Before this story went 'round the Interweb:
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." (Source)
After the story went 'round the Interweb:
"Occasionally, others help us step back and look at a situation in a different way. This is one of those times," Wal-Mart Executive Vice President Pat Curran said in a letter. "We have all been moved by Ms. Shank's extraordinary situation." [...]
"We wanted you to know that Wal-Mart will not seek any reimbursement for the money already spent on Ms. Shank's care, and we will work with you to ensure the remaining amounts in the trust can be used for her ongoing care," Curran said.
"We are sorry for any additional stress this uncertainty has placed on you and your family."
The publicity apparently worked for the family: Wal-Mart dropped its lawsuit to recoup money from a brain-damaged former worker. Link
Previously on Neatorama: Wal-Mart Wants Disabled Woman's Long-Term Care Money Back
He carefully removes the bird from his mouth, pats down the birds feathers, smooths him down and pops him back on his perch, all the while grinning endearingly at granny.
When i heard that WalMart had backed down I got that image so vividly.
you know that as soon as the internet focus drifts away from this poor woman, Sylvester will be up on a precariously stacked tower of chairs desperately trying to scoff that pain in the arse little bird once more.
All the bleeding hearts need to look at logic;
Say you get in a car accident that was not your fault. You can not collect on the damages because the at fault driver is not insured or it was a hit and run. your insurance company pays the costs for you to get better and fixes your car. A year later the at fault party comes back and pays you all the damages. is that your money or the car insurance company that in good faith fronted those costs?
I dont know if that accident happened while she was at work or not but apparently Wal-Mart payed for her medical expense... it's just a cheap shot to come and claim that money after she won a lawsuit for the damage that was done to her.
The way I see it, it's like Wal-Mart wasted some money so that she live long enough to make money out of a lawsuit and then drain all that money back.
I can almost hear "Thank you, come again." from some Wal-Mart representative.
All Wal-Mart wanted to do was recoup the money that they rightfully were owed. She collected on bills that Wal-Mart already paid for her, why would she get to keep the money?
Sometimes I wonder how bleeding hearts get so myopic, and don't have a bit of logical sense in their body. It's actually amazing you guys can breath.