Lansing Mercy Ambulance Service v. TCEMCA
| Decision Date | 31 July 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 5:93:CV:25.,5:93:CV:25. |
| Citation | 893 F. Supp. 1337 |
| Parties | LANSING MERCY AMBULANCE SERVICE, a Michigan corporation; Rodney E. Palmer; Charlene Palmer; and Ted Spencer; Plaintiffs, v. TRI-COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL CONTROL AUTHORITY, INC.; Clinton Memorial Hospital, Inc.; Eaton Rapids Community Hospital, Inc.; Hayes-Green-Beach Hospital, Inc.; Ingham Medical Center, Inc.; Lansing General Hospital; Michigan Affiliated Health-Care System, Inc.; St. Lawrence Hospital, Inc.; Sparrow Hospital, Inc.; Vernice David Anthony, Director; and Michigan Department of Public Health, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Richard A. Cascarilla, Lansing, MI, Robert L. Fitzke, East Lansing, MI, for plaintiffs Lansing Mercy Ambulance Service, Inc., a Mich. Corp., Rodney E. Palmer, Charlene Palmer, Ted Spencer.
Gregory G. Drutchas, Kitch, Saurbier, Drutchas & Wagner, Detroit, MI, John P. Ryan, Kitch, Saurbier, Drutchas & Wagner, Lansing, MI, for defendant Tri-County Emergency Medical Control Authority, Inc., St. Lawrence Hosp., Inc., Sparrow Hosp. Inc., Clinton Memorial Hosp., Inc., Eaton Rapids Community Hosp., Inc., Hayes-Green-Beach Hosp., Inc.
Paul M. Oleniczak, Kay L. Griffith, Hammond, Smith, Haughey, Rice & Roegge, PC, Grand Rapids, MI John P. Ryan, Kitch, Saurbier, Drutchas & Wagner, Lansing, MI, for defendants Ingham Medical Center, Inc., Lansing Gen. Hosp., Michigan Affiliated Healthcare System, Inc.
Robert J. Taube, Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Public Health Div., Lansing, MI, for defendants Vernice Davis Anthony, Dir., Michigan Dept. of Public Health.
This matter is before the Court on the motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiffs and the cross-motion for summary judgment filed by the Tri-County Emergency Medical Control Authority and the seven defendant hospitals. Also remaining before the Court are a motion for misjoinder filed by the defendant hospitals and a motion for dismissal filed by defendant Vernice Davis Anthony, director of the Michigan Department of Public Health (MDPH).
On July 29, 1993, this Court issued an Order certifying five pivotal questions to the Michigan Supreme Court, recognizing that resolution of those issues could potentially render it unnecessary for this Court to address the federal questions raised in the case. On October 8, 1993, the parties filed a Joint Statement of Facts with the Michigan Supreme Court and this Court relative to the certified questions. On March 23, 1994, the Michigan Supreme Court declined the request to answer the certified questions.
A hearing relating to the various motions was held on March 30, 1995, providing the parties with an opportunity to present oral arguments in favor of their positions and directed at issues raised by this Court. The parties also were permitted to submit post-hearing briefs to expand on their arguments at the hearing and to respond to arguments raised by other parties.
This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief filed by plaintiffs Lansing Mercy Ambulance Service, Inc. ("LMAS"), Rodney E. Palmer, Charlene Palmer, and Ted Spencer challenging the provisions of the Emergency Medical Services ("EMS") part of the Michigan Public Health Code, Michigan Compiled Laws § 333.20901.20979, and the rules, regulations, and protocols issued and enforced pursuant to the statute, as being passed in a manner violative of Michigan statutes, the Michigan Constitution, and the United States Constitution. The federal claims are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which permits private suits in law or equity against persons who, under color of state law, ordinance, or regulation, cause a person to be subjected to a deprivation of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. See Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979).
LMAS's services are not limited to any specific political boundaries within Michigan. LMAS serves Ingham, Eaton, and Clinton counties, as well as the City of Hastings in Barry County. As a licensee under the EMS provisions of the Code, LMAS is subject to the protocols adopted thereunder. The individual plaintiffs are officers and/or stockholders of LMAS.
The defendants in this action are: the Tri-County Emergency Medical Control Authority ("TCEMCA"), a local medical control authority for Ingham, Eaton, and Clinton counties, designated by the Michigan Department of Public Health ("MDPH") pursuant to the EMS provisions of the Code; seven hospitals which are participating members of the TCEMCA; and Vernice Davis Anthony, Director of the MDPH, in her official capacity.2
The parties agree that, pursuant to the EMS statute, the MDPH is charged under the Act with the responsibility for developing, coordinating and administering a statewide EMS system. The MDPH is required by the Act to designate a medical control authority for each county or, if appropriate, for part of a county or for more than one county ("LMCAs"). The LMCAs must be comprised of representatives of each type of emergency medical services provider and personnel functioning within the LMCA's boundaries.
The Act permits, but does not require, hospitals in the area covered by a LMCA to participate in "the ongoing planning and development activities" of the LMCA. Also, the Act provides that the participating hospitals shall "administer the LMCA." The hospitals also are mandated to appoint an LMCA advisory body and, with that body's advice, to appoint a physician, who practices or is board certified in emergency medicine, as the medical director of the LMCA. The advisory body must include, at a minimum, representatives of each kind of EMS provider and worker in the local boundaries.
Life support agencies and individuals licensed under the Act are accountable to the LMCA in the provision of EMS. The LMCA, pursuant to the Act, must establish written protocols for the practice of life support agencies and licensed EMS personnel in its region. Such protocols must be developed and adopted in accordance with procedures established by the MDPH, including circulation of proposed protocols to all significantly affected persons within the EMS system served by the LMCA, as well as submission of a written draft to the MDPH for approval. Although MDPH consideration of proposed protocols expressly is to review such proposals for consistency with protocols in other regions as part of its duty to coordinate a statewide EMS system, the notice requirements reveal that the MDPH review is also to be based upon the concerns expressed by affected persons within the region served by the LMCA. In post-hearing brief, defendants provided many letters and inquiries from the MDPH mentioning various concerns relating to proposed protocols.
Once approved, the LMCA may formally adopt and implement the protocols. Once the protocols are formally adopted and implemented, the LMCA is authorized to require life support agencies within its region to meet reasonable additional standards for equipment and personnel that may be more stringent than are otherwise required under the EMS provisions of the Code.
The Act provides that an affected person has a right to appeal decisions to the LMCA; and after exhausting such appeal may apply to the MDPH for a variance from the LMCA decision. With respect to such a request, the LMCA must make available the medical and economic information it considered in making its decision. The MDPH, in determining whether to grant a variance, must review the information and issue its own findings in writing. The MDPH may grant a variance if it determines that it is appropriate in order to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
The EMS provisions of the Code also created an EMS coordination committee with 25 voting members, which meets at least twice per year at meetings subject to the Michigan Open Meetings Act, Michigan Compiled Laws § 15.261. The committee's role is to act as a liaison between organizations and individuals involved in the EMS system, as well as providing MDPH with advisory recommendations on appeals of LMCA decisions.
TCEMCA was designated by MDPH as an authorized LMCA for Ingham, Eaton, and Clinton counties. TCEMCA's predecessor was Tri-County Emergency Medical Services Council, which was incorporated in 1970 pursuant to earlier Code provisions.
TCEMCA is organized as a non-profit corporation under Michigan law. It is governed by a board of directors, normally comprised of 12 to 14 members and 2 non-voting members. The by-laws for TCEMCA authorize the board to include the executive officers, or their designees, of the seven participating hospitals in the region; 3 authorized agency members from the agencies providing basic, limited advanced, or advanced mobile emergency care vehicles; 2 representatives from other health facilities or agencies such as clinical laboratories or nursing homes; 2 members representing consumers; and 2 non-voting members: the TCEMCA medical director and the TCEMCA coordinator.
Although the hospitals each have a representative on the TCEMCA board, the hospitals themselves do not otherwise participate in the administration of the TCEMCA, which is a totally separate and distinct entity from the hospitals in the region.
In 1991, 1992, and 1993, the TCEMCA assessed and collected agency participation fees from plaintiff LMAS. Defendants contend that "voluntary participation fees are collected by TCEMCA." Plaintiffs note that whether the fees levied were paid by plaintiffs voluntarily is not currently before this Court; only the question of whether a LMCA has authority to levy such fees is at issue.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief in this action, not damages.3 First, they seek a declaratory judgment that the delegation of governmental authority to the private entities that comprise the LMCAs violate the Fourteenth Amendment by wrongfully allowing plaintiffs' business to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seals v. Wayne Cnty.
...Plaintiff's claim as a Federal due process cause of action would be effective. See Lansing Mercy Ambulance Serv. v. Tri-Cty. Emergency Med. Control Auth., Inc., 893 F. Supp. 1337, 1347 (W.D. Mich. 1995) ("The violation of the Michigan Constitution doesnot also independently violate federal ......
-
LITIGATING IMPERFECT SOLUTIONS: STATE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS IN FEDERAL COURT.
...U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14654, at *7 (E.D. Pa. July 29,2004); Lansing Mercy Ambulance Serv. v. Tri-Cnty. Emergency Med. Cont. Auth., Inc., 893 F. Supp. 1337, 1348 (W.D. Mich. 1995); see also Patel v. City of Los Angeles, No. 2:13-CV-09358-SVW-AS, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196990, at *7 (CD. Cal. Sept.......