ShareThis Page
News

Hospital seeks to have lawsuit over disability claim removed

| Monday, May 14, 2012, 10:33 a.m.

Attorneys for Latrobe Area Hospital have filed papers to move a lawsuit filed in Westmoreland County Court over a long-term disability claim to federal court.

Notice to remove Phyllis G. Murray's civil action from county court was filed last week in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh.

Murray, of Mt. Pleasant RD1, is seeking $82,294.80 in disability benefits for a period from March 19, 1999, to Jan. 2, 2011. She also is asking the court to assess interest penalties, punitive damages and costs against the hospital's insurance carrier, ITT Hartford Life Insurance Co., based in Hartford, Conn.

Murray contends in her complaint filed in June in county court that the hospital and ITT Hartford wrongfully terminated her disability benefits on March 19, 1999.

Hartford and the hospital claim that Murray's payments were stopped because she failed to attend a required examination and to submit proof that she would be 'continuously disabled,' according to Murray's complaint.

Murray disputes those claims, saying the examination is not required under the terms of the related insurance policy, and that she submitted medical proof about physical limitations related to her lungs, according to court papers.

'At all times Murray has been able to maintain that she is totally and completely disabled from her own occupation as well as any occupation,' the complaint states.

Murray worked for the hospital until Oct. 21, 1996, in a job not specified in her civil action.

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.

click me