Home  ·   News  ·   Weather  ·   Sports  ·   Jobs  ·   Community  ·   Pics N Videos  ·   Station  ·   Marketplace  ·   6 on Your Side  ·   Contests  ·   Get Connected
Health Check · Lottery · DTV · Backpack Journalist · Mom to Mom · Traffic · The Omaha Buzz · CityCAMS · My Weather · School Closings · HS Cribs · Restaurants · McKnight Investigates
  • sixonline@wowt.com
  • Phone: (402) 233-7909
  • WOWT: 3501 Farnam St.
  • Omaha, NE. 68131
  • click here
    Missing Legs Could Cost Taxpayers Save Email Print
    Prosthetic limbs disappear from duplex
    Posted: 10:00 PM Sep 24, 2008
    Last Updated: 9:49 PM Sep 24, 2008
    Reporter: Mike McKnight
    Email Address: sixonline@wowt.com

    A | A | A

    An Omaha teen's new prosthetic legs are missing and if they're not found it could cost taxpayers $30,000.

    Ferny Martinez hasn't been left without legs to stand on. He's now using spares. "These are like old fashioned."

    Taxpayers, through Medicaid, recently purchased two modern prosthetic legs made just to fit the 17-year-old.

    "It's extremely rare for someone to walk around with two of these above the knee," says prosthetist Tad Meyer. "It’s difficult to do. It’s very taxing on the individual."

    The hydraulics on the demo prosthesis show better movement for the teenager who lost his legs to a childhood disease. "I’ll be able to walk normal like you guys do," says Martinez.

    While still breaking the new prosthetic legs in, he would alternate with the old ones. His mother says in a dispute with a landlord she found the locks changed and the new artificial legs missing from their north Omaha duplex.

    "We were moving our stuff out, but still staying there and came back the next day and they were gone," says mom Veronica Jacob.

    With two prosthetic legs missing, taxpayers are out $30,000. That's what it would cost to replace the two specially made for one person who receives state assistance. "We would have to look into that, I don't know what Medicaid would do on that for another set of legs," says Jan Burton of Burton Prosthetics.

    Martinez says taxpayers won't have to pay again if whoever walked away with his artificial legs tells the prosthetic makers where to find them. "They were hydraulic and I’ll be able to walk better."

    Police say the missing artificial legs would be considered a civil dispute between the tenant and landlord. The owner of the duplex lives in Maryland and like the tenant, efforts to contact the landlord have been unsuccessful.

    Anyone who knows where to find the missing artificial legs is asked to call Burton Prosthetics at 384-1334.

    More Stories
    Parking Confusion Angers Holiday Shoppers

    Couple Falls For Loan Scam

    Omaha Victims Of Lending Scam

    Confusing Highway Still Taking Its Toll

    Ex-Enron Employees Told To Return Retirement Money

    Complaints Follow Contractor's Broken Promises

    Graffiti Vandals Caught On Camera

    Residents Raise A Stink Over Landfill

    Post Your Comments
    First Name:
    Location:
    Enter Comments: characters left
    Email (optional):
    Email will not be displayed on site. For station contact purpose only.
    Read Comments
    Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
    Posted by: Money on Oct 8, 2008 at 08:33 PM
    the better the insurance- the higher your charged! The less insurance- the less your charged . I hope the boy gets his legs back, and his mother never put her son in that perdictument again! If the slum lord has the legs! give them back and go to church! Mom! go out a work a few hrs- renetrs insurence is pretty cheap !

    Posted by: RM on Sep 26, 2008 at 12:43 PM
    This shows exactly one of the problems with Medicaid. Since it wasn't the fault of the govt. that he lost his prosthetics then we should not have to replace them.

    Posted by: Pam on Sep 26, 2008 at 12:48 AM
    My question, is who would, in their right mind take them and for what?? But, I would like to also ask......ok, the landlord and mom had a dispute, than found the locks changed and the legs gone and now the landlord can't be reached??? Did the landlord take, I assume, one of the most important things in the guys life....on rebellion?? Kind of sounds like it to me. But I don't know...

    Posted by: Mark on Sep 25, 2008 at 04:35 PM
    The lazy mom should find a job or get a second job so she could pay her rent and not worry about getting evicted. On top of that she avoided getting renters insurance and probably has half her rent paid thru Section 8. Just a guess....

    Posted by: Marcus on Sep 25, 2008 at 04:02 PM
    Watch for these legs to be on the display case at a pawn shop in North Omaha.

    Posted by: Anonymous on Sep 25, 2008 at 03:28 PM
    Hello...what about renter's insurance? If someone decided to rob my apartment it would be my problem...not taxpayers! Plus, who would you steal something like that in the first place?!

    Posted by: John S on Sep 25, 2008 at 03:01 PM
    The landlord is responsible - not us. That's the law in every state. He can also be charged with felony theft, and can be extradited to Nebraska. Quit whining and file felony charges already!

    Posted by: H on Sep 25, 2008 at 02:52 PM
    Who steals legs? Can you pawn something like that? And I also seem to be questioning why these legs were left. Wouldn't that be something you made sure to hold on to? I really hope they get the legs back.

    Posted by: Gen on Sep 25, 2008 at 02:23 PM
    It wouldn't be a civil suit, it would be felony theft, due to the cost being $30,000 for the legs. And obviouosly, the person wrongfully took them. I would say, give them back or face felony charges.

    Posted by: Jon on Sep 25, 2008 at 02:22 PM
    It is very doubtful medicaid will pay for another set of the legs. It even says that in the article "We would have to look into that, I don't know what Medicaid would do on that for another set of legs". So, calm down, taxpayers, your money is safe to pay off the rich people, and keep them in their BMW's.

    Posted by: Gen on Sep 25, 2008 at 02:20 PM
    knowing Medicaid, they will not replace the prothestics.

    Posted by: Anonymous on Sep 25, 2008 at 02:02 PM
    Missing legs :If those legs were that expensive, why were they left in the first place, especially in a place if which you were being kicked out,most likely because your parents didn't take responsibility again & pay rent. I make my kids pay for things they lose & guess what, they make sure next time they don't leave valuable things laying around, they take responsiblility for things.

    Posted by: Ben on Sep 25, 2008 at 01:20 PM
    It seems top me that the manufacturers of these legs are getting rich. People benefit greatly, I agree, but does it really cost $30,000 for a pair of prosthetic legs? Are they that high because insurance companies and the federal government usually pay for them and they know they can rip them off? Just like doctors visits. There are drugs too out there that seem to be too expensive. Whats with people who develop a product and put the price so high that others cant pay for it. I'm for free enterprise but c'mon people. We're all in this human race thing together!

    Posted by: Lynda on Sep 25, 2008 at 01:16 PM
    The evil in this world today is so out of control! I pray that Jesus Christs return for His people will be soon...well, I know it will...all one has to do is read the Bible and watch the nightly news or morning for that matter and know it is true. That poor kid has to worry about walking like the rest of us now. I am praying for a quick return of those legs.

    Posted by: Rose on Sep 25, 2008 at 12:35 PM
    Why should us tax payers pay for a second set of legs for this teenager? I feel sorry for him however why didn't he have his legs with him? I can tell you that my health ins would not buy me another pair and I would have had to share in the first $30000 bill. Us tax payers are stretched to the limit and I do not feel like we should have to pay for someone being irresponsible. I hope that whoever took the legs decides to do the right thing and give them back to the kid. I am sure it is not his fault that he is between houses right now.

    Posted by: S on Sep 25, 2008 at 12:15 PM
    Unbelievable. So many issues to discuss here I could write a paragraph from the mother and the duplex dispute, which you know prob has to do with her not paying her rent, with my thoughts about the landlord and the thug he probably hired to do this. To the guy who who took the legs, give the kid back his artificial limbs. My god, how could you live with yourself if you don't.

    Posted by: Anonymous on Sep 25, 2008 at 11:58 AM
    Get the money from the landlord, not the taxpayers!

    Posted by: Annette on Sep 25, 2008 at 11:09 AM
    How awful. Return them. What use are they to you.

    Posted by: Anonymous on Sep 25, 2008 at 10:46 AM
    Hmmm... these people need renters insurance. Why should I have to pay again for their theft???

    Posted by: ME on Sep 25, 2008 at 10:42 AM
    You know maybe the mother should keep a better eye on these prosthetics that I paid for. I hope they are able to find them for the boys sake. I am sure it will take a lot of time for the state to approve a second pair so soon, and then the company will have to custom make them again.

    Posted by: Meg on Sep 25, 2008 at 10:23 AM
    Um, no. Does Veronica have a job?? If that was my child, since I work, I would be required to pay for them myself. Nor would I expect Omaha/Nebraska to flip the bill!!

    Posted by: Nettie on Sep 25, 2008 at 09:06 AM
    who's the landlord?

    Posted by: OmahaAnnie on Sep 25, 2008 at 09:03 AM
    It is always the tax payer who pays for things. We paid for the first pair and will undoubtedly pay for the second, third, fourth etc. Put this kid’s parent to work to pay for the leg. I am tired of being responsible for everyone that refuses to take responsibility for themselves.

    Posted by: Angie on Sep 25, 2008 at 08:44 AM
    Why does this have to read "Missing Legs could cost Taxpayers"? Why can't it just state that someone stole his legs and ask for a return? I have a great friend who has a prosthetic leg and the "taxpayers" paid for them and they are used to improve the quality of life for a person, not to make them feel like they own anyone anything. I know there are people out there who drive nice cars, live in nice homes, have great jobs and still collect food stamps and medicaid. It isn't fair to head the story stating that it will cost so much to replace them. Just help him get some legs so he can live life to the fullest. He is only 17.

    Posted by: jf on Sep 25, 2008 at 08:22 AM
    how sad is it to take this boys chance to be normal...come on give him back his legs, what good are they to you

    Posted by: pete on Sep 25, 2008 at 08:19 AM
    Who is the lowlife that taken this person's legs? If caught, they should break both of their legs as payback.

    Posted by: Mom of 3 on Sep 25, 2008 at 08:06 AM
    I feel sorry for this young man. I would hire a good lawyer, track down this landlord and take him for everything he's got. He had no right to remove their personal possessions from the home unless he first had the sheriff physically serve them with papers to evict them from the property. He should not be allowed to further business in the state. Good luck getting your legs back. I hope his conscience catches up with him and that he is punished for stealing.

    Posted by: Hmmm on Sep 25, 2008 at 07:52 AM
    I find it hard to believe Medicaid paid that much for legs anyway...I don't think my insurnance company would have...leaving ME with the bill. The person who took the legs should return them & face their consequences.

    Posted by: ryan on Sep 25, 2008 at 07:25 AM
    Just give them back, what the heck are you going to use them for?

    Posted by: Janelle on Sep 25, 2008 at 03:50 AM
    I'm sure we (Medicaid) paid for the first set. Isn't there a limit as to how often recipients get new prosthetics? Mom and son should be responsible and taxpayers should NOT bail them out again. Sorry but take care of yourself.

    Posted by: ME on Sep 25, 2008 at 03:27 AM
    Why would anyone want someone else's prosthetics? Boggles the mind. You don't take things that don't belong to you. Whoever took them, shame on you. You stole from a child. Nice, real nice.

    Posted by: Jen on Sep 25, 2008 at 01:15 AM
    A "civil dispute"?!? Ummm... it's called "theft". I'm pretty sure that's a "criminal act". Unless the landlord had a clause in the lease stating that the man's prosthetics could be seized in lieu of rent, the police ought to be investigating this. Did these people have renter's insurance? Wouldn't such a theft be covered under such a policy, like any other property stolen from the residence? Whatever slimeball made off with these, ought to be ashamed of himself; he should stop to think about how he'd feel if he were deprived of his legs for the rest of his life.

    Posted by: Concerned on Sep 25, 2008 at 12:17 AM
    Another Slum Lord working overtime! It never ceases to amaze me how slum lords get away with changing the locks, throwing property into the street, and plain old harrassment! It should be mandatory for anyone who rents property to hand out the Nebraska Tenant Rights Laws. Your landlord can not lock you out prior to following the legal process for eviction! The landlord can not throw you into the street without due process! A landlord can not shut off your utilities for lack of rent.

    Posted by: A on Sep 25, 2008 at 12:10 AM
    Why not, it isn't like taxpayer care that they are forced to pay for the free medical care of someone else's child while they lose half their check to pay for their own.

    Posted by: Gen on Sep 24, 2008 at 11:55 PM
    How much of a low life would a person have to be to go and take aways someones prothetic legs? Whoever did, should be ashamed of themselves and give the legs back. How pathetic.

    Posted by: Joe on Sep 24, 2008 at 11:30 PM
    I do not think the taxpayers should have to pay again. If the landlord had someone take them they clearly broke the law. If they were stolen by another the renters should have had renter's insurance or not left them unattended. The fault of not safeguarding the equipment lies with either the landlord or the tenant and should not be the responsibility of the taxpayers. I would doubt that medicaid would replace them anyway as I know an elderly man who had his medicare provided motorized wheelchair stolen and was not able to get a replacement through medicare. I do think it is a very unfortunate situation and whoever did take them is a very poor excuse of an individual.

    Posted by: Never calling NE home on Sep 24, 2008 at 10:37 PM
    Are you kidding me....this is so stupid, give the legs back!