North Idaho woman faces hard time over spilt soda

Idaho Statesman ^ | 09/18/08 | CYNTHIA SEWELL

[scan59]

Federal prosecutors have charged a North Idahoan with 2 offenses after a dispute over the price of a pop at the Boise VA hospital.

-- SNIP --

Natalie Walters, now facing two counts that each carry a maximum sentence of six months in federal prison, thinks the case is a waste of taxpayer money and plans to fight the charges.

-- SNIP --

The 39-year-old North Idaho resident periodically drives her father, a disabled Vietnam veteran, to Boise's VA Medical Center for doctor visits. She brings her own mug and fills it with soda in the hospital's cafeteria. The cafeteria does not have a posted price for refills, and typically the cashier charges her $1 or $1.50, Walters said.

But on Aug. 20, when Walters filled her mug with Diet Coke, the clerk charged $3.80.

"I told her that cannot be right and asked to talk to the manager," Walters said.

The manager told Walters the price is correct.

Walters decided she didn't want to pay that much and offered to return the soda, she said. But the manager told her there was no way to accept the returned soda and Walters had to pay. Walters refused, and she said she was angry by this point, and she poured the soda onto the counter.

The manager banned Walters from the cafeteria. Walters left but remained in the hospital for a couple of hours waiting for her father to finish his appointments. No one came to talk to her, so she assumed the soda ordeal was over.

What happened the next day upsets Walters most...

[dmz]

She could still return it. Here is how it works: She gives them the cup. They go to the sink and dump the soda down the drain.

I think to most English speaking human beings with functioning grey matter, to return something means to return it in resaleable condition. Pouring something down the drain does not meet that criteria. But it is cute how you try to say something nonsensical, while pointing out to others how not to look foolish. Perhaps taking a bit of your own advice would be in order.

We have only the woman's word that there was no pricing available. And why should she get the 'refill' price anyway? How is she eligible for that? By definition, a refill is something that you purchase first at regular price (there is no mention of this) and then are eligible to refill it for a reduced price later.

The manager did not make up a price. That's the price for a fill up of soda, which is what the woman got, and did not want to pay for, and then acted like a spoiled brat when she did not get her way.

Felonious? Probably not, but after pouring the soda on the counter like a little crybaby, she is deserving of nothing but our scorn. JMO.

LOL. I wonder what the breakdown of those of us having worked retail at one time in our lives compared to those never having served the public up close and personal is. I would guess that those of us who have worked retail would like to see her tarred and feathered and run out on a rail. To make up for all the John Q Publics we could not do that to.

[vpintheak]

This woman is dumber than dog crap. Pay the money, and then don’t buy it from there again. End of story.

[Scoutmaster]

She says she spilled it on the counter. The lawsuit claims she aggressively poured it over the cash register.

Big, big difference.

[caver]

“Do you really think that the authorities handled this matter properly?”

No way, the authorities screwed up big time. The lady that poured the drink out was wrong. The hospital or whoever was snooping in her Ftaher’s records were wrong and criminal by itself. And the authorities that are pushing this is wrong, wrong, wrong. No dispute with me.

[caver]

It’s a bad situation all the way around. All involved acted poorly.

[caver]

“Fountain drinks are almost pure profit, and they allow vendors to charge lower prices for the food, with the expectation that you’ll buy a drink with it.”

Yea, it’s just sugar, water and some flavoring. It has to be cheap.

[Scoutmaster]

Please remember that the woman herself is the source of facts for the story as reported in the newspaper. The lawsuit says she intentionally poured the drink over the cash register, not that she spilled it on the counter.

We don't know whether the woman damaged the cash register -- and some of those suckers are expensive. She's only charged with 'disturbance,' which suggests to me that she didn't cause a great deal of property damage.

I'll bet there was a lot more to this than the woman reports to the paper; I can't imagine a U.S. Attorney's office charging her if the incident happened just as she said.

I smell a bit of a grandstander here in the woman's comments about how SHE shouldn't have been treated this way because it HER FATHER was a veteran.

We don't know all of the facts, but this almost certainly was not a HIPAA violation and was not 'criminal,' if you are using that word technically (sometimes the word is used simply to mean egregious and I don't know how you're using it).

First, use of the father's medical records for internal security purposes by the hospital is not a "disclosure" of protected health information unless the hospital disclosed it to an outside party in a manner that does not meet an exception to HIPAA.

Second, HIPAA contains an exception for disclosures for law enforcement purposes.

HIPAA, contrary to common belief, is not a strong healthcare privacy statute. State privacy laws, both general and healthcare-specific, and other federal laws are the main protections against invasion of privacy regarding your health information.

[caver]

“I smell a bit of a grandstander here in the woman’s comments about how SHE shouldn’t have been treated this way because it HER FATHER was a veteran.”

I agree withyou 100%