Pittsburgh-based UPMC has asked a judge to enforce a written version of the verbal agreement it reached in principle with Highmark last month — not Highmark's version that would "muzzle" UPMC in another lawsuit it faces — according to a Pittsburgh Business Times report.
In October, UPMC and Highmark agreed on a settlement that would bring an end to a four-year antitrust case between the two. One week later, that agreement hit some snags when Highmark proposed a clause in the agreement to guarantee UPMC would not characterize Highmark as a monopolist in litigation brought by others, including a pending lawsuit.
In that lawsuit — coined "The Royal Mile case" after one of the plaintiffs, property firm Royal Mile — four plaintiffs are accusing UPMC and Highmark of colluding to increase their rates.
UPMC argued in a federal court motion filed yesterday that "Highmark wants nothing more than to muzzle UPMC, a knowledgeable market participant," according to the report. The system asked U.S. District Court Judge Joy Flowers Conti to enforce the agreement reached in October without the added provision.
Highmark spokesperson Aaron Billger had no immediate comment for the Pittsburgh Business Times on the motion, according to the report.
More Articles on UPMC and Highmark:
UPMC, Highmark's Tentative Settlement on the Rocks
UPMC, Highmark Reach Tentative Agreement to End 4-Year Antitrust Fight
Lawmakers Craft Bills to Force UPMC, Highmark Resolution