Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Wildo7, Mar 27, 2008.
do these people have souls?
Can't wait for the legal experts on the forum to chime in...
Yes...we know there's language in the agreement...thank you......
heaven forbid we get evil marxist commie universal health insurance, this woman deserved to die rather than get treatment!! Oh that's right I forgot, these are "extreme" cases
Something you guys missed--her oldest son was killed in Iraq. Because of the accident, she suffers from severe short term memory loss (among other things, obviously) and so basically every day she suffers the pain of losing her son all over again.
I can see why Wal-Mart's doing it, and why they can't make an exception, but that doesn't mean I like it.
I wonder...not that it would really matter, but I own WMT. I could call the investor relations people and see what they have to say.
They would say "fcuk you very much..."
Very misleading story. Typical of alternet. A hard left hang-out of angry people.
If you read carefully, it says that Wal-Mart is suing if the woman collects from the trucking company that owns the truck and employed the driver who injured her. It's only natural that Wal-Mart would seek to recover the monies they have already paid for her injury after the REAL guilty party, the trucker and his company, pay up.
Most likely, in a law suit of this kind -- John Edwards must be on this case, even as we speak -- with the way juries these days hand out money like it was a monopoly game, this woman will collect in the millions, if not tens of millions.
If the tort lawyers can get millions from McDonalds for selling "hot" coffee that a person spilled on themself, you can bet the lawyers will be starting their demands from the trucking company at $100 million. Maybe more.
And we wonder why America can't compete with China or even Europe anymore.
Would this story have more veracity if it was reported somewhere else, don't always destroy the messenger... isn't Cape Girardau where R. Limbaugh is from?? Without regard it is a tough case..
Story also puts to bed assumptions about John Edwards and millions of dollars the suit is over with..
WASHINGTON â€” The family of a Missouri woman must reimburse Wal-Mart for nearly a half-million dollars in medical expenses now that the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to review her case. RELATED BLOG
Read more news and insight from the nation's capital in our DC Download blog
The court on Monday let stand a ruling by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis requiring Debbie Shank of Cape Girardeau County to pay nearly $470,000 to Wal-Mart.
The appeal was the last legal recourse for the family of the 52-year-old Shank, a mother of three who was critically injured in a car accident eight years ago. She suffered a brain injury that took her memory and left her with very little ability to move or communicate. She has lived in a nursing home since she was released from the hospital.
Her family later settled a lawsuit with the trucking company whose driver was involved in the accident. After attorneys' fees and expenses, $417,477 was put in a trust for Shank's care. That settlement money, plus $51,739 that Shank will have to pay out of pocket, must be paid to Wal-Mart.
"It's been kind of hard on us," Nathan Shank, Debbie Shank's 17-year-old son, said Monday when told about the court's decision. Advertisement
Is it true that her lawyers only got LESS than her medical and related expenses???!!! That is unbelievable and unacceptable.
She's got damned crappy lawyers if she only gets LESS from the trucker/his company than what her medical bills are. That's inexcusable. Lawyers should get the full amount from the trucker and his company PLUS some compensation for her likelihood of missing future employment. Why is it that lawyers can get McDonalds to cough up millions when some dingbat spills hot coffee on herself, yet the lawyers can't even get full compensation from some drones who actually cause damage to others.
Something is deeply broken about a legal system operating this way. Deeply wrong.
Okay Foggy, I've got to admit you lost even me with this rant.
Did you take the time to do any research about the story before you reacted? I don't trust anything alternet says, so I looked it up myself.
How the hell did you get "John Edwards"?
And perhaps they settled with the trucker because that's all they could afford to pay? Who knows. You can get lots and lots from McDonalds, but if a "trucking company" is just a guy with a rig, you're kind of screwed.
I am a little shocked that no one's mentioned her lawyers taking almost $600K to get a million though.
Actually, most large companies are quite responsive to shareholders, it's in their interest to be. Further evidence that you really have nothing of value to say here.
That's not to say one shareholder will make them change their mind, merely that there's probably more to the story that's unreported.
Please. It's Fogbuster, 'buster, or Mr./Rev. Fogbuster. Thank you.
Now, where did I lose you?
Your last line above is kind of where I was headed in my rant: her lawyers pull in $600K, she gets $400K, and the doctors still want another $100K +/-. I might be stupid but it seems to me that the woman who got hit by the truck should be getting taken care of here, the lawyers wouldn't be working at all with out her!!!
Some lawyers REALLY suck out loud.
First you say..
And then you say:
First you rant and rave about how much she could get and how you thought she was gonna get 100 million dollars and then after given the facts you go into a rant that her lawyers did not get enough.. seems a tad weird..
doesn't that sum up ol 'buster?
Separate names with a comma.