UPMC workers' compensation unit drops claim in Western Psych shooting
The workers' compensation arm of health care giant UPMC will not seek to be reimbursed for the medical treatment of victims of the shooting at Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic.
An attorney for UPMC Work Partners said in a letter sent last week to the four employees wounded in the March 8, 2012, shooting spree that it has dropped its claim for a piece of the victims' $500,000 settlement with State Farm, the company that provided a renter's insurance policy to the shooter, John Shick.
Shick, 30, killed a therapist and wounded four others at Western Psych in Oakland before police shot and killed him.
In May, UPMC Work Partners said it intended to collect more than $200,000 from each of the victims as reimbursement for benefits and medical bills.
Victims of the shooting opposed paying the reimbursement, saying in court documents that a UPMC executive visited them in the hospital and told them UPMC would pay their medical bills. They argued that they never received notice that their claims were covered by workers' compensation.
Lawyers for the victims declined to comment or did not return calls on Friday. UPMC spokeswoman Susan Manko could not be reached.
At least part of the money UPMC Work Partners sought would have come from the $500,000 insurance settlement, which Allegheny County Common Pleas Judges R. Stanton Wettick and Lawrence O'Toole approved last month.
An arbitrator is expected to determine within 45 days how much money each victim will receive.
Adam Brandolph is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach him at 412-391-0927.
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.