[Ed note: we still plan on our Tax Day action!]

Since UPMC never made any agreement to keep Braddock Hospital open, residents opposed to its closing have no legal standing to reverse the health-care provider's Jan. 31 decision to shut it down.

That was the conclusion of Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Gene Strassburger in a court order dismissing an appeal brought by borough residents and a group called "Save Our Community Hospitals."

In his ruling, Judge Strassburger upheld UPMC's preliminary objections to the lawsuit seeking to force the reopening of the hospital.

He heard testimony on that appeal on March 25 and issued his ruling March 29.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10090/1046987-100.stm#ixzz0jqdAIiur

An Allegheny County judge wants to mediate a case concerning the reopening of UPMC Braddock hospital, but County Executive Dan Onorato is opposed to the idea, according to correspondence between Common Pleas Judge Gene Strassburger and attorneys for the county, UPMC and Braddock residents.

Judge Strassburger is presiding over two cases filed by a group of Braddock residents -- one against Allegheny County for offering tax-exempt bonds to the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and another against UPMC, aimed at forcing the hospital system to reopen the Braddock facility it closed on Jan. 31. The judge, in a March 2 letter, offered to consolidate both cases and preside over negotiations instead of proceeding to a trial.

"Please advise me as to whether the parties desire to: push ahead with litigation or let matters sit for a while or allow me to attempt to mediate the situation," Judge Strassburger wrote to lawyers representing the county, UPMC, and the residents group.

In a March 5 response, UPMC attorney John E. Hall said the hospital system would be willing to participate in those negotiations "if [Mr. Onorato] believes that the court can be helpful to facilitate a resolution."

But Mr. Onorato, through county Solicitor Mike Wojcik, declined the offer on the same day saying that "the county does not believe that a mediation could result in a resolution that would satisfy the interested parties."

Mr. Wojcik also objected to consolidating both cases before Judge Strassburger, saying they are substantively different cases.

Kevin Evanto, Mr. Onorato's spokesman, said the county would not involve itself in any mediation attempt between UPMC and Braddock residents and officials.

"We feel very strongly about our lawsuit. We are not a party to the other lawsuit, and so the mediation has to be between those two parties," said Mr. Evanto.

A group of Braddock residents and activists from surrounding communities have been engaged in a public relations and legal battle with UPMC since October, when the hospital system announced plans to close its hospital in the Mon Valley borough.

UPMC officials cited consistent drops in the number of area residents who used the hospital and annual losses of between $4 million and $12 million in operating it.

Since then, the hospital system has announced it will tear down the building -- possibly as early as June -- to allow the county to put together a redevelopment plan, which would see a private developer build a massive $24 million office complex on the site.

The complex would be subject to borough property taxes and would include housing for senior citizens, space for doctors' offices and classrooms for job training.

As part of that proposal, backed by Mr. Onorato, UPMC would pay about $5 million to tear down the building. It would offer the county $3 million, which would leverage another $3 million from the state for redevelopment, and pay $90,000 in lieu of wage taxes to Braddock for five years.

However, Braddock Council members, residents and members of the group Save Our Community Hospitals initially rejected the proposal, contending the county and UPMC never tried to recruit another health care provider to take over the facility and operate it as a hospital.

They say UPMC and the county are rushing to tear down the building to deny the borough any chance at another health care provider that would run it as a hospital.

But after a two-hour meeting with Mr. Onorato on Feb. 19, Braddock officials and opponents of the hospital closure said they had a better understanding of the proposal and would decide whether to support it this month.

Also in his letter, Mr. Hall told Judge Strassburger that UPMC never planned to tear down the building until "[Mr. Onorato] determined that building demolition and site redevelopment was the only feasible option."

"We stand willing and able to make an additional, substantial financial contribution in order to assist the Borough of Braddock and surrounding communities and are awaiting word from the County Executive and [Braddock] officials as to the final details," said Mr. Hall.

Allegheny County Councilman Charles P. McCullough, who is representing some Braddock officials and a number of residents and activists in both cases against the county and UPMC, contends that Mr. Onorato, by refusing to sit at the negotiation table, has become an obstacle for all parties involved.

"He has failed to lead and he refuses to stand with the people of Braddock. Instead, he is standing in the way of UPMC and the residents of Braddock who want an amicable solution," said Mr. McCullough.

Read more: http://www.postgazette.com/pg/10066/1040919-114.stm#ixzz0haJAVOsy

Originally published in the Thursday, February 18, 2010 edition of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Not so fast, UPMC

TIMOTHY MOLYNEAUX
Swissvale

Bottom-line values

MEL PACKER
Point Breeze

A group of Braddock residents and activists from neighboring areas, and the group Save Our Community Hospitals, this afternoon filed another suit against the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, challenging the hospital system's tax-exempt status and demanding that it re-open the Braddock hospital it closed last month.

"As tax-exempt charities, defendants' primary purpose is to provide hospital care (and in particular with respect to UPMC Braddock) for citizens of Braddock and neighboring communities. Their closing of Braddock hospital violates defendants' charitable purpose," stated the 80-page suit filed in Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas.

The plaintiffs, who are asking a judge to order the re-opening of the hospital, include Annette Baldwin, Linda J. White, Michelene C. Thomas, Delia Ann Lennon Winstead, Patricia A. Morgan, Virginia C. Eskridge, Michael Stout, and the group Save Our Community Hospitals, non-profit formed last year to fight the hospital's closure.

Representing the group is Allegheny County Councilman Charles P. McCullough, who, in a last-ditch effort tried to stop the hospital's closure last month through an emergency or temporary injunction, which was thrown out by Common Pleas Judge Gene Strassburger.

Unlike his last attempt, when he sought to stop the hospital's closure in his capacity as a county councilman, Mr. McCullough, R-Upper St. Clair, said he is simply the attorney of record this time.

"I'm not claiming standing here," Mr. McCullough said.

This suit, he added, is premised on the fact that UPMC, as a "quasi-public entity" because of its tax-exempt status, debt financing through county and state secured bonds, cannot arbitrarily close its hospital in a community like Braddock, where it primarily serves poor people who are predominantly black.

"[UPMC] cannot summarily destroy a hospital, which it holds in trust for the people," said Mr. McCullough, who is also asking for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to use its King's Bench power to take immediate jurisdiction over the case.

A common law phrase, King's Bench refers to a legal practice that dictates that the highest court in the land has the power to seize a case from a lower court and take it over, if it so chooses.

Meanwhile, Mr. McCullough has also appealed to Superior Court, Judge Strassburger's denial of an emergency injunction to stop the hospital's closure, in which he said UPMC's decision might have been unpopular, but not illegal.

Read original: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10048/1036556-100.stm#ixzz0fpTPvCqD

[Ed Note: These letters to the editor were published in the Tuesday, February 16, 2010 edition of the Tribune Review]

Reuse ideas questioned I

In reference to the news story "Allegheny County awaits Braddock response" (Feb. 11 and TribLIVE.com): There's a difference between being in the same room with county officials to give input and truly being a part of the process. When there are unequal amounts of power in a room, the process is often pointless from the get-go.

What was the point of participating in a $50,000 study of possible reuse of the Braddock hospital building if no one but UPMC and the county had access to the study before the final plan was presented? What was the point in having community input if no one from Braddock Council was in the room when the final plan was developed?

Those who believe that the residents of Braddock and their elected officials had equal input in the proposed plan for reuse of the building are like educators who fool themselves into thinking they have a democratic classroom because they encourage student discussion and input.

The working-class folks, poor folks and black folks of the Mon Valley aren't easily duped by the trappings of a democratic process. They are savvy enough to know who, in the end, makes up the final exam and determines the grades.

Jan McMannis

Braddock Hills

The writer is a member of Save Our Community Hospitals, a group protesting UPMC Braddock's closure.

Reuse ideas questioned II

When reading Tim Puko's news story "Allegheny County awaits Braddock response" (Feb. 11 and TribLIVE.com), I was surprised that the consultant's report lacked a proposal to utilize the former UPMC Braddock location as a long-term-care hospital.

All the proposed uses --- a MedExpress, a family clinic, a drug store and a convenience store -- would barely fill the first floor of the existing structure.

With the profitability of long-term care and the referral potential from the region, a long-term-care hospital would seem to be an ideal use of the entire space and an investor would need almost no renovation spending to convert the space to this use.

In addition to the potential profitability for a corporation and the employment potential for the residents of Braddock, this proposal also would continue the charitable intent of the Braddock hospital: the care of the ill and infirm.

Kathleen Cieply

McCandless

The writer is a student in the University of Pittsburgh School of Law's health law program.