North Huntingdon doctor ruled competent to stand trial in 2 drug overdose deaths | TribLIVE.com
Westmoreland

North Huntingdon doctor ruled competent to stand trial in 2 drug overdose deaths

Renatta Signorini
1364933_web1_web-courts10

A former North Huntingdon doctor is competent to stand trial in connection with the 2016 drug overdose deaths of two patients, a Westmoreland County judge ruled Tuesday.

But the attorney for Michel Toret, 73, of Jeannette, doesn’t believe the case will go before a jury. Attorney Michael DeRiso said Toret plans to enter a guilty plea next week.

Toret is charged with drug delivery resulting in death and related offenses in connection with the fatal overdoses of Heather Dervin, 26, of North Huntingdon, and Glenn Morgan, 30, of Level Green.

DeRiso requested in March an evaluation of Toret after an apparent decline in the defendant’s mental condition since his arrest in December 2017. A report from that evaluation, dated May 8, showed that Toret was competent to stand trial, said Judge Meagan Bilik-DeFazio.

Investigators allege Toret overprescribed methadone, a drug given to heroin users to wean them from addiction, to Dervin, who died on Sept. 6, 2016. They also allege he overprescribed the painkiller oxymorphone to Morgan, who died on Oct. 10, 2016.

Those prescriptions were picked up and filled locally by Morgan’s family members, who then mailed the pills to him in Kansas, where he was working and later died, according to court papers.

Toret had practiced family medicine more than 40 years and voluntarily surrendered his medical license in November 2016 after authorities began investigating his prescribing practices. His license expired at the end of 2018, according to state records.

Renatta Signorini is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Renatta at 724-837-5374, [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: Local | Westmoreland
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.