Inspector general conducting separate criminal probe into Pittsburgh Legionnaires' outbreak
A separate criminal investigation is under way by the Veterans Affairs' Office of Inspector General into how the Legionnaires' disease outbreak was handled by officials at the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, but when it will be completed is uncertain.
“We cannot provide an answer at this time and will not be able to provide any information until the investigation is concluded,” said spokeswoman Catherine Gromek.
U.S. Attorney David J. Hickton, who has promised to conduct his own review, declined to comment.
The probe by the VA Inspector General's Criminal Investigations division is separate from the report on Tuesday by the IG's Office of Healthcare Inspections into the VA's failures in Legionnaires' disease prevention. The outbreak at VA facilities in Oakland and O'Hara lasted from February 2011 to November 2012, sickening as many as 21 people, five of whom died.
Among the things the criminal investigation is looking into are the answers given to questions from Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Upper St. Clair, at a Feb. 5 congressional hearing about the outbreak.
Steve Shira, president of water treatment system manufacturer LiquiTech, told Congress that one of his employees witnessed a VA worker falsifying inspection records. During the same hearing, Kathi Dahl, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 2028 representing some VA workers, said VA Pittsburgh Associate Director Lovetta Ford told Dahl she could call in sick rather than testify.
Mike Wereschagin is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7900 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
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.