Profile
Photos
Comments
I will go to the W-M pharmacy one more time, today. I will get my prescription for Ketoprofen, which ran out this morning (I called it in Monday) and pay for it.
Then I am moving that prescription to Rite Aide, even though it will cost me about twelve bucks a month more.
I will do no more shopping of any kind at Wal-Mart. This is a lifetime boycott for those f**kers.
.............
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.
Even though the 52-year-old mother of three attended her son's funeral -- she continues to ask how he's doing. When her family reminds her that he's dead -- she weeps as if hearing the news for the first time.
Shank suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident nearly eight years ago that robbed her of much of her short-term memory and left her in a wheelchair and living in a nursing home.
It was the beginning of a series of battles -- both personal and legal -- that loomed for Shank and her family. One of their biggest was with Wal-Mart's health plan.
Eight years ago, Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart's health and benefits plan.
Two years after the accident, Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank's long-term care.
Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank's medical expenses and later sued for the same amount. However, the court ruled it can only recoup what is left in the family's trust.
The Shanks didn't notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart's health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit.
The family's attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money.
"We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to," Graham said.
The Shanks lost their suit to Wal-Mart. Last summer, the couple appealed the ruling -- but also lost it. One week later, their son was killed in Iraq.
"They are quite within their rights. But I just wonder if they need it that bad," Jim Shank said.
In 2007, the retail giant reported net sales in the third quarter of $90 billion.
***************
Besides, most everything Wal-Mart sells is made in China. Screw them, too.
Target too.
That is beyond shameful!
Walmart fulfilled its insurance obligations when Mrs Shanks was most in need. When the Shanks collected a second time in the law suit Walmart was entitled to have its money returned to them. If there was a failing in this cluster f... it was in the fact that the Shanks' attorney did not inform them that Wal-mart had first claim to any money recovered in the law suit. Had he done that the family might have dropped the suit and the lawyer would have missed a really nice payday. He was the only one that gained anything in this whole painful debacle.
In case you don't understand what I'm saying let me put it a little differently. Once Walmart paid the Shanks' medical expenses they had the right to sue the trucker for those costs. Had they done that they would have gotten their money back, the Shanks would have had their medical bills paid per the insurance agreement and the outcome would have been exactly the same as if Wal-mart had ended up winning their fight with the Shanks. Viola - the Shanks would have been paid once by Walmart and Walmart would have recovered its costs from the trucker.
Now the Shanks should turn around and sue their lawyer(s).