Highmark wants UPMC to return confidential documents
Highmark Inc. on Wednesday asked an Allegheny County judge to order UPMC to return documents it obtained in last year's court dispute involving the insurer and West Penn Allegheny Health System.
The insurer said the 138 documents were highly sensitive and confidential, yet rival UPMC wrongfully disseminated them within UPMC and third parties. There were 19 documents under seal, the insurer said.
UPMC spokesman Paul Wood said the attorneys for the health system already returned to the court all the sealed documents after reaching an agreement with Highmark's prior legal counsel in December. The rest of the documents were “public record” and never considered under seal, he said.
Wood said Highmark is launching a “baseless and hyperbolic attack on UPMC's receipt and retention of the remaining documents.”
The documents surfaced during a four-day hearing in October and November in Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. Following the hearing, Common Pleas Judge Christine Ward ruled that Highmark did not breach its $475 million affiliation agreement with the hospital network.
Highmark said it never intended for the documents to be seen by UPMC's management or attorneys.
“I was personally and professionally appalled to read that UPMC has obtained and used these documents, and also at the arrogance of UPMC when it previously appeared before the court on this matter,” said Jerry McDevitt, an attorney with the Downtown firm K&L Gates representing Highmark.
The documents include financial information, projections and insights into the relationship between Highmark and financially troubled West Penn Allegheny.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.