Was the woman who sued Walmart right to do so? Why?
By icyorchid
@icyorchid (2564)
United States
April 3, 2008 3:25pm CST
After reading about the women that sued Walmart and in turn Walmart sued her, I am wondering what are the reasons to sue someone.
Should you sue someone who takes your newspaper off your lawn? Should you sue someone who hit your car, but you were alright? Should you sue a store you had an accident in?
I think if you have been in a situation that takes away your freedom, you are intitled to sue! I think if you have an accident and that store takes NO responsibility for what happened, you should sue!
Here is a excerpt from the woman suing wal-mart and why she sued
"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.
"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." http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/walmart.insurance.battle/
She sued the trucking company for the accident, not WAl-MART!!!
Why did Wal-Mart sue her for the money back? Was the trucking co. a sub co. of Wal-Mart? I don't know that is why I am asking. Why did they wait 3 years to sue her?
Now I believe this woman was well in her right to sue. The claus was to protect Wal-Mart itself.
The judge found in her favor, the judge must have had all the paper work to look over, the trucking co must not have been mentioned in that claus.
1 person likes this
5 responses
@nicholejade (2430)
• Canada
3 Apr 08
I really don't know much of this case and I have read the article that you have provided. My question is did she get hurt on the job? It doesn't say that she was hurt on the job or in Walmart. If she got hurt in Walmart she has the right to the money that was paid out by her health and benefits plan. However if she was not hurt on the job she has not title to that health and benefit policy. Once you really think about it this is a horrific accident that occured and I am sorry for her and her family to be facing this. I don't like this law as much as the next person. But Walmart does have a point. If it is right for the Shanks and to make an exception on her what goes to say this will never happen again? The sad truth is it will happen again. If this accident wasn't related to Walmart in anyway then why should Walmart pay for this ladies medicare? That's not right. The trucking company or the person that hit her should be dealing with that not Walmart. If it was done on the job I think both the trucking company and Walmart should go half and half on it. Walmart is just looking out for the best intrests of the other employees that work for the huge Walmart chain.
@icyorchid (2564)
• United States
3 Apr 08
This is what happened:
A collision with a semi-trailer truck seven years ago left 52-year-old Deborah Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a wheelchair. Her husband, Jim, and three sons found a small source of solace: a $700,000 accident settlement from the trucking company involved. After legal fees and other expenses, the remaining $417,000 was put in a special trust. It was to be used for Mrs. Shank's care.
Instead, all of it is now slated to go to Mrs. Shank's former employer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Two years ago, the retail giant's health plan sued the Shanks for the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care. A federal judge ruled last year in Wal-Mart's favor, backed by an appeals-court decision in August. Now, her family has to rely on Medicaid and Mrs. Shank's social-security payments to keep up her round-the-clock care.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/20/162419/85
@nicholejade (2430)
• Canada
3 Apr 08
Ok so now I don't understand why Walmart sued her for the money she got from the trucking company? There are bits and peices all over in this story that just don't make sense here. Why would Walmart sue her if they are not entitled to the money in question? Did the Shank family use the money from her Walmart health and benefits package? With most health and benefit plans they will pay a portion of certain costs but not all. I don't know how Walmarts plan works but this is my experince from other companies that I have worked for. If they were taking full advantage of Walmarts plan then Walmart is entitled to the money that is rightfully theirs and are not responsible to pay her medical bills. The trucking company and the driver should be accountable. Keep in mind for life as well.
1 person likes this
@icyorchid (2564)
• United States
4 Apr 08
I know so I don't know what really happened, but I think she was right to sue and I also think Wal-Mart was right to stop the law suit against her.
The only one's that know what actually happened is her family and Wal-Mart and the truck driver.
@james3302 (91)
• United States
3 Apr 08
No she was not right to sue Wal-Mart. She signed the insurance papers stating that if she won any money from a lawsuit that they get their money back they paid for the hospital costs. Why was she surprised when they wanted their money back. Her signature said that she agreed to the terms of the insurance.
@james3302 (91)
• United States
4 Apr 08
Yea I don't agree with them having a health ins program that gets the money back if the person wins a lawsuit. But I'm saying legally she is required to give the money back.
@eden32 (3973)
• United States
3 Apr 08
After reading the article I understand why Wal-Mart is entitled to the money, but I don't understand why they are choosing to go after it. Wal-mart was asking for the money they paid out through her insurance back. Many insurance companies have clauses like that. If you have a car accident and your medical insurance pays for the trip to the ER, but then you sue the other driver who's car insurance pays you for your pain & suffering and your medical bills. Your health insurance will want to be reimbursed for the moneys they paid out. This case is so extreme though, the woman will need care for the rest of her life. Wal-Mart certainly doesn't *need* the money, and she does. The positive public relations alone is worth Wal-Mart letting her keep the money.
1 person likes this
@icyorchid (2564)
• United States
3 Apr 08
They are letting her keep the money. It is just a thing that a lot of people think that she was wrong in suing Wal-Mart and wal-mart was right in suing her to get the money back.
Here is more on the accident http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/20/162419/85
walmart drops suit http://walmartwatch.com/blog/archives/wal_mart_agrees_to_drop_demands_on_shank_family/
@icyorchid (2564)
• United States
5 Apr 08
I understand that!
I sued when I had my accident and the only thing I am grateful for is the lawyer sent me to the doctor's for everything. Although I am still in pain, at least I am not limping anymore.
I have not heard a thing, don't know if it was ever resolved either, don't really care, as with you, it won't be enough after all is said and done!
@chazsgirl (256)
• United States
4 Apr 08
People sue all the time! Sometimes they sue for valid reasons but others sue just to have some fame and get $$ from a company, like the old woman with the hot coffe who spilled it on herself and sued Mcdonalds just because it was hot and the cup never said it was hot! well duh what do you think coffee is unless you order an iced coffee. well she won that lawsuit and that is so stupid. Others back down from suing even they know they could win but don't have the $$ to try.
@icyorchid (2564)
• United States
4 Apr 08
Yes I agree on that.....I thought that suit was stupid and was surprised that she won. 
