Med-Trans of Connecticut, Inc. v. Department of Public Health and Addiction Services, MED-TRANS

Citation242 Conn. 152,699 A.2d 142
Decision Date29 July 1997
Docket NumberNo. 15626,MED-TRANS,15626
PartiesOF CONNECTICUT, INC., et al. v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ADDICTION SERVICES et al.
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

Jefferson J. Mirman, with whom was John E. Shaffer, Farmington, for appellant (named plaintiff).

Patricia A. Gerner, Assistant Attorney General, with whom were Felicia R. Suggs, Assistant Attorney General, and, on the brief, Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, and Richard J. Lynch, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee (named defendant).

Hugh I. Manke, with whom, on the brief, were John F. Wolter and Christopher L. Brigham, New Haven, for appellee (defendant Access Ambulance Company, Inc.).

Before BORDEN, BERDON, KATZ, PALMER and McDONALD, JJ.

McDONALD, Associate Justice.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court properly determined that the named plaintiff, Med-Trans of Connecticut, Inc., 1 lacks standing to appeal from the decision of the department of public health and addiction services, office of emergency medical services (department), 2 granting Access Ambulance Company, Inc. (Access), a license to provide ambulance services in Stamford and Greenwich. The named plaintiff and Danbury-Nelson Ambulance Services, Inc. (Danbury-Nelson), alleging that they each hold a license to provide such services in Fairfield County, appealed from the department's decision to the Superior Court. 3 The defendants, the department and Access, each filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' appeal. The trial court found that the plaintiff and Danbury-Nelson were not aggrieved by the department's decision and rendered judgment dismissing the appeal. The plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199(c). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The relevant, undisputed facts are as follows. Pursuant to General Statutes § 19a-178, 4 the department is responsible for the licensing and certification of ambulance services. The plaintiff is a licensed emergency medical service operator providing emergency medical services as well as nonemergency ambulance and invalid coach transport throughout Fairfield County. On December 6, 1994, pursuant to General Statutes § 19a-180 (a), 5 Access applied to the department requesting a license to operate a new ambulance service in Stamford and Greenwich with a branch office, three ambulances and an invalid coach. The application was referred to the Southwestern Connecticut Emergency Services Council, Inc., which recommended its approval.

The department then held a public hearing on the application, at which the plaintiff and Danbury-Nelson submitted requests to be afforded party status in the proceedings because Access' proposed services "would be in direct competition with those services provided by [them]." The hearing officer denied the requests for party status, but did grant both the plaintiff and Danbury-Nelson intervenor status. After hearings at which the plaintiff and Danbury-Nelson participated, the department granted Access' application.

The plaintiff and Danbury-Nelson appealed from that decision to the Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes §§ 19a-180 (c) and 4-183(a). 6 The plaintiff and Danbury-Nelson alleged, inter alia, that they improperly had been denied party status by the department because "[a]s direct competitors of [Access], the granting of a license to Access will cause a dilution and a diminuti[on] of the existing licenses held by [them]." The plaintiff and Danbury-Nelson further alleged that the hearing officer and the department improperly concluded that Access had demonstrated the need for its proposed service, that health care facilities in Stamford and Greenwich had experienced response delays in nonemergency service calls from existing providers, and that Access' proposed service would improve response times and be more cost effective. Finally, the plaintiff and Danbury-Nelson alleged that "[a]s direct competitors of Access, [they] will be adversely affect[ed] by the granting of Access' application. In addition, having been issued licenses based upon need and necessity, the value of [their] licenses ... and the transferability of these licenses, are diminished by the guaranty of Access' application. [The plaintiff] and Danbury[-Nelson] are therefore aggrieved by the [department's] Final Decision granting Access' application."

The trial court found that the interests of the plaintiff and Danbury-Nelson in the department's decision derive solely from the fact that they are existing ambulance companies in the area where Access would be operating. The court found, therefore, that "[t]he injury that [the plaintiff and Danbury-Nelson] would suffer as a result of the decision would be to their business interests--their profits would suffer because of increased competition for nonemergency ambulance business in the area." The court concluded that, because § 19a-180 (a) requires the department, in reviewing an application, to determine only the public necessity for such services, and does not require the department to consider the effects on competition, the interests of the plaintiff and Danbury-Nelson were not at stake in the department's decision. The court determined, therefore, that the plaintiff and Danbury-Nelson were not aggrieved by the department's final decision granting Access' application and that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the their appeal. Accordingly, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss. This appeal followed.

An appeal from an administrative decision of the department is governed by § 19a-180 (c) and the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA). General Statutes §§ 4-166 through 4-189. Section 19a-180 (c) provides: "Any person or emergency medical service organization aggrieved by an act or decision of the Office of Emergency Medical Services regarding certification or licensure may appeal in the manner provided by [the UAPA]."

"Pleading and proof of aggrievement are prerequisites to a trial court's jurisdiction over the subject matter of an administrative appeal. Bakelaar v. West Haven, 193 Conn. 59, 65, 475 A.2d 283 (1984). It is [therefore] fundamental that, in order to have standing to bring an administrative appeal, a person must be aggrieved. Connecticut Business & Industries Assn., Inc. v. Commission on Hospitals & Health Care, 214 Conn. 726, 729, 573 A.2d 736 (1990); Beckish v. Manafort, 175 Conn. 415, 419, 399 A.2d 1274 (1978).... Light Rigging Co. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 219 Conn. 168, 172, 592 A.2d 386 (1991).

"The test for aggrievement long recognized by this court is set forth in our decision in State Medical Society v. Board of Examiners in Podiatry, 203 Conn. 295, 524 A.2d 636 (1987). There we stated that [t]he fundamental test for determining aggrievement encompasses a well-settled twofold determination: first, the party claiming aggrievement must successfully demonstrate a specific personal and legal interest in the subject matter of the decision, as distinguished from a general interest, such as is the concern of all members of the community as a whole. Second, the party claiming aggrievement must successfully establish that this specific personal and legal interest has been specially and injuriously affected by the decision.... Cannavo Enterprises, Inc. v. Burns, 194 Conn. 43, 47, 478 A.2d 601 (1984); Bakelaar v. West Haven, [supra, 193 Conn. at 65, 475 A.2d 283]. Aggrievement is established if there is a possibility, as distinguished from a certainty, that some legally protected interest ... has been adversely affected. O'Leary v. McGuinness, 140 Conn. 80, 83, 98 A.2d 660 (1953). Hall v. Planning Commission, 181 Conn. 442, 445, 435 A.2d 975 (1980).... Id., [at] 299-300, . The determination of aggrievement presents a question of fact for the trial court and a plaintiff has the burden of proving that fact. Mystic Marinelife Aquarium, Inc. v. Gill, 175 Conn. 483, 493, 400 A.2d 726 (1978)." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) United Cable Television Services Corp. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 235 Conn. 334, 342-43, 663 A.2d 1011 (1995).

The second prong of the aggrievement test requires the plaintiff to "demonstrate that its asserted interest has been specially and injuriously affected in a way that is cognizable by law. See State Medical Society v. Board of Examiners in Podiatry, supra, 203 Conn. [at] 300-301, ." United Cable Television Services Corp. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, supra, 235 Conn. at 343, 663 A.2d 1011. "[I]n considering whether a plaintiff's interest has been injuriously affected by [an administrative decision], we have looked to whether 'the injury he complains of (his aggrievement, or the adverse effect upon him) falls within the zone of interests sought to be protected by the statutory provision whose violation forms the legal basis for [its] complaint.' ... Air Courier Conference v. Postal Workers, 498 U.S. 517, 523, 111 S.Ct. 913 , 112 L.Ed.2d 1125 (1991), citing Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871, 883, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 3186, 111 L. Ed.2d 695 (1990)." United Cable Television Services Corp. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, supra, at 344-45, 663 A.2d 1011.

"Standing concerns the question whether the interest sought to be protected by the complainant is arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question. [Assn. of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153, 90 S.Ct. 827, 829-30, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970) ]; Ducharme v. Putnam, 161 Conn. 135, 139, 285 A.2d 318 (1971); Maloney v. Pac, 183 Conn. 313, 320-21, 439 A.2d 349 (1981).... State v. Nardini, 187 Conn. 109, 113, 445 A.2d 304 (1982); Mystic Marinelife Aquarium, Inc....

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 cases
  • Lewis v. Swan, 16315
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 11 de agosto de 1998
    ...126, 627 A.2d 1257 (1993)...." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Med-Trans of Conn., Inc. v. Dept. of Public Health & Addiction Services, 242 Conn. 152, 160, 699 A.2d 142 (1997). The zone of interests test was articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Assn. of Da......
  • St. George v. Gordon
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 1 de julho de 2003
    ...guarantee in question." (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Med-Trans of Connecticut, Inc. v. Dept. of Public Health & Addiction Services, 242 Conn. 152, 160, 699 A.2d 142 (1997); State v. Nardini, 187 Conn. 109, 113, 445 A.2d 304 (1982); Mystic Marinelife Aquarium, Inc. v. ......
  • O'Brien v. O'Brien
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 16 de outubro de 2012
    ...and injuriously affected by the decision....” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Med–Trans of Connecticut, Inc. v. Dept. of Public Health & Addiction Services, 242 Conn. 152, 158–59, 699 A.2d 142 (1997). The court's clarification benefitted the plaintiff. He therefore is not aggrieved, and......
  • Cambodian Buddhist v. Planning and Zoning
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 12 de fevereiro de 2008
    ...is arguably protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee)... Med-Trans of Connecticut, Inc. v. Dept. of Public Health & Addiction Services, 242 Conn. 152, 160, 699 A.2d 142 (1997); see also United Cable Television Services Corp. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 235 C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT