ShareThis Page
UPMC answers West Penn’s amended complaint |

UPMC answers West Penn’s amended complaint

Brian Bowling
| Tuesday, June 12, 2012 3:12 p.m

UPMC mostly agrees with West Penn Allegheny Health System’s recitation of the various mergers and contracts it has negotiated over the years but denies, in a federal court document filed today, the interpretation its competitor places on those actions.

“By way of further response, UPMC states that it competes vigorously with West Penn Allegheny and other competitors, but denies that it does so in an unlawful manner,” UPMC said.

West Penn Allegheny claims in its 3-year-old antitrust lawsuit that UPMC has “used various predatory tactics to advance its scheme to crush” the health care system. The lawsuit originally claimed there was a conspiracy between UPMC and Highmark Inc. to drive West Penn Allegheny out of business, but West Penn Allegheny dropped Highmark from the lawsuit after the insurer agreed to buy the struggling health care system.

UPMC, in the answer filed today, includes a counterclaim that the agreement for Highmark to take over West Penn is just the latest in a series of antitrust moves by Highmark and West Penn Allegheny to keep other insurers from entering Western Pennsylvania’s market. UPMC filed a separate lawsuit against Highmark in May making the same allegations.

UPMC and Highmark have agreed to drop all the lawsuits once Highmark completes its acquisition of West Penn Allegheny, but West Penn Allegheny contends that Highmark can’t force it to drop its lawsuit even after the merger is completed.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.