Agreed. The problem is that most company provided policies allow for this type of recovery.

WalMart was well with their legal rights to go after the money. But there is legal and there is moral/doing the right thing.

Let’s say Walmart did get the money back. The family does not have the resources for the long term care of their mom/wife. They can’t afford out of pocket home care, so they would be forced to but her into a government run home that is paid for, subsidized by…anyone, anyone…that’s right you and I. So, while Wal-mart gets thiers, the rest of us get the ole screw-gie.

These days more and more people are living paycheck to paycheck, the slightest increase in their expenses would send them to bankruptcy. Remember, many of us are one major medical event away from bankruptcy. Isn’t it wonderful to live in the world’s most prosperous country?

Wal-Mart did this strictly for the good publicity and that’s all. According to this particular plan they wer entitled to their money back. How much? who knows? This not a totally uncommon plan. It used to be very rare but not so much any more. They need some good press and they got it relatively cheaply.

Mr. Bayer, I ferverently hope you find yourself in that ex-Walmart employee’s position. Walmart does nothing that doesn’t increase it’s bottom line.

Let’s see. The Shank family has their lives destroyed. The trucking company actually involved in the accident paid a six figure settlement to the Shanks and their lawyers. Walmart suffered bad publicity and dropped a legitimate claim to recover expenses for a non job related accident. And the attorneys for all parties collect hefty fees at each step of the process.

Sounds like the tort system is working exactly as designed. Lawyers write the laws, argue the laws, judge the laws, and live well off the profits.

Those using the Shank tragedy to advance their Walmart bashing personal agenda should feel sick every time they look in the mirror.

Gotta love the title.

“Despite compassionate decision…”

What compassionate decision?

The only reason Wal-Mart dropped the case was because it was publicized. When Wal-Mart filed the suit, they were following the rules. Wal-Mart also did not want to lose $X dollars. Wal-Mart dropped the case because they understood that if they went through and got their money, they would lose in the long run because some people would stop shopping there because of the misunderstood negative aspect of the situation.

Wal-Mart chose the path of most profit and that was to “be nice.” Now every media story on this case ends with Wal-Mart being compassionate and loving. How nice. I think I will go shop there. Not.

Wal-Mart being compassionate? No! It’s a business decision. Take economics.

Over the next 2 years the projected cost of the Wal-Mart health care crisis will grow to over $2 billion a year by 2010 and will cost taxpayers an estimated $9.1 billion over the next 5 years.

Either pay a decent wage which allows employees to see a doctor… or provide employer health care…..Is it any wonder 5 Walton family members are on the list of Forbes top 10 wealthiest Americans every year?

Good Grief: Wall-Mart was an INNOCENT party….Why should they pay l red cent. and not get that cent back when their case was adjudicated. Is it Wal-Mart’s fault that her attorneys, chosen by her, did not ask for enough to pay Wal-Mart back for Moneys they ADVANCED to her, plus enough to take care of her future needs?

It is beyond my comprehension that they would “just write it off”. Contrary to what some of you think, That was not good publicity. It was just the opposite. It means they think legal contracts mean nothing. If they mean nothing when it is to their advantage,, what does it mean when it is to my, or others adavantage. Will they honor those according to the contract? Or do contracts mean nothing to them? Do they just shoot from the hip and figure it out later?

The woman may have IRS problems now, How does the explain getting a “giftt” and not paying taxes on it?

Garrison, you want to be believable, take pictures. If Wal_Mart has a health crisis with their employees, post a few pictures of their assoc ates laying in the aisles waiting for help. I haven’t seen any in Marion, Harrisburg, Carmi,, or anywhere else. They look as healthy as as others to me. I ‘d like to see your pictures. If you are “Money Motivated”, I’ll give you $10.00 per picture to send me some. Want my address?

johnh…. Please cut Garrison some slack. He’s terribly frustrated by the fact the unions have not been able to force Walmart employees to join up against their will. He’s also frustrated by the few numbers of people who will join his bashing of Walmart for providing people with part time, low skill, and entry level jobs in addition to the higher paying jobs throughout the corporation.

How dare people exercise their free will without Garrison’s approval? How dare people like the Walton/Lauries get wealthy from a corporation that functions so well it dominates the marketplace? How dare people choose not to pay higher prices elsewhere to subsidize unions and loose management?

Garrison, not sure what your hang up on Wal Mart is but I find your statement relating to Wal Mart insurance a little hard to believe. How interesting it is to use words such as “Wal Mart health crisis”, instead of giving explanation and back up proof to what you say. Folks like you used to accuse Wal Mart of not having insurance and after having publically been proven wrong now have to attack it with misleading statements and half truths.

I would believe if you took the time to look, you would find Wal Mart pays wages that are comparable to any other retail business such as theirs. We have a Wal Mart in our town of 5000 and when taking applications, over 1500 from the town and county were there to seek jobs. Many of the current employee’s are long term and seldom have I heard worker criticism of the company other than the usual worker gripes. Most people that I know working there are not unhappy with wages or insurance.

If you are unhappy about the lack of unions, I say tough. Wal Mart is more than competitive with their pricing and a part of that is due to a lack of unions. There are two sides to the union argument and one side is to look at the Auto and Steel industry. Labor and benefit cost have helped drive steel production overseas and the Auto company struggles are also in a large part a result of high labor and benefit cost.

This is not a union issue…it’s a taxpayers’ issue.
Wal-Mart tops the list of employers pushing workers into state provided health care programs. Wal-Mart racks in profits of $24,000 per minute. In 2006 profits exceeded $12 billion….Five members of the Walton family have a combined net worth exceeding $95 billion…..So why is Wal-Mart shifting health care costs to taxpayers?

Wal-Mart has benefited from more that $1 billion in economic development subsidies. Wal-Mart has made extensive use of tax-breaks, free land, cash grants and other forms of public assistance. They do this through economic intimidation and coercion by threatening established businesses. They destroy communities and lower the standards of living across America…..

Wal-Mart workers aren’t happy being on government assistance.
Even is a small town of 5000.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/walmart120604.cfm

“…our coverage is expensive for low income families and Wal Mart has a significant number of associates and their children on public assistance.”-Susan Chambers-VP in charge of benefits at Wal Mart.
Approx. 50% of Wal Mart employees have SOME insurance. The eligibility waiting period at Wal Mart is twice the industry average. The already high turn over rate in the retail industry (29%) is near 70% at Wal Mart. The increased use of part timers a Wal Mart will mean even more uninsured workers and their families on “public assistance.” walmartwatch.com

How is it Wal-Mart’s fault that we’ve created a nanny state? Dig up LBJ and talk to him about the costs of “public assistance.”

Now explain once more how Walmart firing or laying off all these poor folks would reduce welfare and healthcare costs for the taxpayers. There’s a flaw in your logic, somewhere.

Despite the way our government works, the taxpayers should have no obligation to financially subsidize retailers, corporations, banks, or other private enterprise as we do. Likewise, Walmart has no obligation to pay more than the labor market requires in order to alleviate bloated socialist programs.

That’s right Bb….
Why can’t we be more like Guatemala and less like West Germany?

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Americas/Guatemala-POVERTY-AND-WEALTH.html

#14… Because we don’t have a good buddy like the USA to provide foreign aid and fund our national defense so we can devote all our taxpayers labors to socialist utopia.

Now I’m going to shop at Wal Mart even more…awesome prices and great business plans are what make America great! Unions and socialism drive businesses to China and create higher prices for all Americans.

Wal Mart Rules!

Bb…..sorry to break the news: West Germany is lending the U.S over $15 billion a year.
Kinda helps pay the health care for Wal-Mart employees.
Your kids and grandkids will have the pay the Germans back.

You really look good in those $1.99 speedos from Wal-Mart. Real patriotic.

Socialism is un-American, unless it is for American businesses. Wal-Mart is well within their “right” to operate as they do. However, most Wal-Mart lovers would not value the same qualities in their next door neighbor nor would they trade in their benifit package for Wal-Mart’s.