To: TornadoAlley3
Not saying the Walmart employee wasn’t at fault, but wondering about the hospital that possibly discharged her too early. I’m a nurse, work with the frail elderly, and see it all the time.
2 posted on
06/04/2007 5:29:41 AM PDT by
Wage Slave
(Good fences make good neighbors. -- Robert Frost)
To: TornadoAlley3
She died five days after being released from a two-week hospital stay to treat that infection, the statement said. That must have been one helluva cut. Doesn't make sense that the hospital could not treat the infection or that they would release someone who was still badly infected.
To: TornadoAlley3
Normally I am filled with contempt for our legal system, but in this case it seems they got it just about right.
-ccm
4 posted on
06/04/2007 5:32:04 AM PDT by
ccmay
(Too much Law; not enough Order.)
To: TornadoAlley3
Went to a hospital and came out with an infection. That never happens. /s
5 posted on
06/04/2007 5:32:32 AM PDT by
badpacifist
(Touching the portal of infinite knowledge right now!)
To: TornadoAlley3
The jury that heard the case awarded Guillorys three grown children $100,000 each for their mothers wrongful death; $750,000 for mental anguish, pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life; and another $37,274 for medical and funeral expenses, court records show. The woman was 90 years old.
She was going to die of something in the not too distant future.
Luckily she died in a manner which allowed her next-of-kin to cash in.
9 posted on
06/04/2007 5:39:54 AM PDT by
E. Pluribus Unum
("All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder." --Frederic Bastiat)
To: TornadoAlley3; Mrs.Nooseman; Diana in Wisconsin; bfree; Graybeard58; CSM; metesky; wanderin; ...
WalMart ping.
Something doesn’t sound right here........
11 posted on
06/04/2007 5:49:07 AM PDT by
Gabz
To: TornadoAlley3
“The jury found the Wal-Mart employee, Martha Watson Hookfin, 100 percent at fault, an unsigned verdict forum shows.”
The article could bother to explain if the employee acting in accordance with her employee duties. Why was her employer sued instead of her (unless its just the old ‘deep pocket envy’)
20 posted on
06/04/2007 6:00:37 AM PDT by
DancesWithBolsheviks
(Demands, marches and media sob stories diminish my compassion.)
To: TornadoAlley3
That damn Wal-Mart! Cutting that woman down in the prime of life like that! Uh... do you suppose the award was so much because the plaintiff attorneys provided evidence that there was a high likelihood of her being pregnant?
25 posted on
06/04/2007 6:10:27 AM PDT by
badgerlandjim
(Hillary Clinton is to politics as Helen Thomas is to beauty)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson