"There are other things far worse Wal-Mart does. Choose your battles."

Well said, Sir. Well said.

For those that call for boycotting Wal-Mart I suggest instead that you continue to shop there and donate the money you save to the Shanks. Collectively that would could generate millions, that is if you all "put your money where your mouth is".

Incidentally, the costs of taking cases like this through the court system are a lot higher than most people appreciate. Physicians often charge anywhere from $400 to $1200 an hour for their testimony and for performing medical evaluations for accident victims. Transcripts are hundreds of pages long and will usually cost three to five dollars a page. Expert witnesses not only charge hundreds of dollars an hour for their services, but have to be paid for travel expenses and accommodations. The law firm will also likely have hundreds of hours of time tied up in the case -- hours for which they won't be paid at all unless they win the case.

Wal-Mart, meanwhile, needs to understand that while they may have the right to recover this money, that doesn't mean that doing so is a good idea. I can only imagine how their employees feel when they read about this case -- "If they did it to her, they'll do it to me..." Between decreased employee morale and the loss of customers from the publicity, it's certain to cost them far more than they recovered in the lawsuit. And Sam Walton certainly wouldn't have approved.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Walmart sucks, but you're just making things up. You say that no other major corporation would have sued? That's just wrong-- it happens all the time. The only reason this case is making such big news is because it's Walmart and this woman has such extenuating circumstances. Walmart *should* make a donation (that's right, a donation, because they are entitled to that money), but these people should also be calling attorneys who specialize in legal malpractice. Had her attorneys been at all competent this would have been handled years ago. Jesus, I'm a paralegal and I know when people tell me they have a health plan through their employer to make sure it's not an ERISA plan before I distribute their funds. You can get mad and bash Walmart all you want, but you are angry at the wrong person. If you don't like ERISA plans, get mad at the government. Or boycott every company that uses one (and you'll be boycotting a lot). If you think the woman deserved more money, go after her attorneys. Maybe $1 million was the most their insurance company would pay but I find it hard to believe a jury wouldn't have made the company pay more.

They are self insured, not fully insured. It has nothing to do with the insurance company. They are under administrative service only (ASO Agreement). Keep cost down? Didn't their former CEO hold a $500,000 dollar birthday party? Or is it their current one?

You would have done the same. I think people should be more worried about other people who abuse the system. For example, why is it acceptable to have three kids, when you can't afford them? Isn't that fraudulent? Or, all this welfare rats who refuse to get a job. These are two working individuals who paid taxes and worked their entire life. The system failed them!

Likewise, Walmart wouldn't have been able to cover the initial healthcare expenses without some way to recoup their money whenever possible -- in this case from the employee, but it could be a direct suit of the infringing company too. Sure, they could afford to let this one slide, but then how do they explain to the next person why they don't also get to keep the lawsuit money?

That's not to say Walmart couldn't offer some sort of alternative assistance -- perhaps paying for some new lawyers to sue the old ones who didn't ask for enough money to cover the full expense of the injuries.

Now however, the family won't be able to pay for certain aspects of her care (eg. private room). Therefore, Walmart is not simply asking for their money back, they are directly impacting the level of care this woman receives.

I don't understand how anyone could argue from that perspective that Walmart is acting morally.

However, I'm sure the Walton family could easily afford to make a goodwill gesture of, oh, say the amount of money of the suit (or more).

What?

You arrogant fool!

I wonder if you were in a similar situation, how fast you would leap from that high horse you are sitting on.

This is clearly an extremely extenuating circumstance. If you were a multi-billion dollar corporation, would you sue this family if you could? I know I sure wouldn't. Its not like if they let this slide, a multitude of people just like this family will emerge and bankrupt Wal-Mart.

And wow, haven't read the comments at Neatorama in a while. Used to be a pretty progressive attitude here. Now its like reading a Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter blog...people suggesting its good our society is based on greed, that separation of church and state is immoral...amazing.

Whats funny is that most of the people typing those sendiments are just another cog in the pseudo-fascist corporate regime of america, the unwitting useful idiots who consistently vote against their own interests like a good GOYIM.

I don't shop at Wal-Mart, but I'm acquainted with the way their corporate system operates, unlike the "WALMART IZ EVIL!!!111" morons out there who don't even understand the basic principles of capitalism.

Seriously, can anyone here admit that they'd willingly pay $7 for something that they could get at Wal-Mart (the exact same item/brand) for $3? No? Well, that's why Wal-Mart has been so successful. That's supply and demand in action.

Furthermore, many people haven't any other options as to where to shop. Some rural Americans live far from a centralised town, and so a Wal-Mart is often their only store for food, clothing, etc.

Wal-Mart spends millions settling fraudulent and questionable lawsuits from scam artists. Unlike most other retailers (who almost universally have crap healthcare and benefits - it's the nature of the industry), Wal-Mart has no cap on their health insurance pay-outs in almost all cases. They also have the largest cash-giving charitable non-profit arm in the country, but you don't hear much about that. It's all EVIL, EVIL, EVIL!!

To those who are saying that Wal-Mart is just following a common policy, I want to point out that Wal-Mart funds their own health care plan so this is just another case of them not wanting to put more money into covering the health care of their workers.

And now, retail giant Wal-Mart wants that money:"

Well, *technically*, they don't want the lawsuit money, they want the long-term health car money they paid out, back. (albiet, them recieving the lawsuit money made them 'legally' be able to try to get money back).

That doesn't mean greed or capitalism benefits everyone. Were these people not working for the benefit of their own lives? If the husband has to work two jobs (and divorce his disabled wife) just to financially keep his head above water, it doesn't sound like this "robust economic structure" is such a good thing for them. But I guess it is for those who are already rich. Like Wal-Mart.

And they must have gotten a really crappy settlement.

But if you do that, you'll be contributing more to Global Warming! I think you're in a Catch 22 here...

Besides, Target is just as "evil." But Target gets away with it because it's smaller than Wal-Mart, drawing less attention. Oh, and it has pretentious commercials that appeal to hipsters.

WTF? I did no damage by saying that Walmart was in the right in this instance to humanity or decency. Save the crocodile tears, seriously.

And yes one day we will. Remember that the next time you go throwing stones.

While the woman may claim to NEED the money, what she did was illegal according to the documents she signed. While I feel sorry for her condition, we should also take responsibilities for our own actions.

Besides that, her settlement should have payed all her bills. And the insurance agreement she signed said if she got any settlement that she would pay back said money.

All Wal-Mart is doing is asking her to keep her promise she made.

There are other things far worse Wal-Mart does. Choose your battles.

Wal-Mart may have some shifty business practices but this is not one of them.

Regards.

I'm surprised Walmart didn't sue the company themselves but then it's Walmart so I assume they just let the victims pay for the legal team to get that settlement while waiting behind the scenes for the payout knowing they'd just turn around and sue the family for the money since it's easier than going after a company. Walmart could have handled this better..legally they may get in trouble in the future if they just let this one slide so I don't expect them to change their minds. Also, the PR benefits for letting it slide won't do much good in this case..everybody who hates Walmart hates Walmart permanently.

(FYI to the person who said to sue the trucking company for more- it's possible 1) that's all that was available (an insurance company is not obligated to pay more than the limit purchased) or 2) a jury awarded that amount. This woman's lawyers should have been negotiating WalMart's lien long before now.)