PITTSBURGH – Two nursing home administrators have filed class action litigation versus their employer and two of its executives, claiming they collectively violated a state wage payment law in failing to make employee contributions to its health insurance provider, leading employees to lose their health care coverage and refused to provide remuneration for their payments.
Martin Maloney of Dubois and Brandy Reinhart of East Palestine, Ohio (on behalf of themselves and all others similarly-situated) filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Nov. 2 versus Bonamour Health Group, LLC, Shaya Zidele and Michael Zidele, all of Clairton.
“Upon information and belief, Bonamour had an agreement in 2023 with UPMC’s Health Plan, whereby UPMC agreed to provide health insurance to all eligible employees of Bonamour, so long as Bonamour made required premium and related payments to UPMC in order to keep the insurance in effect. Upon information and belief, Bonamour withheld and deducted a portion of the required UPMC premium on a bi-weekly basis from each eligible employee’s paycheck, with the promise and understanding that the withheld amounts would be remitted in a timely manner to UPMC to keep health insurance in effect,” the suit says.
“Consistent with Bonamour’s promises and representations, and in reliance on Bonamour’s promises and representations, plaintiff Reinhart, like all similarly situated employees, made employee contributions during her employment with Bonamour. These contributions amounted to $173.54 per paycheck. Consistent with Bonamour’s promises and representations, and in reliance on Bonamour’s promises and representations, plaintiff Maloney, like all similarly situated employees, made employee contributions during his employment with Bonamour. These contributions amounted to $311.54 per paycheck.”
The suit adds that “Bonamour, at the direction of the Zidele defendants, failed to make payments as required to UPMC, to whom payments were due at least for the months of April, May and June of 2023, and Bonamour deliberately failed to remit the employee contributions which they withheld from Bonamour’s employees.”
“Defendants did not advise Bonamour’s employees of these failures; nor did they pay or remit amounts to UPMC or advise Bonamour’s employees of the risk that they would lose health insurance coverage as a result of Bonamour’s failure. Instead, defendants remained silent. Nor did defendants obtain alternative health insurance coverage during at least April, May and June of 2023, and instead kept collecting bi-weekly employee contributions during the time of non-payment, and thereafter, upon information and belief. As a result of defendants’ failures to make timely payments or remit employee contributions to UPMC, UPMC terminated its agreement with Bonamour, and consequently ceased providing health insurance coverage to Bonamour’s employees,” the suit states.
“Bonamour continued to accept and deduct bi-weekly employee contributions from its employees even after UPMC terminated coverage, and even though Bonamour did not have alternative and promised health insurance coverage in place for its employees. Upon information and belief, and in addition to continuing to pay employee contributions that were then converted and/or misappropriated by Bonamour, Bonamour employees continued to seek medical care and services under the belief that UPMC insurance was still covering that care and those services. Those employees only learned of Bonamour’s failures when they received explanation of benefit forms from UPMC, months after the care or service was rendered, denying all claims for coverage because coverage had lapsed at the hands of Bonamour.”
The suit contends that “the termination of insurance coverage concealed by defendants wreaked havoc and threatened financial ruin to employees who sought medical care and services, believing they had insurance coverage as represented by Bonamour.”
The suit also mentions adverse situations which occurred as a result of the defendants’ alleged conduct:
• Plaintiff Reinhart, relying on her promised health care coverage, accrued almost $30,000 in medical debt. Her minor son, who (but for Bonamour’s conduct) would normally have been covered by her insurance, had major surgery in May 2023. The surgery itself cost nearly $10,000, and she incurred additional costs from follow-up appointments, physical therapy and other necessary care;
• Plaintiff Maloney, along with his wife, accrued approximately $8,000 in medical expenses, which would have been covered by insurance but for Bonamour’s conduct;
• One employee’s husband received an organ transplant with multiple stents. That care has not been covered by insurance because of Bonamour’s conduct;
• Another employee gave birth and had to be hospitalized while her newborn remained in the neonatal intensive care unit. That care has not been covered by insurance because of Bonamour’s conduct;
• Yet another employee is currently pregnant, and received obstetric and gynecological care that should have been covered, but was not because of Bonamour’s conduct.
“Even after being confronted with their failures, defendants (and in particular, defendant Shaya Zidele) either ignored employee requests for information, or rationalized/represented to employees that the lapse in coverage was ‘just a glitch,’ that there was ‘nothing to worry about,’ and that the situation would be resolved by defendants, all while defendants continued to deduct and withhold employee contributions. After such statements were made to plaintiff Reinhart, and she attempted to follow up, defendant Shaya Zidele stopped replying. The lapse in coverage and the damage caused to employees was not resolved, nor were refunds for employee contributions issued,” the suit says.
For counts of conversion, misappropriation, violating the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, breach of contract, fraud and misrepresentation, the plaintiffs are seeking, jointly and severally, damages exceeding the jurisdictional limit of the Court, plus interest, costs, counsel fees, punitive damages and such other relief as deemed appropriate by the Court.
The plaintiffs are represented by Frank G. Salpietro and Angela M. Harrod of Rothman Gordon, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants have not yet obtained legal counsel.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-012691
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com