A former employee claims in a federal lawsuit that U.S. Steel Corp., Downtown, misled him into enrolling in a Medicare program when he should have remained on the company's health plan.
William E. Brown claims the government program paid about $750,000 in medical claims that the company's health plan should have covered. He also claims the company pressured other employees to enroll in Medicare and file thousands of claims that should have been handled by the company plan.
U.S. Steel has made no effort to reimburse Medicare, the lawsuit says.
Brown is suing under a statute that allows private citizens to pursue claims on behalf of the United States. If he wins, he would receive up to 30 percent of the damages awarded to the government.
The lawsuit was filed in May. The case was sealed until this week to give the government time to decide whether it wanted to intervene. The government filed notice Tuesday that it won't become involved.
U.S. Steel spokeswoman Courtney Boone declined to comment.
Brown says in the lawsuit that he was injured in a work-related motor vehicle accident in 1981. He was advised by a company official in 1986 to take a disability retirement because U.S. Steel was closing its plant in Duquesne.
In 1992, company officials told him to enroll in Medicare Part B coverage because he no longer would be covered by the company's health plan, the lawsuit says. The Social Security Administration determined in 2005 that Brown had been improperly enrolled in Medicare and that the program had paid about $750,000 in claims that should have been paid by U.S. Steel's health plan, the lawsuit says.
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.