believes Wal-Mart should be entitled to only about $100,000. Right now, about $277,000 remains in the trust -- far short of the $470,000 Wal-Mart wants back.

Refusing to give up the fight, the Shanks appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But just last week, the high court said it would not hear the case.

Graham said the Shanks have exhausted all their resources and there's nothing more they can do but go on with their lives.
advertisement

Jim Shank said he's disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case -- not for the sake of his family -- but for those who might face similar circumstances.

For now, he said the family will figure out a way to get by and "do the best we can for Debbie."

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

Jenson71
03-27-2008, 08:20 PM
He's afraid he won't be able to send their youngest son to college and pay for his and Debbie's care.

A little irrelevant to the topic, but this is so stupid. Why would the dad have to send their son to college? Why can't the son march down to WellsFargo, get a student loan, and fill out scholarship applications? God knows there are plenty of people/organizations that would love a story like "My family is poor, my mom is disabled, my brother was killed in Iraq. My life is pretty damn tough."

a1na2
03-27-2008, 08:30 PM
The basis of the story seems to be that they feel the corporate money is the same as the money that the benefit was paid out of. Self insured companies have organizations that manage the money that is in the fund and that money actually belongs to those members that pay into the insurance.

In any case the lady had her medical expenses paid for and does not owe the hospital $470,000.00 for her treatment.

The story line goes, life is hard and in the end you die.

Get on with living because we all die too soon.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-27-2008, 10:02 PM
And who spent a good chunk of her career working for this company in anti-labor areas?

a1na2
03-27-2008, 10:13 PM
And who spent a good chunk of her career working for this company in anti-labor areas?

????????????????????????????????????????

Logical
03-27-2008, 10:52 PM
Wow Wal-Mart is probably losing more than million due to negative publicity.

jAZ
03-27-2008, 10:58 PM
I hold Hillary accountable for this due to her intimate relationship with Wal-Mart going back 20+ years. Don't you too DEnise?

Mr. Kotter
03-27-2008, 11:02 PM
Wow Wal-Mart is probably losing more than million due to negative publicity.

This is purely and simply arrogant stupidity....that Wal-Mart execs have not stepped in, realizing what you say Jim (that this adverse publicity alone, will COST them,) displays the hubris at work in this case.

I enjoy, and thank Wal-Mart, for the money they have saved me and my family; OTOH, it's moments like this that make their critics seem less crazy and fringe, than they are...for the most part. :shake:

markk
03-27-2008, 11:07 PM
so is she not going to be paid any more benefits from walmart or do they contractually get to keep the money but they still keep paying for her care too?

Mr. Kotter
03-27-2008, 11:09 PM
so is she not going to be paid any more benefits from walmart or do they contractually get to keep the money but they still keep paying for her care too?

'Does it REALLY matter; regardless, Wal-Mart LOSES in this case.... :shrug:

Fishpicker
03-28-2008, 12:10 AM
Wow Wal-Mart is probably losing more than million due to negative publicity.

I bet that could be true. And I doubt the W.M. execs would even notice.

wazu
03-28-2008, 12:25 AM
Unbelievable. I hope this story continues to grow, and Wal-Mart feels the heat. Not to mention it would be nice to see a charitable trust set up for the family that sympathizers could donate to. (And this will be inevitable if the story continues to grow.)

HolmeZz
03-28-2008, 12:30 AM
????????????????????????????????????????

Hillary.

Baby Lee
03-28-2008, 07:15 AM
So, her attorney took his full attorney's fees, recognized that Wal-Mart had a solid right to the medical funds, but just assumed that they'd be charitable with their employees' health care funds and ignore their rights?

Yet, Wal-Mart is the bad guy here? What, because they're a corporation?

Maybe Wal-Mart just assumed that the attorney would have sympathy on the situation and forego his fees.

Amnorix
03-28-2008, 07:25 AM
I'm not say8ing Wal-Mart shouldn't let this go, but this is standard. The insurer asserts a lien against whoever caused the injury. Normally these get compromised.

Duck Dog
03-28-2008, 08:37 AM
So, her attorney took his full attorney's fees, recognized that Wal-Mart had a solid right to the medical funds, but just assumed that they'd be charitable with their employees' health care funds and ignore their rights?

Yet, Wal-Mart is the bad guy here? What, because they're a corporation?

Maybe Wal-Mart just assumed that the attorney would have sympathy on the situation and forego his fees.

I can't believe it took 14 posts to make this point.

The publicity of this story will generate funds for this family. There are a lot of caring individuals in this country that look for these kind opportunities to help.

patteeu
03-28-2008, 10:13 AM
So, her attorney took his full attorney's fees, recognized that Wal-Mart had a solid right to the medical funds, but just assumed that they'd be charitable with their employees' health care funds and ignore their rights?

Yet, Wal-Mart is the bad guy here? What, because they're a corporation?

Maybe Wal-Mart just assumed that the attorney would have sympathy on the situation and forego his fees.

:thumb:

Coincidentally, and unrelated to the story, I know someone who worked at that Walmart. I think she's retired now though.

banyon
03-28-2008, 04:30 PM
So, her attorney took his full attorney's fees, recognized that Wal-Mart had a solid right to the medical funds, but just assumed that they'd be charitable with their employees' health care funds and ignore their rights?

Yet, Wal-Mart is the bad guy here? What, because they're a corporation?

Maybe Wal-Mart just assumed that the attorney would have sympathy on the situation and forego his fees.

I agree. If anything, the plaintiff's attorney here settled for way too little. Why settle for an amount less than your outstanding meds unless you have a shaky case? Either his conduct here is questionable, or there are some deficiencies in her claim that aren't coming to light.



Oh wait, (Taco) I'm a far left socialist!!! RAHR SMASH! BURN WALMART TO THE GROUND!

Baby Lee
03-28-2008, 04:46 PM
I agree. If anything, the plaintiff's attorney here settled for way too little. Why settle for an amount less than your outstanding meds unless you have a shaky case? Either his conduct here is questionable, or there are some deficiencies in her claim that aren't coming to light.



Oh wait, (Taco) I'm a far left socialist!!! RAHR SMASH! BURN WALMART TO THE GROUND!

It was an award, so there's no malp on settlement advice, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt in trying to do everything he could to obtain a settlement with Wal-Mart pre-award.

But man with those public statements of 'well we just kind of hoped they wouldn't assert their rights, cuz they're like rich and all,' he's really laid himself out there for an ineffective counsel claim.

That, and this gem;

"The recovery that Debbie Shank made was recovery for future lost earnings, for her pain and suffering," Graham said.

So he either didn't ask the jury for medical, or didn't get jury instructions that delineated how the award was broken down, and he was aware of Wal-Mart's interests. Man, crappy advocacy rules the day in this one.

banyon
03-28-2008, 04:58 PM
It was an award, so there's no malp on settlement advice, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt in trying to do everything he could to obtain a settlement with Wal-Mart pre-award.

But man with those public statements of 'well we just kind of hoped they wouldn't assert their rights, cuz they're like rich and all,' he's really laid himself out there for an ineffective counsel claim.

I didn't mention malpractice for the reasons I mentioned, but you are right about that quote. Not good at all. It's not like this guy is a rookie though:


http://www.grgpc.com/images/maurice_graham.jpg
Maurice Graham concentrates his practice in the areas of Complex Business and Commercial Litigation and catastrophic injury and death cases. He is a frequent speaker and author on litigation.

Mr. Graham was educated at Central Methodist University and the University of Missouri-Columbia, where he received his B.A. degree in 1960 and his J.D. degree in 1962.

He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court and the Fifth, Eighth and Ninth Circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals, in addition to being admitted in the federal courts of Missouri. Mr. Graham has handled cases in federal and state courts throughout Missouri and in courts in Montana, Oklahoma, Arkansas, South Carolina, Illinois, Iowa, Texas and Arizona.

Mr. Graham was a member of The Missouri Bar Board of Governors from 1980 through 1990 and President of The Missouri Bar in 1988-89. He has served on several Missouri Bar and Missouri Supreme Court task forces and committees, including co-chairing the Supreme Court Cameras in the Courtroom Task Force. He has served as a member and chairman of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee, which oversees attorney discipline in Missouri.

He is a member of The Missouri Bar, the Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis, and the American Bar Association. He was a member of the ABA House of Delegates from 1990-1994. He is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, the International Society of Barristers, the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, and the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys, and is an Advocate of the American Board of Trial Advocates.

Mr. Graham received a Special Merit Citation from the American Judicature Society in 1989 and received a Citation of Merit from the University of Missouri-Columbia Law School in 1988. In 1992, he was honored by the University of Missouri-Columbia with a Distinguished Alumni Award. He is active in University affairs, having served as President of the University of Missouri-Columbia Law School Foundation, and a Trustee of the Jefferson Club, and is currently Chairman of the University of Missouri-Columbia Law School's $17 million endowment campaign.

In 2006, Mr. Graham was awarded the Distinguished Alumni Award from Central Methodist University. He received the Missouri Lawyers Weekly Lawyer of the Year Award 2001; The Missouri Bar President's Award, 1991; Spurgeon-Smithson Award, 1994; Purcell Professionalism Award, 2000; and Pro Bono Award, 2000. He is the co-author of "Spoliation of Medical Records," 52 J. Mo. Bar 87 (1996) (selected to receive the Oliver Rasch Award as the outstanding article of 1996); and "Hedonic Damages — Where are We?" 51 J. Mo. Bar 265 (1995).

He is listed in The Best Lawyers in America® in the categories of Commercial Litigation, Personal Injury Litigation, Medical Malpractice Law, and Bet-the-Company Litigation. He has an AV Peer Review Rating from Martindale-Hubbell law directory, which is the highest given. Mr. Graham has been named a "Super Lawyer" [among the top 5 percent of lawyers in Missouri and Kansas] by Missouri & Kansas Super Lawyers Magazine and cited as among the "Top 10 Attorneys" in the region in the categories of Personal Injury and Medical Malpractice Law. He was also named among the "Top 50 St. Louis Attorneys" by the same publication.

He served as a member of the Board of Curators of Central Methodist College, Fayette, Missouri, and is a member of the Sheldon Concert Hall Board in St. Louis.

Maybe his caseload was too high and this one slipped through the cracks?

HonestChieffan
03-28-2008, 05:07 PM
WalMarts Insurance Carrier is culprit if there is one...why are there always these people who think they get different rules than everyone else.

JohnnyV13
03-29-2008, 12:41 PM
There are two basic reasons why a clearly skilled and experienced litigator would obtain a substandard award:

1) the defendant company had limited resources and he didn't believe he would get much beyond topping out the insurance claim. For example the trucking company was relatively small and threatened to declare bankrupcy.

2) the clients grew tired of the litigation and directed him to accept a settlement offer against his wishes.


These, of course, presume he handled the case competently and he has no ulterior motive contrary to his client's interests.

alnorth
03-29-2008, 04:03 PM
This woman's attorney did her a serious disservice. Wal-Mart is not in the wrong here at all, and their ability to make "Exceptions" is limited, because this self-insurance entity collectively belongs to the employees who pay in. Its actually NOT Wal-Mart's money to do with as they please, its the employees' money, and the company is only acting as a caretaker. They have a fiduciary duty to make sure they arent wasting the employees' insurance funds.

This is standard operating procedure for every damned health insurance company in the country. If you collect money on a policy, then you subrogate your rights to sue over to the insurance company to get their money back.

In other words, YOU CANT double-dip. You cant go to the insurance company, present a million dollars in medical bills, then go to the defendant, settle for another million, and keep two million. You are supposed to be compensated for your loss, not profit, thats a very basic tenet of medical insurance, and it doesnt change just because a company is self-insuring. Since its Wal-Mart, they feel they can get away with it by generating bad publicity, but if it was Blue Cross, no one would (or should) bat an eyelash.

What she should have done was refuse to settle with the defendant unless she could collect enough money to not only pay for her attorney and pain and suffering, but also collect enough to reimburse Wal-Mart. Otherwise, if you agree to settle for the same amount that you got from insurance, it wasnt really worth it because youll be handing your settlement check over.

This attorney was either an idiot and malpracticed when he advised her to agree to an inadequate settlement, or they knew about subrogation and decided Wal-Mart wouldnt dare seek repayment from the defendant, letting them collect twice for the same damages.


Quick tip folks: this applies to your health insurance too. If your insurance pays your medical bills and then you sue the person who hurt you, you better get MORE money than your insurance payment and attorney fee, or it wont be worth the hassle. If the defendant wont pay more than that, then let your insurance company go through all the hassle of subgrogating, you dont have to help them get their money back unless there's something in it for you.

alnorth
03-29-2008, 04:23 PM
Another incidental thought: this is why I have a $3 million umbrella policy on top of my high-limit auto policy. (And every year I toy with the idea of asking my agent to quote me $5 million)

Your assets and whether you are a homeowner is irrelevant if you have a decent above-average steady job. Bankruptcy is not easy anymore, especially if you make good money. So if nothing else, you should protect your future earnings from liability. We drive these huge heavy metal gas-driven machines of (potential) death every day, and it really doesnt take a lot to blow through most people's low state-minimum liability limits from just a momentary distraction.

Baby Lee
03-29-2008, 04:50 PM
Johnny, Al, it's an award, meaning it was a decision by either a binding arbitrator, a judge, or a jury. There was no settlement accepted.

Brock
03-29-2008, 04:54 PM
I haven't set foot in a wal mart in years.

Baby Lee
03-29-2008, 05:03 PM
I haven't set foot in a wal mart in years.
I try to be open minded, but St. Louis has a NO WALMART stance. There are none in the city limits [FTR, I think it's more of a litigation thing on Wal-Mart's part, no wanting to be sued in city courts, not a government mandate]. But I needed something [Oh, I know it was that Wal-Mart exclusive Eagles CD my sister wanted for X-mas], and went to the Wal-Mart in Richmond Heights and it was fricken Beirut. Even had a funk to it, and the things only a year or two old.

alanm
03-29-2008, 07:38 PM
So, her attorney took his full attorney's fees, recognized that Wal-Mart had a solid right to the medical funds, but just assumed that they'd be charitable with their employees' health care funds and ignore their rights?

Yet, Wal-Mart is the bad guy here? What, because they're a corporation?

Maybe Wal-Mart just assumed that the attorney would have sympathy on the situation and forego his fees.
You're a lawyer aren't you BL? So don't take this personally but as retired law enforcement I hate f*cking lawyers with a passion. 99.99% of them are beneath pond scum. :cuss:

memyselfI
03-29-2008, 07:41 PM
Maybe her family should sue the attorney for malpractice. :cuss:

kstater
03-29-2008, 08:18 PM
Maybe her family should sue the attorney for malpractice. :cuss:

Wait, you post the article with intent to slander Wal-Mart. Then change your mind and now it's the Lawyer's fault. Always have to find someone to blame? Or always need to bitch?

banyon
03-29-2008, 10:10 PM
You're a lawyer aren't you BL? So don't take this personally but as retired law enforcement I hate f*cking lawyers with a passion. 99.99% of them are beneath pond scum. :cuss:

I'm glad most of my cops aren't like this.

alanm
03-29-2008, 10:55 PM
I'm glad most of my cops aren't like this.Perhaps I was a bit harsh. I should amend that to Judges instead. :)

ClevelandBronco
03-30-2008, 12:29 AM
Perhaps I was a bit harsh. I should amend that to Judges instead. :)

And lawyers who are legislators. ;)

Seriously, thanks to all the comments from our resident attorneys here, I now understand this story in a way I wouldn't have without their input. Thanks, guys.

BucEyedPea
03-30-2008, 07:19 AM
And lawyers who are legislators. ;)

Seriously, thanks to all the comments from our resident attorneys here, I now understand this story in a way I wouldn't have without their input. Thanks, guys.

Yeah! I'd say so myself.
Very interesting.

Baby Lee
03-30-2008, 08:09 AM
You're a lawyer aren't you BL? So don't take this personally but as retired law enforcement I hate f*cking lawyers with a passion. 99.99% of them are beneath pond scum. :cuss:
I'm licensed, but I've decided to get back to my original plan and am pursuing an engineering degree to get into the patent field of practice.

JohnnyV13
04-01-2008, 02:09 AM
Johnny, Al, it's an award, meaning it was a decision by either a binding arbitrator, a judge, or a jury. There was no settlement accepted.


Yeah, I went back and noticed the article used "award" instead of "settlement". Interesting. I guess I should have realized when I saw attorney fee's were more than 50%. Hmmm. Maybe they ran into a really hostile jury. With fees already higher than 470k and a significant expected lifespan, 1 million seems too low.

Cave Johnson
04-01-2008, 09:17 AM
Yeah, I went back and noticed the article used "award" instead of "settlement". Interesting. I guess I should have realized when I saw attorney fee's were more than 50%. Hmmm. Maybe they ran into a really hostile jury. With fees already higher than 470k and a significant expected lifespan, 1 million seems too low.

The article's inaccurate. It was a settlement for either the $1M policy limit or $700K against a small trucking company, depending on whether you believe the 8th Circuit decision or this purported letter from Shank's son.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/063531p.pdf

http://walmartwatch.com/blog/archives/debbie_shanks_son_on_wal_mart_and_family/

The son's account is a little sketchy, but it sounds like Wal-Mart either was providing misleading information about their intentions to the Shank's attorney or changed their mind right before the statue of limitations expired.

StcChief
04-01-2008, 01:52 PM
So, her attorney took his full attorney's fees, recognized that Wal-Mart had a solid right to the medical funds, but just assumed that they'd be charitable with their employees' health care funds and ignore their rights?

Yet, Wal-Mart is the bad guy here? What, because they're a corporation?

Maybe Wal-Mart just assumed that the attorney would have sympathy on the situation and forego his fees.Like he's gonna beat wall-mart with
an fineprint clause in their insurance policy.

what a scumbag

Bowser
04-01-2008, 01:57 PM
I haven't set foot in a wal mart in years.

Nor have I.

OnTheWarpath58
04-01-2008, 08:17 PM
WM drops reimbursement claim:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/377F60E4BC14440B8625741E0076A851?OpenDocument

BENTONVILLE, Ark. (AP) -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is dropping a controversial effort to collect over $400,000 in health care reimbursement from a former employee who suffered brain damage in a traffic accident.

The world's largest retailer said in a letter to the family of Deborah Shank of Cape Girardeau County in Missouri that it will not seek to collect money the Shanks won in an injury lawsuit against a trucking company for the accident.

Wal-Mart's top executive for human resources, Pat Curran, wrote that Shank's extraordinary situation had made the company re-examine the situation.

Deborah's husband Jim Shank welcomed the news. Family lawyer Maurice Graham of St. Louis said Wal-Mart deserves credit for doing the right thing.

"It's a good day for the Shank family," Jim Shank said in a statement.

Wal-Mart has been roundly criticized in newspaper editorials, on cable news shows and by union foes for its claim to the funds, which it made in a lawsuit upheld by a federal appeals court.

Insurance experts say it is increasingly common for health plans to seek reimbursement for the medical expenses they paid for someone's treatment if the person also collects damages in an injury suit.

The practice, called "subrogation," has increased since a 2006 Supreme Court ruling that eased it.

Wal-Mart's Curran said the retailer was required by the rules of its plan to seek reimbursement from the Shank's settlement. But she said the case has made Wal-Mart revise those rules to allow for flexibility in individual cases.

"Occasionally others help us step back and look at a situation in a different way. This is one of those times," Curran wrote in the letter.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the Shanks' appeal of a legal judgment that said they had to pay Wal-Mart. The appeal was the last legal recourse for the family of the 52-year-old Shank, a mother of three who was critically injured in a car accident eight years ago. She suffered a brain injury that took her memory and left her with very little ability to move or communicate. She has lived in a nursing home since she was released from the hospital.

"It's been kind of hard on us," Nathan Shank, Debbie Shank's 17-year-old son, said at the time of the Supreme Court's decision.

Nathan Shank said that with her case in limbo, his mother already had lost a private caregiver and might be moved out of her private room in the nursing home.

According to legal documents, Shank's medical bills - totaling $469,216 - were covered by a health insurance program at Wal-Mart, where Shank worked nights stocking shelves.

Her family later settled a lawsuit with the trucking company whose driver was involved in the accident. After attorneys' fees and expenses, $417,477 was put in a trust for Shank's care. That settlement money, plus $51,739 that Shank will have to pay out of pocket, must be paid to Wal-Mart.

As is common for employer-sponsored health plans, Shank's insurance required full repayment of medical expenses if she received money from a lawsuit.

Daphne Moore, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman, said last month that the company sued "out of fairness to everyone who contributes" to the plan.

"This is a tragic situation," Moore said. "The reality is that the health plan is required to protect its assets so that it can pay future claims for other associates and their family members."

The Post-Dispatch Washington bureau contributed information for this story.

OnTheWarpath58
04-01-2008, 08:19 PM
I love this part:

Wal-Mart's top executive for human resources, Pat Curran, wrote that Shank's extraordinary situation had made the company re-examine the situation.

I guess "Shank's extraordinary situation" is Wal-Mart lingo for "we're getting slaughtered in the press, time to back off."

patteeu
04-02-2008, 06:52 AM
WM drops reimbursement claim

I love this part:

Wal-Mart's top executive for human resources, Pat Curran, wrote that Shank's extraordinary situation had made the company re-examine the situation.

I guess "Shank's extraordinary situation" is Wal-Mart lingo for "we're getting slaughtered in the press, time to back off."

That's probably true. The downside of this is that it's another bit of pressure pushing medical insurance costs up on the rest of the Wal-Mart workforce.

Baby Lee
04-02-2008, 07:43 AM
I love this part:

Wal-Mart's top executive for human resources, Pat Curran, wrote that Shank's extraordinary situation had made the company re-examine the situation.

I guess "Shank's extraordinary situation" is Wal-Mart lingo for "we're getting slaughtered in the press, time to back off."

And Wal-Mart lingo for, "besides, it effs our workers not our shareholders, so where's the harm?"

OnTheWarpath58
04-02-2008, 10:12 AM
That's probably true. The downside of this is that it's another bit of pressure pushing medical insurance costs up on the rest of the Wal-Mart workforce.

And Wal-Mart lingo for, "besides, it effs our workers not our shareholders, so where's the harm?"

Agree and Agree.