UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - mlivemedia.mlive.com/saginawnews_impact/other/STAT EMS Complaint.pdf · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN . STAT Emergency

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

STAT Emergency Medical Service, Inc, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. Hon. SAGINAW VALLEY MEDICAL CONTROL AUTHORITY, DR. NOEL WAGNER, M.D., ERIC SNIDERSICH, EDWARD BRUFF, Individually and as a Director of the SAGINAW VALLEY MEDICAL CONTROL AUTHORITY, RICK OHLE, Individually and as a Director of the SAGINAW VALLEY MEDICAL CONTROL AUTHORITY, JEAN ANTHONY, Individually and as a Director of the SAGINAW VALLEY MEDICAL CONTROL AUTHORITY, JOSHUA SALANDER, Individually and as a Director of the SAGINAW VALLEY MEDICAL CONTROL AUTHORITY, Defendants. ____________________________/ BLANCO WILCZYNSKI, P.L.L.C. ORLANDO L. BLANCO (P34480) DEREK S. WILCZYNSKI (P57079) Attorneys for Plaintiffs 2095 E. Big Beaver Road, Suite 400 Troy, MI 48083 248.519.9000 ____________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND

COMPENSATORY DAMAGES PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. SEC. 1983

NOW COMES the above-named Plaintiff, STAT Emergency Medical Service, Inc

(hereinafter “STAT”), by and through its attorneys, BLANCO WILCZYNSKI, P.L.L.C.,

2:13-cv-14960-GCS-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 12/06/13 Pg 1 of 36 Pg ID 1

2

and for its Complaint for Injunctive Relief, Declaratory Judgment, and Compensatory

Damages, states as follows:

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1. This is a Complaint for Injunctive Relief, Declaratory Judgment, and

Compensatory Damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 to preclude the Saginaw Valley

Medical Control Authority (hereinafter the “SVMCA”) from denying STAT, a Michigan

licensed ambulance provider, from providing ambulance services to patients and

customers, such as patients of Health Plus, the Saginaw County Community Mental

Health Authority, and Birch Run Township, in the SVMCA geographic service area

without due process and in restraint of trade, and from refusing STAT Medical Control

Privileges within SVMCA’S geographic service area.

2. STAT is a nationally accredited ambulance company (through the

Commission on Accreditation of Ambulance Services (“CAAS”)), licensed by the

Michigan Department of Community Health (“MDCH”) as a life support agency with its

principal place of business located in Flint, Michigan, in Genesee County. STAT

provides emergency medical services, including 911 primary emergency response,

response for emergency assistance, mutual aid, patient transfers and interfacility

transports within the State of Michigan. (See Affidavit of STAT Chief Operating Officer

and Vice President, Joe Karlichek, attached as Ex. 1).

3. STAT has been licensed as a Life Support Agency by the State of Michigan

since 2001. Its current license authorizes STAT to provide Advanced Life Support

(“ALS”) in Michigan. (See Ex. 1).

4. Defendant, Edward Bruff, is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the

Saginaw Valley Medical Control Authority, as well as the Chief Operating Officer of


3

Covenant Hospital. Upon information and belief, Bruff is on the Board of Directors for

of Mobile Medical Response (“MMR”), which is the only ambulance service currently

allowed to operate in Saginaw County by the SVMCA.

5. Defendant, Rick Ohle, is a member of the Board of Directors of the

Saginaw Valley Medical Control Authority.

6. Defendant, Jean Anthony, is a member of the Board of Directors of the

Saginaw Valley Medical Control Authority.

7. Defendant, Joshua Salander, was a member of the Board of Directors of

the Saginaw Valley Medical Control Authority at all times pertinent to the violations

outlined in this Complaint.

8. Defendant, Dr. Noel Wagner, is the Medical Director for the Saginaw

Valley Medical Control Authority.

9. Defendant, Eric Snidersich, is the EMS Manager for the Saginaw Valley

Medical Control Authority.

10. Defendant, the Saginaw Valley Medical Control Authority, is the local

medical control authority for the geographic service area covering Saginaw County and

Birch Run Township.

11. The Michigan Public Health Code 1978 P.A. 368 M.C.L. 333.1101 et. seq.

(“the Code”) protects the public health and provides for the regulation of health services

and activities. Part 209 of the Code titled as the “Emergency Medical Services Act”

(“EMSA”), regulates ambulances and prehospital care in Michigan. MCL 333.20901 et.

seq.

12. Pursuant to Section 20902(5) of the EMSA, an “ambulance operation” is

defined as “a person licensed under this part to provide emergency medical services


4

and patient transport, for profit or otherwise.” MCL333.20902(5). The EMSA does

not in any way limit or restrict the geographic service area in which a licensed

ambulance service may provide services in Michigan.

13. The Michigan Department of Community Health (“MDCH”) licenses

ambulance operations and coordinates and administers a state-wide emergency system

in Michigan. MCL 333.20910(1)(e)(ii). Local Medical Control Authorities (“MCAs”) are

created by statute and are given well-defined authority to supervise emergency medical

services in designated geographic regions called “geographic service areas”. MCL

333.20918(1)(2). In order to implement emergency medical services in their geographic

regions, MCAs are required to submit written drafts of proposed protocols to the MDCH

for review and approval prior to adoption and implementation. MCL 333.20919(1),

333.10919(3)(a)-(b). An MCA’s authority is limited by statute. An MCA has no

authority over licensure matters, may not add conditions of licensure to those

mandated by statute, and shall sign a life support agency’s application for medical

control privileges pursuant to R325.22205(2).

14. As a Licensed Life Support Agency, STAT functions under the supervision

of its designated Medical Control Authority, Genesee County Medical Control Authority

(“GCMCA”), but is authorized by law to provide ambulance services outside of the

GCMCA geographic serviced area and in accordance with state law, local protocols and

consistent with accepted ambulance operations throughout the State of Michigan.

15. The SVMCA is the Medical Control Authority designated as part of a

statewide emergency medical services system to supervise emergency medical services

in the designated geographic service region consisting of all of Saginaw County,

pursuant to the provisions of the EMSA. MCL 333.20918(1).


5

16. For years, STAT has provided ambulance response services to patients,

medical facilities and providers within its geographic service area and throughout the

State of Michigan.

17. In November of 2011, STAT applied for medical control privileges within

the SVMCA geographic service area and submitted all statutorily required materials for

approval.

18. Since November of 2011, Defendants have unlawfully and without any Due

Process, denied patients, medical facilities and providers, the right to use STAT EMS to

perform ambulance transports originating in the SVMCA’s geographic service region.

19. This Court has jurisdiction because this case involves violations of STAT’s

constitutional rights to Due Process and Equal Protection under the Fourteenth

Amendment of the United States Constitution and a “taking” in violation of the Fifth

Amendment of the United States Constitution, and also includes a claim for damages in

excess of $75,000 brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 US 137, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 61 L.Ed. 2d 433

(1979).

20. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and

1343(a)(3) because the issues raise a federal question pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Jurisdiction for the declaratory relief sought is also proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

2201 and 2202. Venue is appropriate in this forum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).


6

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

21. STAT has been a licensed ambulance provider in the State of Michigan

since 2001 authorized to provide ALS, including but not limited to, responding to calls

for emergency assistance within the GCMCA and providing 911 priority emergency

response in Fenton City. (Ex. 1).

22. STAT currently provides 911 primary emergency response in Genesee

County.

23. STAT currently has business relationships with various hospitals, medical

providers, health insurers, and facilities to provide ambulance service, including ALS,

emergency response assistance and ambulance transport of both emergency and non-

emergency patients to and from medical facilities. For example, STAT has a contractual

relationship with Health Plus of Michigan to provide ambulance transport service to

Health Plus partners in six counties, including Saginaw County. Because STAT has been

unlawfully denied medical control privileges to operate within the SVMCA, STAT has

been unjustly precluded from performing contracted for services for Health Plus in

Saginaw. (Ex. 2). In addition, STAT has a relationship with the Saginaw County

Community Mental Health Authority to provide ambulance transport services in

Saginaw County. (Ex. 3). Birch Run Township in Saginaw County has also expressed

its desire to use STAT’s services in Saginaw County to provide 911 response to its

community. (Ex. 4).

24. Since November of 2011, STAT EMS has been wrongfully and illegally

prevented by Defendants from operating as an ambulance service in areas governed by

the SVMCA, despite meeting requirements for medical control privileges within the

SVMCA’s region.


7

25. In November of 2011, STAT applied to the SVMCA for medical control

privileges to operate in its geographic service area in accordance with state statutory

requirements. (See, Ex. 5). On December 8, 2011, the SVMCA sent a letter to STAT

requesting additional information. (Ex. 6). By way of example, the SVMCA asked for

more information from STAT regarding the “geographic response area” to be covered by

STAT. On December 8, 2011, STAT sent a response letter addressing all areas of

concern. (Ex. 7).

26. On February 26, 2012, STAT sent an email to Eric Snidersich, the SVMCA

EMS Manager, asking for a status update as to the application and when the inspection

of its facilities would occur. (Ex. 8). On February 27, 2012, Mr. Snidersich sent an

email response advising STAT that the SVMCA Board had requested that the SVMCA

move forward with the agency inspection. (Ex.9). On February 28, 2012, the SVMCA

sent STAT EMS a letter notifying it of the onsite inspection, to occur within 60 days of

“verification of the application.” (Ex.10).

27. On March 20, 2012, the SVMCA conducted an onsite agency visit to

STAT’s facility, in which “no deficiencies were noted and that the SVMCA offices of the

medical director were reported a ‘satisfactory’ score to our Board of Directors.” (Ex.

11).

28. However, despite passing the onsite inspection, on June 8, 2012, STAT

received a letter from Dr. Noel Wagner, stating that the SVMCA Board of Directors had

met on June 6, 2012 and denied STAT’s Application. According to Dr. Wagner, the

reasons for the denial were:

1. Emergency service requirements are currently being met in the proposed area. Response time analysis, clinical indicators, and lack of negative pre-hospital incident reports were all considered.


8

2. The application did not establish a need through an acceptable

survey/assessment or empirical evidence. 3. The potential for growth in the area is not substantial enough to support

the level of service being proposed. 4. Rural community EMS response relies on an economy of scale from higher

volume areas and thus transferring a fixed volume and reimbursement to another provider will negatively impact all communities by increasing cost per call to each agency.

5. A mutual aid agreement with a similarly capable, contiguous, and

approved SVMCA agency was not presented. 6. The service area was not properly defined. The application addresses the

Birch Run Community but does not delineate between the Township and Village. (See, Ex. 12).

Furthermore, Board Member Bruff identified himself as having a conflict of

interest due to his affiliation as a Board Member of Covenant Health and MMR,

refrained from voting on the issue, but nonetheless voiced his opinion against STAT’s

application.

29. On June 28, 2012, pursuant to the Administrative Rules established by the

MDCH, STAT filed an Allegation/Complaint Form with the State of Michigan

Department of Community Health, Emergency Medical Services & Trauma Systems

Section, (“EMS Section”) disputing as non-meritorious each of the six bases for denial of

STAT’s Application and requesting a Denial Justification Review (“DJR”) by the MDCH.

R325.22101-R325.22217. (See, Ex. 13).

30. On July 17, 2012, Robin Shivley, Crime Victims, EMS & Trauma Systems

Division Director (“EMS Division”), sent a letter to counsel for STAT EMS requesting

certain information. (Ex. 14). STAT’s legal counsel provided this information to Ms.


9

Shivley on August 14, 2012. (Ex. 15). In accordance with MDCH Administrative Rules,

the EMS Division conducted a DJR of the SVMCA’s denial of STAT’s application and

concluded that the SVMCA had improperly denied STAT the right to operate in the

SVMCA’s geographic service area and also concluded that the SVMCA’s denial was

fraught with conflict of interest. (Ex.16).

31. On April 9, 2013, after completing the DJR Ms. Shivley sent a letter to the

SVMCA addressing the complaint filed by STAT EMS concluding that:

Based upon the denial justification review and as identified above, it is the Department’s position that the Saginaw Valley Medical Control Authority should allow STAT EMS to provide service to the Birch Run area and should reconsider their denial of STAT’s Application. In addition, Ms. Shivley also noted the SVMCA’s conflict of interest:

• Saginaw Valley MCA provides funds to MMR to insure Dr. Wagner’s first response vehicle.

• Ed. Bruff, COO of Covenant is a MMR Board Member and a MCA Board Member.

• SVMCA’s concern with the financial viability of MMR (the current service area provider).

(Ex.16). 32. On April 18, 2013, as a follow up to Ms. Shivley’s letter, STAT EMS’

counsel sent the SVMCA a letter requesting that Dr. Wagner sign the Part 1 application

authorizing STAT to operate in the SVMCA. STAT EMS’ counsel referred to the April 9,

2013 letter from Ms. Shivley. (Ex. 17).

33. On April 25, 2013, the SVMCA responded to STAT EMS’ attorney, stating

that, “matters of this kind can only be approved by the Medical Control Authority’s

Board of Directors.” The SVMCA also indicated that STAT’s request for medical control

privileges was added to the agenda for the next meeting of the Board and would be

discussed and addressed at that meeting, along with Ms. Shivley’s letter. (Ex. 18).


10

34. On May 6, 2013, STAT’s attorney sent the SVMCA follow up

correspondence, noting that the next meeting of the Board of Directors was not until

June 20, 2013 and, therefore, requesting a special board meeting. (Ex. 19).

35. The SVMCA responded to that letter on May 14, 2013, stating that, “In

accordance with the SVMCA Bylaws, a special meeting of the Board may only be called

by the chairman or a majority of the members. No request has been made by the

chairman or a majority of the members.” (Ex. 20).

36. On May 25, 2013, counsel for STAT directed a letter to Mr. Snidersich

requesting a meeting with him and Medical Director Dr. Wagner to address the points

made in Ms. Shivley’s letter, as well as STAT’s legal position in regard to the application.

Counsel’s hope was to assist the SVMCA so it could complete the application process and

extend medical control privileges to STAT. (Ex. 21).

37. In response, counsel received a letter dated June 3, 2013 from the SVMCA

indicating that it would not be appropriate to meet in advance of the June 20, 2013

Board meeting. (Ex. 22).

38. On June 5, 2013, counsel for STAT spoke by telephone with counsel for the

SVMCA requesting that, at a minimum, the SVMCA advise STAT whether the SVMCA

would allow STAT to operate in advance of the June 20, 2013 meeting. (Ex. 23).

39. On June 20, 2013, the SVMCA Board met as scheduled, but, contrary to its

representations, refused to consider STAT’s application. In fact, at that meeting, the

SVMCA took only one action in connection with the application - to place the

Department’s letter in the SVMCA’s “STAT EMS file”, without any further consideration.

Mr. Snidersich, EMS Manager for SVMCA, acknowledged his receipt of the

Department’s letter and stated that there was no basis for it.


11

40. On July 8, 2013, Mr. Kurt Krause, Director Bureau of Legal Affairs for the

MDCH sent a letter to SVMCA advising them that they had failed to act in accordance

with the Department’s directive of April 9, 2013 and requested that the SVMCA

immediately sign the Part 1 authorizing STAT to operate within the SVMCA. (Ex. 24).

41. On July 25, 2013, Mr. Krause convened a meeting where Dr. Wagner, Mr.

Snidersich, and representatives from STAT, met with representatives of the MDCH in

regard to STAT’s Application for Medical Control Privileges in the SVMCA. Counsel for

both parties attended. (Ex. 25).

42. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the SVMCA’s denial of STAT’s

Application for Medical Control Privileges, the DJR which was undertaken by the State

and formalized in the directive/letter from Robin Shivley on April 9, 2013, and the

SVMCA’s failure to comply with the denial justification review. (Ex. 25).

43. At the meeting, counsel for the SVMCA, stated that:

(1) the SVMCA Board, and not Dr. Wagner, is the only authority within the SVMCA geographic service is which can approve a “Part 1” Application for Privileges;

(2) the SVMCA Board does not believe that the

Department, after the denial justification review, ordered the SVMCA to extend medical control privileges to STAT EMS;

(3) that the SVMCA’s protocol regarding “clinical need”

authorized it to compel STAT to prove to the SVMCA that there existed a need for more life support agencies within the SVMCA’s geographic service area prior to extending privileges to STAT;

(4) that the protocol was not vague and ambiguous; (5) that STAT did not meet the requirements of this

protocol during its application process; and


12

(6) that the protocol is neither vague nor ambiguous. STAT EMS took the opposite view point on all of these issues.

(Ex. 25).

44. Mr. Krause took the position that:

(1) the “clinical need” protocol was vague and ambiguous1

; there is no “clinical need” requirement under Michigan law for an ambulance to operate.

(2) STAT EMS nonetheless met the requirements of the protocol;

(3) the protocol presents an issue from a “restraint of

trade” standpoint; (4) the requirements of the protocol are not authorized by

the Emergency Medical Services Act, which only provides that a medical control authority must extend medical control privileges upon the completion of an application and payment of the application fee; and

(5) STAT EMS should be extended medical control

privileges in the SVMCA.

(Ex. 24).

45. Mr. Krause invited the SVMCA to research the legal basis for the State’s

position, but also said that he would consider having the State sign an interim Part 1,

extending medical control privileges to STAT EMS in the SVMCA during this interim

period. (Ex. 25).

46. The SVMCA’s counsel told Mr. Krause that he, Dr. Wagner and Mr.

Snidersich did not have the authority to agree to extend privileges to STAT EMS on

behalf of the SVMCA because that could only be done by the SVMCA Board. The

Emergency Medical Services Act clearly mandates that it is the medical control authority 1 The SVMCA recognized that its “clinical need” protocol was vague and ambiguous and attempted to change the protocol in May of 2013 and submitted a new protocol to the MDCH’s EMS Division. The EMS Division rejected the proposed amended clinical need protocol.


13

medical director, in this case, Dr. Wagner, who is required to sign the Part 1, authorizing

MCA privileges. The SVMCA’s counsel told Mr. Krause that he would need to bring this

matter before the SVMCA’s Board of Directors and would do so within the next 30 days.

(Ex. 25).

47. On July 30, 2013, the Department responded with a letter in which Kurt

Krause “committed” to:

1) Providing a deadline by which the SVMCA’s counsel would provide any additional information that the Saginaw Valley Medical Control Authority might want to provide in support of its decision to deny STAT EMS's application and/or a revised decision, altogether; and

2) Responding to STAT’s counsel’s request that MDCH

approve STAT EMS's application, on an interim basis, until such time that the SVMCA provides its additional information/revised decision.

(Ex. 26).

48. The SVMCA responded with a letter dated August 9, 2013, demanding that

the State withdraw its April 9, 2013 letter. (Ex. 27). The SVMCA also considered the

DJR to be a review and not an appeal. The SVMCA submitted further information to the

State regarding its denial of STAT’s application and attempted to supplement the State’s

file with this information.

49. On August 13, 2013, STAT sent a letter to the SVMCA in which it strongly

disagreed with the SVMCA’s position regarding the DJR as well as the SVMCA’s denial

of STAT EMS’s Part 1. (Ex. 26).

50. STAT also strongly requested that the Department take the following

action in regard to the SVMCA’s refusal to sign STAT’s Part 1:

(1) order the SVMCA to sign the Part 1;


14

(2) in the event the SVMCA refuses to sign the Part 1, for

the Department to sign the Part 1 itself; (3) alternatively, for the State to authorize STAT to

operate in the SVMCA geographic service, under the authority of the Genesee County Medical Control Authority; or

(4) alternatively, suspend the authority of the SVMCA

and transfer oversight of its life support agencies to a “new” or different MCA who will abide by the State’s determination extending STAT’s authority to operate SVMCA.

(Ex. 28).

51. As to the specific points raised by the SVMCA, STAT objected for a number

of reasons. First, as to the SVMCA’s position that it was not provided a “definition or

official explanation” of a DJR and its characterization of a DJR as a “review” and not an

“appeal,” STAT pointed out that this position was simply incorrect and, further, a

distinction without a difference. R325.22205(2) provides:

The medical director shall insure the provision of medical control. The medical director’s signature on a life support agency’s Application for Licensure or Relicensure affirms that the Medical Control Authority intends to provide medical control to the life support agency. If the medical director refuses to sign the life support agency’s Application for Licensure or Relicensure, then the medical director shall notify the Department in writing, within five business days, providing justification for denial. Refusal of a medical director to sign a life support agency’s Application shall result in denial justification review by the Department.

(Ex. 28). 52. STAT pointed out that this statutorily mandated Rule clearly provides

three indisputable requirements: (1) medical control direction shall be provided; (2) to

the extent that the medical director refuses MCA privileges, justification for the denial

shall be provided in writing; and (3) the Department shall review a medical


15

director’s refusal to sign a Part 1 authorizing MCA privileges. The statutory mandate

requiring the Department to conduct a denial justification review of an MCA’s refusal of

privileges is clearly meaningless without, at a minimum, the implied authority to

conduct the review and, where appropriate, to authorize MCA privileges. (Ex. 28).

53. STAT also pointed out that it was clear that the Department, by Robin

Shively’s April 9, 2013 letter, reviewed the SVMCA’s denial and concluded that STAT

EMS met the requirements of the SVMCA and was, therefore, legally entitled to the

extension of medical control privileges within the SVMCA geographic service area. (Ex.

28).

54. STAT noted that this provision of subsection (2) was enacted to give the

Department oversight to prevent arbitrary and capricious decisions, or political

influence, on the part of a Medical Control Authority and/or the Medical Control

Director. It is a tool extended to the Department by the legislature to assist in the

Department’s oversight of medical control authorities and medical directors to ensure

that they do not act in a “rogue” manner and contrary to the Emergency Medical

Services Act. In this regard, Ms. Shively’s April 9, 2013 letter was entirely consistent

with the denial justification review process and the goals of subsection (2). (Ex. 28).

55. Second, STAT disagreed with the SVMCA that calling a DJR a “review”, as

opposed to an “appeal”, had any significance. STAT emphasized that a DJR was

automatically triggered in the event that a medical director refuses to sign a Part 1, and

is required to occur after written notification by the medical director. In this case,

however, Dr. Wagner did not report his refusal to sign the Part 1 to the

Department, thus not triggering the automatic review. Rather, this

process was initiated by STAT EMS. (Ex. 28).


16

56. Whether the DJR was considered a “review” or “appeal,” subsection (2)

authorized the Department to exercise its oversight function precisely, as the statutory

language provides, to determine whether there is justification for the denial of the

Part 1. The Department’s extensive review resulted in a finding that there was no

justification for the denial, as more fully set forth in Ms. Shively’s April 9, 2013 letter.

However, as of that date, other than sending the letter, the Department had not taken

any formal action in regard to the SVMCA’S denial of STAT EMS’ Part 1. (Ex. 28).

57. STAT took the position that the Department had the authority to either (1)

sign the Part 1 itself; or (2) require the SVMCA to sign the Part 1. Alternatively, STAT

took the position that the Department has the authority to suspend the SVMCA and

transfer its oversight duties to neighboring Medical Control Authorities, pointing out

that without the authority to take action, subsection (2) would be meaningless. (Ex.

28).

58. STAT also did not consider the DJR process to still be open and continuing

as it pertained to STAT’s application. Regardless of whether the Department considered

the information provided in the July 24 letter, the information conveyed at the July 25

meeting, and the SVMCA’s counsel’s August 9, 2013 letter, STAT believed that the

SVMCA had nonetheless acted arbitrarily and capriciously, as well as without due

process and in furtherance of the restraint of trade, in denying the STAT EMS Part 1.

(Ex. 28).

59. The SVMCA’s protocol, by which STAT EMS was required to identify a

“clinical need” within the geographic service area of the SVMCA, is not supported by the

Emergency Medical Services Act and, further, is an illegal barrier to STAT EMS (or any

life support agency) providing care within the geographic service area of the SVMCA.


17

Significantly, the only requirement under the Emergency Medical Services Act for the

extension of medical control privileges by a medical control authority is that a life

support agency pay the required fee and be available 24/7 to provide emergency medical

services. STAT clearly meets these requirements. (Ex. 28).

60. STAT requested that the Department take a second look at the protocol,

particularly in light of comments made by Dr. Wagner and Mr. Snidersich, that the

purpose of the protocol is to keep life support agencies out of Saginaw County, noting

that, on its face, it was clearly a restraint of trade and suppression of free enterprise.

(Ex. 28).

61. Despite STAT’s disagreement with the SVMCA that its protocol was

authorized pursuant to the Emergency Medical Services Act, STAT nonetheless

addressed the issues raised by the SVMCA. To begin with, the SVMCA argued that a

letter from Birch Run Township was “insufficient” to meet Section 2 of the protocol.

STAT pointed out that because this letter was transmitted to STAT and, further, because

STAT provided this letter to the SVMCA, regardless of whether STAT is specifically

mentioned by name, the letter was intended to refer to and apply to STAT EMS. STAT

also objected to the SVMCA’s position that the Township supervisor is not authorized to

act on behalf of the Township Board. By taking this position, the SVMCA is substituting

its belief and interpretation of the Birch Run Township Supervisor with its own. (Ex.

28).

62. In addition, the SVMCA’s indicated that there was an issue because the

letter issued by Birch Run Township did not mention STAT by name. STAT noted that

the SVMCA ignored Ms. Shivley’s analysis of the sufficiency of Birth Run Township’s

support in her April 9 letter, in which she concluded that “the Township Supervisor


18

provided oversight for both the Township and the Village,” clearly addressing the issue

raised by the SVMCA. (Ex. 28).

63. As to the mutual aid requirement, and the SVMCA’s issue with it, STAT

observed that the issue had changed and was different than the one investigated and

analyzed by the Department. According to Ms. Shivley’s letter, STAT “identified that

Twin Township Service and their Board (licensed in both Genesee County MCA and

SVMCA) agreed to provide STAT EMS Mutual Aid once licensed.” Ms. Shivley

addressed the SVMCA’s concern that this was not given to the SVMCA in letter form by

making a formal finding of it, thus rendering this issue moot. (Ex. 28).

64. As to the clinical need requirement, Ms. Shivley found that the SVMCA

placed a requirement on STAT which was not found in its “clinical need protocol.” This

was not addressed by the SVMCA, which instead asked the Department for more time to

submit information to the Department. STAT stated that this was nothing more than a

delaying tactic, one which it strongly opposed. (Ex. 28).

65. STAT also disagreed with the SVMCA’s interpretation of the Department’s

April 9 letter in regard to the clinical need requirement, agreeing with the State that the

“clinical need” requirement is vague and ambiguous. The SVMCA Protocol cited in

support of the requirement, Subsection (E.2), Section 13 of the Life Support Agency

Standards provides, in total:

Any transporting agency (BLS or ALS), new or upgrade, shall describe and establish the clinical need for the new or upgraded service and its impact on the existing EMS care delivery system. Clearly, there is no definition of the term “clinical need,” and certainly no

indication of whether that clinical need is in reference to the economic, patient care, or


19

other impact of adding a new life support agency to the Saginaw Valley geographic

service area. (Ex. 28).

66. Additionally, the SVMCA stated that Section 13 of the protocol provides

that the SVMCA Board of Directors is the body that determines whether the clinical

need has been met by the applicant. STAT countered that this requirement is, however,

contrary to the Emergency Medical Services Act and the regulation promulgated

thereunder (referred to above) which clearly mandates that the medical control

director, not the Board of Directors for a local MCA, provide medical direction for a life

support agency and sign the Part 1. (Ex. 28).

67. Moreover, STAT perceived that the SVMCA’s basis for determining that

STAT had not met its requirements to establish a clinical need was not supported by the

evidence presented by STAT. In that evidence, STAT clearly and carefully outlined the

issues relating to response times within the Birch Run area, Birch Run’s need for an

additional life support agency, and the benefit which would be provided to the

community. The evidence underscored the problem with a “clinical need protocol,”

which authorizes a local medical control authority to consider factors not contemplated

by the Emergency Medical Services Act. (Ex. 28).

68. Essentially, the SVMCA left the extension of medical control privileges to a

life support agency to the wit and whim of a local medical control authority board, a

non-elected body, which, according to the State’s DJR was fraught with conflicts of

interest, despite the fact that the EMSA clearly contemplates the extension of medical

control privileges based on two factors which have no economic incentive to deny the

extension of those privileges – the payment of a fee and the availability of the life

support agency to provide emergency medical services on a 24/7 basis. (Ex. 28).


20

69. Moreover, STAT highlighted that the SVMCA had taken the conclusory

position one would anticipate in regard to the State’s denial justification-review: that it

considered the factors contemplated by its protocol and issued its decision in

accordance with that protocol. STAT countered by pointing out that this was precisely

why the Department had been given the statutory authority to conduct a denial

justification review to insure that the Medical Control Authority is following the

established legal requirements under the Emergency Medical Services Act and the Rules

promulgated thereunder and to act when it is not. (Ex. 28).

70. STAT also addressed the issue that Board Members had a conflict of

interest, telling the SVMCA, “we are particularly troubled with its counsel’s assertion

that he had the SVMCA Board of Directors call a special meeting, open to the public,

during which the STAT EMS’ Application was discussed.” Despite the fact that this

meeting apparently took place well after the Department corresponded and met with the

SVMCA about it’s failure to follow the law and rules, neither the Department nor STAT

EMS were given notice of this meeting, nor invited to attend, in order to participate in

the process that the SVMCA claims it had engaged for consideration of STAT’s

application to operate within the SVMCA. According to the SVMCA’s attorney’s letter,

the Board “reconsidered” the STAT EMS Application and then reaffirmed its previous

denial. While the SVMCA’s attorney claimed that the meeting was open to the public, it

was inconceivable that STAT EMS was not provided notice of this meeting and was not

invited to attend. (Ex. 28).

71. STAT renewed its request to the Department to:

(1) order the SVMCA to sign the Part 1;


21

(2) in the event the SVMCA refuses to sign the Part 1, for the Department to sign the Part 1 itself;

(3) alternatively, for the State to authorize STAT to

operate in the SVMCA geographic service, under the authority of the Genesee County Medical Control Authority; or

(4) alternatively, suspend the authority of the SVMCA

and transfer oversight of its life support agencies to neighboring MCA’s and extending STAT’s authority to operate to the “new” MCA.

(Ex. 27).

72. On August 21, 2013, Defendant, Dr. Noel Wagner, the SVMCA Medical

Director, appeared before the Saginaw County Fire Chief’s Association and informed the

audience that there would not be another EMS provider allowed to operate in Saginaw

County and that this would most likely result in litigation. Dr. Wagner also stated that

he did not want to “go back to the days” of multiple EMS service providers because he

did not want to “relive this experiment.”

73. On September 16, 2013, the Mr. Krause issued a letter on behalf of the

State, in which he stated that, “the Department stands by its conclusion that the

[SVMCA] should allow STAT EMS to provide emergency medical response to the Birch

Run area.” (Ex. 29).

74. The Department further stated that it was ready to, “issue a license for

STAT EMS to practice in the Birch Run area immediately upon the [SVMCA’s]

Director’s signature on the licensure application. But whether that signature comes

voluntarily or is compelled by court order is a matter that will need to be resolved

between STAT EMS and the [SVMCA].” (Ex. 29).


22

75. STAT noted that it was clear from the Department’s letter of September 16,

2013, that the Michigan Department of Community Health (the “Department”) had

determined that STAT EMS met all of the statutory criteria to operate within the

geographic boundaries of the SVMCA. It was also clear from the Department’s

correspondence that the Department stands ready to issue a license to STAT EMS to

practice in the Birch Run area and the State strongly believes that the SVMCA Medical

Director should indeed sign STAT’s EMS Licensure Application to operate in that MCA.

(Ex. 30).

76. Under the circumstances, given that STAT EMS clearly meets all of the

criteria for operating in the SVMCA; and, in the Department’s own opinion, should be

permitted to operate there, STAT EMS requested that it should be allowed, at a

minimum, to perform non-emergency transports for facilities and clients who may

geographically fall within the boundaries of the SVMCA. (Ex. 30).

77. Accordingly, STAT informed the Department that it intended to begin to

service those medical providers and clients who require its services in the SVMCA’s

geographic service area. STAT also noted that because it understood that the SVMCA

Medical Director refuses to sign the Part I, certifying medical control over STAT EMS,

STAT did not expect that it would be called upon to provide emergency response

services to the Birch Run area. Nevertheless, STAT stated that it remained available to

respond to emergency calls in the Birch Run area, on a 24/7 basis. Under the

circumstances, however, STAT believed that it would be in everyone’s best interests,

including the Department, for the Department to provide STAT EMS with a letter which

authorizes and/or, at a minimum, confirms the Department’s understanding that STAT

EMS is authorized to perform non-emergency transport service in the SVMCA


23

geographic service area, despite the SVMCA’s refusal to sign the Part I License

Application. (Ex. 30).

78. STAT also brought to the Department’s attention that Mobile Medical

Response (“MMR”) Ambulance Company had been provided authority to operate within

the boundaries of the Tri-County Emergency Medical Control Authority (“TCEMCA”),

for the limited purpose of providing non-emergency transports for three Lansing area

hospitals. It is our understanding that MMR was granted these privileges by the

TCEMCA, despite the fact that MMR was not providing emergency response to any

municipality and/or township in the boundaries of that MCA. It was clear that MMR

was being allowed to operate in a geographic service area where it has limited presence

and availability, and, more importantly, where it is not designated to provide any

emergency response. STAT pointed out that it was inconsistent for the SVMCA to claim

that STAT EMS should not be allowed to operate within its MCA because it wants to

protect MMR’s territory, while at the same time allowing the primary, if not exclusive

agency in Saginaw to operate elsewhere without meeting the very criteria that the

SVMCA proclaims to be the basis of their exclusion of STAT EMS from operating in

Saginaw. (Ex. 30).

79. Defendants’ reckless and illegal acts directly resulted in STAT EMS being

barred from performing services in the SVMCA geographic service area. By way of

example, on June 6, 2013, STAT sub-contracted a reoccurring transfer of a patient,

pursuant to its contact with Health Plus. Twin Township, the sub-contracting party,

informed STAT that Mobile Medical Response informed Twin Township that, “You are

no longer authorized to do this transport”. Twin Township relayed this information to

STAT.


24

80. As a direct result of Defendants’ wrongful and illegal acts, the health,

safety and welfare of patients who rely on STAT EMS for ambulance response and

transport has been jeopardized and patients and medical providers have been denied

access to their ambulance of choice, STAT EMS, including on occasions when no other

acceptable and/or legal ALS were available for ambulance transport.

81. As a result of Defendants’ wrongful and illegal acts, patients in the SVMCA

geographic service area have been prohibited from using STAT EMS for ambulance

transport.

82. STAT EMS has made every reasonable effort to gain Medical Control

Privileges within the SVMCA’s geographic service area, but has been wrongfully and

without due process been refused such privileges.

83. The actions taken by the SVMCA are also inconsistent with the current

practice of other Medical Control Authorities in the State of Michigan that oversee and

direct life support agencies providing emergency medical services outside of their

designated geographic service areas.

84. STAT EMS has made every reasonable attempt to exercise its

administrative remedies in response to the SVMCA’s actions, including, but not limited

to:

(a) seeking intervention of the Department of Community Health, EMS and Trauma Division, by meeting with the Department on at least two occasions, one of which was attended by representatives of the SVMCA; (b) STAT has appealed to Defendants to reconsider this decision; however, Defendants have refused to provide and continue to refuse to provide, STAT EMS with any hearing of its appeal. 85. Even if STAT EMS were allowed by Defendants to exercise its

administrative remedies, it is likely that any such exercise would be futile, given


25

Defendants’ previous actions, which clearly demonstrate bad faith, recklessness and an

intent to harm STAT EMS’ reputation and standing within the EMS community.

Furthermore, Defendants have expressly denied STAT EMS access to the SVMCA Board

meetings where deliberations and votes were held regarding STAT EMS’ right to operate

in THE SVMCA’s geographic service region.

86. Unless this Court grants injunctive relief, Defendants will continue to

illegally and selectively implement policies without due process barring STAT EMS from

providing ambulance service that STAT EMS is licensed to provide under Michigan law,

and further jeopardizing the health, safety and welfare of patients who require

ambulance service and care and are being prohibited from their choice of ambulance

provider.

COUNT I

ULTRA VIRES ACTS, REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

87. MCL 333.20920 part of the Emergency Medical Services Act, provides that

an Ambulance Service shall be licensed by the State of Michigan pursuant to the EMSA

upon completion of an application and payment of a $100.00 fee and upon meeting the

following requirements of the Act, found at MCL 333.20921. Those requirements are:

(a) Provide at least one ambulance available for response to request for emergency assistance on a 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week basis in accordance with local medical control authority protocols;

(b) respond or ensure that a response is provided to each

request for emergency assistance originating from within the bounds of the service area;

(c) operate under the direction of a medical control authority or

the medical control authorities with jurisdiction over the ambulance operation;


26

(d) notify the department immediately of a change that would alter the information contained on its application for an ambulance operation license or renewal;

(e) provide life support consistent with its license and approved

local medical control authority protocols to each emergency patient without prior inquiry into ability to pay or source of payment.

88. Michigan’s Statewide Emergency Medical Services System is governed by

local MCAs, organized and administered by local hospitals, within each geographic

region. MCL 333.20918(1)(2). Each person licensed under the Emergency Medical

Services Act is accountable to their local MCA in the provision of Emergency Medical

Services.

89. The EMSA does not otherwise authorize the SVMCA to prohibit or limit

STAT EMS from providing pre-hospital care and transport, to facilities and patients in

the SVMCA’s geographic service area, simply because STAT EMS did not meet an

arbitrary and illegal set of requirements instituted by the SVMCA. MCL

333.20919(1)(a).

90. STAT EMS has suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury if

Defendants are allowed to continue their selective and illegal implementation of policies

and rules which are not authorized by statute or administrative rule and which are being

arbitrarily enforced against all ambulance providers which wish to operate in the

SVMCA’s geographic service area.

91. Defendants will suffer no harm if this Court enters injunctive relief,

barring Defendants from implementing and enforcing a policy that is arbitrarily being

enforced against emergency medical service providers who wish to operate in the

SVMCA geographic service area.


27

92. The public interest is best served by barring the implementation of the

SVMCA’s selective and illegal policies and procedures as the health, safety and welfare

of patients in need of emergency medical services and transport will be threatened if

STAT EMS is not allowed to continue to provide those services to patients and

institutions in the SVMCA’s geographic service area.

93. Additionally, STAT EMS will suffer irreparable harm as more fully set

forth herein and in the attached Affidavit of its Chief Operating Officer and Vice

President (See Ex. 1) if Defendants continue to prohibit STAT EMS from exercising the

privileges of its state issued ambulance license.

WHEREFORE, STAT EMS requests that this Court enter a Preliminary and

Permanent Injunction Enjoining Defendants from barring STAT EMS from performing

ambulance services for patients within the SVMCA’s region and further enter a

Declaratory Judgment that Defendants’ directives and orders, including the September

17, 2008 directive, is ultra vires and, accordingly, beyond the power of the the SVMCA

to enact.

COUNT II

DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS AND LIBERTY INTEREST WITHOUT DUE PROCESS AND/OR COMPENSATION

94. At all times pertinent to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Defendants’ acts were and

continue to be without authority and violative of STAT EMS’s rights to substantive Due

Process of law under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, actionable pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the Michigan Constitution 1963, Article 1, Section 17.

95. At all times pertinent to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Defendants’ acts, as more

fully described above, were conducted under the color of law, without providing STAT


28

EMS with notice and/or without an opportunity to be heard, and were without authority

and, therefore, violated STAT EMS’ rights to procedural Due Process of law under the

14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, actionable pursuant to 42 USC, Section 1983,

and Michigan Constitution 1963, Article 1, Section 17.

96. At all times pertinent to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, the implementation of

Defendants’ arbitrary and illegal protocols and actions have resulted in STAT EMS being

barred from providing ambulance services in accordance with its state license,

effectively amounting to a taking of STAT EMS’s property interests without Due Process

of law.

97. At all times pertinent to Plaintiffs’ Complaint the implementation of

Defendants’ policies, protocols, and actions have resulted in an unconstitutional

deprivation of STAT EMS’ liberty interests without Due Process of law.

98. At all times pertinent to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, as more fully described

above, Defendants have acted arbitrarily and capriciously and have no rational basis in

enacting its policies and/or actions, which were done with the intent of harming STAT

EMS.

WHEREFORE, STAT EMS requests that this Court enter a Declaratory Judgment

stating that the policies, protocols, and actions implemented by Defendants have

resulted in a violation of STAT EMS’ substantive and procedural Due Process rights

under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the Michigan Constitution

1963, Article 1, Section 17 and that STAT EMS should be entitled to damages from

Defendants in an amount to be determined by the Court, including costs and attorney

fees wrongfully incurred.


29

COUNT III

EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW

99. At all times pertinent to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Defendants have selectively

implemented policies and actions against STAT EMS which are motivated by a

malicious, reckless and bad faith intent to injure STAT EMS and while not having been

implemented and/or enforced against other similarly situated licensed ambulance

providers in Defendants’ MCA region. For example, the SVMCA has stated that it has

intentionally only allowed one provider to operate in its geographic service region, to the

exclusion of all others.

100. The denial of medical control privileges issued by the SVMCA prohibits

STAT EMS from conducting its ambulance business in the SVMCA’s geographic service

region.

101. Defendants at all times have acted under the color of state law.

102. As a result of the SVMCA’s wrongful and illegal acts, STAT EMS has

suffered and continues to suffer loss of business and property by being unable to provide

ambulance transport and care in the SVMCA’s geographic service area, including

ambulance services to patients and providers who have specifically requested STAT

EMS for ambulance transport and STAT EMS has also been effectively prohibited from

honoring contracts with several medical facilities for ambulance transport.

103. The SVMCA’s illegal and selective implementation of the policies and acts

more fully described above has the effect of unlawfully limiting STAT EMS from

functioning as a licensed ambulance provider and prohibits STAT EMS from continuing

to service patients and institutions that it is already servicing, and has contracted to

service, in the SVMCA’s geographic service area.


30

104. The Defendants’ acts violate STAT EMS’s rights under the Equal

Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, actionable pursuant

to 42 USC Section 1983 and Michigan Constitution 1963, Article 1, Section 2.

WHEREFORE, STAT EMS requests that this Court enter Declaratory Judgment

declaring Defendants’ acts have violated Plaintiff’s right to equal protection of the law,

and that the violations are flagrant, and that STAT EMS should be entitled to damages

two to three times its actual damages sustained plus reasonable attorney fees, interests,

and costs wrongfully incurred.

COUNT IV

INVERSE CONDEMNATION

105. STAT EMS has a vested property interest in its state-issued ambulance

license and all business conducted under that license.

106. STAT EMS also has a vested property interest to provide ambulance

services to local units of government, medical facilities, and patients that use their

services.

107. STAT EMS also has a legally protected right to provide all emergency

medical services authorized by statute to a licensed ALS agency.

108. STAT EMS, as a licensed health care agency, has a property interest to

conduct ambulance operations in the State of Michigan as authorized by statute, which

is protected by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

109. STAT EMS, as a licensed health care agency, also has a liberty interest

protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to conduct its

business as authorized by its state-issued ambulance license.


31

110. At all times pertinent to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Defendants’ wrongful and

illegal acts and policies selectively implemented against STAT EMS have had the effect

of taking STAT EMS’s property interest without just compensation and/or without the

implementation of condemnation proceedings as expressly required by the Fifth

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

111. In addition, Defendants’ unlawful and illegal acts and policies, as

selectively implemented against STAT EMS have had the effect of depriving STAT EMS

of its liberty interest without any due process, in violation of the Due Process clause of

the U.S. Constitution.

WHEREFORE, STAT EMS requests that this Court enter a Declaratory Judgment

finding that the SVMCA’s denial and the selective implementation of its policies against

STAT EMS have the effect of taking STAT EMS’s property without just compensation to

STAT EMS and without implementation of required condemnation proceedings, and

further find that such acts as more fully set forth above, have violated STAT EMS’ liberty

interest without Due Process of law and enjoin Defendants from continuing to deny

STAT EMS from conducting ambulance transports originating in the SVMCA’s

geographic service area without paying just compensation to STAT EMS in an amount

determined by this Court together with interest, costs and attorney fees wrongfully

incurred.


32

COUNT V

DAMAGES PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. SEC. 1983

112. Defendants’ actions in denying Plaintiffs their Constitutional rights as

outlined above entitle Plaintiffs to damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.

113. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, as more fully set

forth above, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial damages,

including, but not limited to:

(a) loss of business income;

(b) loss of future business income;

(c) loss of reputation;

(d) loss of standing and goodwill in the business community;

WHEREFORE, STAT EMS and the patients of the Saginaw Community Mental

Health, request that this Court enter Judgment against Defendants in an amount

greater than $75,000.00, exclusive of interest, costs and attorney fees.

COUNT VI

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES PURSUANT TO SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT

114. Defendants entered into an agreement to preclude new ambulance

services from operating in the SVMCA’s geographic service area.

115. Defendants’ conduct occurred in the market covered by the SVMCA’s

geographic service area.

116. Defendants’ possessed the power, whether implied or illegally assumed, to

keep ambulance providers out of the market covered by the geographic service area.


33

117. In addition, Defendants possessed monopoly power in the market covered

by the geographic service area.

118. Defendants willfully acquired, maintained, and used that power through

anticompetitive or exclusionary means to keep ambulance providers, such as STAT EMS

out of that market.

119. Defendants’ antitrust violation reduced overall competition of ambulance

providers.

120. STAT has suffered damages as a result of Defendants’ wrongful and illegal

antitrust actions.

WHEREFORE, STAT EMS and the patients of the Saginaw Community Mental

Health, request that this Court enter Judgment against Defendants in an amount

greater than $75,000.00, exclusive of interest, costs and attorney fees.

COUNT VII

TORTIOUS AND INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH A CONTRACTUAL AND BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP

121. STAT EMS Ambulance Company has provided emergency medical services

to patients, medical providers and institutions located in various Michigan communities

located in Saginaw County for a number of years.

122. At all times pertinent to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendants have wrongfully

and illegally implemented policies and actions to bar STAT EMS from providing any

ambulance services, including interfacility transport of patients in the SVMCA

geographic service area, without any legal basis.

123. At all times pertinent to Plaintiff’s Complaint, the SVMCA has expressly

barred STAT from all activity in the SVMCA, including interfacility transports of


34

patients in the SVMCA region the providers such as patients pursuant to STAT’s

contract with Health Plus and patients through the Saginaw Community Mental Health

Authority. As a result, various medical providers, institutions and facilities, including

those with existing business and contractual relationships with STAT, cannot allow,

STAT to provide ambulance services for their patients.

124. At all times pertinent to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendants’ wrongful and

illegal acts have directly resulted in patients being deprived their choice to use STAT as

their ambulance provider, including, but not limited to, patients who desire to use STAT

or such services.

125. Defendants’ acts were performed with intent to harm and/or were grossly

negligent, in that Defendants’ conduct was so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial

lack of concern as to whether injury or damage would result to Plaintiff.

126. The aforementioned conduct was intentional, arbitrary, unlawful, without

basis, and with malice and consisted of the following acts on the part of Defendants,

among others as more fully described above:

a) Enacting and implementing a policy against STAT EMS only with

the intent and purpose of rendering STAT EMS’ personal relationships and contracts

and business relationships valueless;

b) Enacting policies selectively implemented against STAT EMS only

with the intent and purpose of preventing STAT EMS from entering into any other

business relationships and/or contracts to provide ambulance services;

c) Without any legal authority whatsoever, issuing orders unlawfully

restricting STAT EMS from providing emergency medical services including interfacility

transports, within the SVMCA’s geographic service area.


35

d) Depriving patients of Health Plus and the Saginaw Community

Mental Health Authority from selecting their own medical provider for transport and

wrongly imposing an unlicensed provider upon her.

127. Defendants’ tortious interference with STAT EMS’ contacts, business

relationships and contracts have resulted, and will continue to result in damages to

Plaintiff in an amount to be proven at trial, including the loss of income and other

damages due to its inability to provide ambulance services to facilities, medical

providers and patients located in the SVMCA geographic service area for which STAT

EMS should be extended privileges and is legally able to provide.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter a declaratory judgment

and further find that Defendants have tortiously interfered with Plaintiff’s contacts,

business relationships and contracts and STAT EMS shall be entitled from Defendants

to its actual damages sustained as a result of Defendants’ interference plus reasonable

attorney’s fees, interest and costs wrongfully incurred.

STAT EMS and the patients of the Saginaw Community Mental Health, further

request the following:

(1) a Temporary Restraining to be issued;

(2) that Defendants be immediately enjoined and restrained from preventing

STAT EMS to operate as a life support agency in the the SVMCA

geographic service area and that Defendants be further enjoined from

taking any further action that would preclude, bar, or prohibit STAT EMS

from providing any services that STAT EMS is authorized to provide under

the authority to provide under the authority provided by its licensure and

state law;


36

(3) Plaintiff is granted leave to commence discovery immediately, including

the Deposition of Defendant’s representatives and/or Defendants,

themselves, before a Preliminary Injunction Hearing;

(4) this Order shall remain in full force and effect until this Court specifically

orders otherwise;

(5) Defendants shall show cause before this Court on ______________,

2013/4 at _____ (a.m./p.m.) why Preliminary Injunctions should not be

ordered according to the terms and conditions of the Temporary

Restraining Order;

(6) Plaintiff must serve a copy of the Pleadings in this case and this Order on

Defendant by no later than _____________;

(7) an Ex-Parte Order issue without hearing on ___________, 2013/4 at

____ (a.m./p.m.).

Respectfully submitted,

BLANCO WILCZYNSKI, P.L.L.C. /s/Derek S. Wilczynski Orlando L. Blanco (P34480) Derek S. Wilczynski (P57079) Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dated: December 5, 2013 S:\Cases - OPEN\Tri-Township v THE SVMCA\Ple\\BLANCO-DC\Company\Cases - Open\STAT EMS\Pleadings\Complaint\113013 complaint.dsw.docxadings\102308_Plaintiff's_Complaint.OLB.bmm.doc


Documents

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - mlivemedia.mlive.com/saginawnews_impact/other/STAT EMS Complaint.pdf · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN . STAT Emergency