UPMC argues for surrender of records in Highmark class-action settlement talks
A federal judge should order Highmark and lawyers for plaintiffs in a class-action antitrust lawsuit to turn over records of their settlement talks to UPMC, a retired judge said in a report filed Monday.
The hospital system contends that the lawsuit is a “sham” and that Highmark and lawyers representing Royal Mile Co. and the other plaintiffs are working together to hurt UPMC's business.
U.S. District Judge Joy Flowers Conti appointed Richard A. Levie, a retired superior court judge for the District of Columbia, to untangle competing evidence claims in the lawsuit. Levie said UPMC's arguments are “sufficiently strong” to justify giving it a look at the records.
Scott Hare, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, said that while they have since filed a motion to withdraw the proposed settlement, they disagree with Levie's recommendation.
“This proposed settlement is not the product of collusion. It is not a sham. That is nothing more than a wild fishing expedition by UPMC,” he said.
A UPMC spokesman declined to comment. A Highmark spokesman couldn't be reached.
Conti has yet to rule on the motion to withdraw the proposed settlement. She is in the process of appointing a health care economist to determine what value it would have for premium payers.
Brian Bowling is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-325-4301 or email@example.com.
Show commenting policy
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 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.
- Pa. business interests decry EPA ozone proposal as economic albatross
- Just Mayo has egg industry in a panic, emails show
- Housing bright spot as Beige Book survey shows Pittsburgh region’s growth slight
- PPG’s new CEO to push organic growth with existing clients
- Stock indexes enter correction territory; bear market could be lurking
- Steady hiring pace increases odds of Fed action
- U.S. stocks bounce back from precipitous drop
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau gives alternative to customer service frustrations
- Coal stocks on a roller coaster ride they can’t get off
- Coal company, UMW settle suit over use of non-union workers
- Shale gas violations down as DEP steps up inspections