Updates on Maine EMS Lawsuit

The following documents have been filed in our lawsuit against the Maine EMS Board. Please see our previous post for background on this suit, our references post for statistics and sources. In this lawsuit, the Defendant is the Maine Emergency Medical Services Board and its Director, Sam Hurley. The Plaintiffs are the terminated First Responders, supported by Health Choice Maine.

December 2, 2022: Complaint for Declaratory Judgement and Request for Relief

Document link: Complaint for Declaratory Judgement

Filed by the terminated first responders, the complaint states that:

• Maine EMS lacked the statutory authority to implement their emergency rule titled Chapter 20: COVID-19 Immunization Requirements on August 21, 2021 and their permanent Immunization Rule effective July 13, 2022. Nothing in the state statues gives Maine EMS the authority to control or manage communicable diseases or issue rules regarding immunization. That authority is granted to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) alone.
• By increasing staffing shortages, the vaccine mandate caused Maine EMS to contravene the Agency’s statutory purpose, which is to “promote and provide for a comprehensive and effective emergency medical services system to ensure optimum patient care.”
• The plaintiffs are asking for the Maine EMS mandate to be declared invalid, and that terminated employees be granted compensation for lost wages and benefits.

January 27, 2023: Affidavit of Assistant Attorney General Sarah E. Coleman

Document link: Coleman Affidavit

This is an affidavit from Sarah Coleman, the State’s Attorney assigned to the case. In this, she is simply submitting Exhibits A-H to the Court.

• Exhibit A – Regulatory Agenda for State of Maine Emergency Services.
• Exhibit B – Written Notice issued by Maine Emergency Services regarding rulemaking process.
• Exhibit C – Maine Secretary of State’s weekly notices of rulemaking for the week of 11-3-21.
• Exhibit D – Maine Secretary of State’s weekly notices of State rulemaking for week of 3-23-22.
• Exhibit E – Rule’s Economic Impact Statement
• Exhibit F – The Boards meeting minutes 6-1-22.
• Exhibit G – The Rule’s Basis Statement
• Exhibit H – The Rule’s Fact Sheet and Checklist

January 27, 2023: Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law

Document link: Motion to Dismiss

In this motion, the State is requesting that the case be dismissed.

The Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint under M.R.Civ.P 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6). They believe the dismissal is necessary because (1) Plaintiffs have failed to name proper parties, (2) the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over claims arising under Rule 80C, and (3) Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for declaratory judgment under 5 M.R.S. § 8058.

They claim that:

• Defendant Hurley should be removed from the Complaint because of his lack of rulemaking authority.
• The Maine EMS Board adhered to the procedural requirements of the Maine Administrative Procedure Act.
• The Rule was approved by the Attorney General as to form and legality.
• There was no procedural flaw.
• Rule 80C has no jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs claims because there is no rulemaking authority.
• The Plaintiffs fail to assert a substantive challenge to the rule.
• Plaintiffs are not entitled to monetary damages.

February 14, 2023: Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Document link: Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

Our response to their motion to Dismiss. We stated the following points:

• Maine Emergency Medical Services (MEMS) and Directory Sam Hurley were properly named per Emergency Medical Services Act – MEMS is inclusive of both the Board and Director Hurley. We look to the Maine Administrative Procedure Act (APA) definition of agency which indicates the board and agency are one in the same. Director Hurley qualifies as an agency member for his official role and decision-making functions.
• As to the Defendant’s issue with subject matter jurisdiction 12(b)(1), the Superior Court has Jurisdiction under § 8058(1) for both 80C Petitions and declaratory judgment actions. It is well established under Maine law that both Rule 80C petitions and declaratory judgments are equally viable methods to challenge the validity of an agency rule. There is no time limitation to an 80C petition. The Court has Jurisdiction under the Maine APA and Maine Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.
• Defendant’s 12(b)(6) Failure to State a Claim Upon which Relief can be Granted. These are addressed in the Motion for Summary Judgment.
• Further, damages are available under both Rule 80C petitions and under 14 M.R.S. § 5960. Further relief is permitted whenever the court deems such relief necessary or proper. Costs of Litigation relief are available to Plaintiffs under 14 M.R.S. § 5962. The Court may make such award of costs as may seem equitable and just.

February 14, 2023: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment with Incorporated Memorandum of Law

Document link: Motion for Summary Judgement

Our request for Summary Judgement on the grounds that Maine EMS simply did not have the authority to make such a rule, and in doing so it led to interference with municipal governance and created dire worker shortages.

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to find the Rule “invalid” because of the following:

• The rulemaking exceeds MEMS’ statutory authority based on an unreasonable interpretation of the agency’s statute; the plain language indicates the agency’s powers were limited to “providing and ensuring” emergency medical services (32 M.R.S. § 84(1)); and MEMS did not have any expertise in the field of rulemaking involving immunization requirements.
• The rulemaking suffered procedural defects including absence of legitimate statutory authority to implement the rule, improper category designation, and failure to obtain required legislative review and approval.
• The rulemaking caused worker shortages which prevented local governments from maintaining medical service workers to serve Maine.