the statements [of material fact] show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact set forth in those statements and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.= Platz Assocs. v. Finley, 2009 ME 55, § 10, 973 A.2d 743 (quoting MLR. Civ. P. 56(c)). In assessing whether this standard has been met, the court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Lightfoot v. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 35, 2003 ME 24, | 6, 816 A.2d 63.
DISCUSSION
I. Defendants9 Motion to Dismiss
Defendants move to dismiss the complaint on three grounds. First, they seek dismissal under M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), arguing that Plaintiffs failed to name the proper party. Second, they ask the court to dismiss any Rule 80C claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). And finally, Defendants argue that dismissal is required under MLR. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because Plaintiffs9 Section 8058 challenge to the immunization rule fails as a matter of law. These contentions are addressed below.
A. M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)
Plaintiffs name Maine Emergency Medical Services and Sam Hurley, in his official capacity as EMS Director, as defendants in this action. Defendants argue that dismissal is warranted under M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) because Plaintiffs failed to name the proper defendant. According to Defendants, the EMS Board is the proper party because it is the entity that has been vested with the authority to promulgate rules. The named defendants, by contrast,
whom the plaintiff has alleged a right to final relief.= Me. State Empl. Ass'n SEIU Local 1989 v. Dep't of Corr., 682 A.2d 686, 689 (Me. 1996). Moreover, the Law Court has held that <[t]he mere misidentification of an agency of the State does not necessitate the dismissal of the complaint.= /d. at 690. Rather, upon learning of the misidentification, the court
C. M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) Defendants argue that Plaintiffs9
Consistent with the terms of Section 8058, the Law Court has approached rulemaking challenges in three steps: (1)
Plaintiffs9 complaint poses a theory of relief that fits into each category. First, Plaintiffs argue that the agency lacks statutory authority to promulgate rules governing immunization. Second, they assert that the
1. The Agency9s Authority to Promulgate the Immunization Rule.
1. Powers and duties. The board has the following powers and duties. A. The board shall conduct an emergency medical services program to fulfill the purposes, requirements and goals of this chapter. The board shall adopt the forms, rules, procedures, testing requirements, policies and records appropriate to carry out the purposes, requirements and goals of this chapter.
32 MLR.S. § 84(1)(A) (emphasis added); see also 32 M.R.S. § 88(2)(B) (
It is the purpose of this chapter to promote and provide for a comprehensive and effective emergency medical services system to ensure optimum patient care. The Legislature finds that emergency medical services provided by an ambulance service are essential services. The Legislature finds that the provision of medical assistance in an emergency is a matter of vital concern affecting the health, safety and welfare of the public.
It is the intent of the Legislature to designate that a central agency be responsible for the coordination and integration of all state activities concerning emergency medical services and the overall planning, evaluation, coordination, facilitation and regulation of emergency medical services systems. Further, the Legislature finds that the provision of prompt, efficient and effective emergency medical dispatch and emergency medical care, a well-coordinated trauma care system, effective communication between prehospital care providers and hospitals and the safe handling and transportation, and the treatment and nontransport under appropriate medical guidance, of the sick and injured are key elements of an emergency medical services system. This chapter is intended to promote the public health, safety and welfare by providing for the creation of a statewide emergency medical services system with standards for all providers of emergency medical services.
32 MLR.S. § 81-A. Some purposes and goals of the EMS Act, therefore, are
Moreover, contrary to Plaintiffs9 suggestions, the Legislature need not explicitly grant the Board the power to adopt immunization requirements4as it did with DHHS4in order for the Board to promulgate rules governing the vaccination of EMS workers. Compare 22 M.R.S. § 802(1)(D)(3) (<[DHHS] may establish procedures for control, detection, prevention and treatment of communicable, environmental and occupational
diseases, including public immunization and contact notification programs=). The Law Court has explained that authority may be
In 1995, the Maine Legislature amended the APA with legislation titled
(1) Require the exercise of significant agency discretion or interpretation in drafting; or (2) Because of their subject matter or anticipated impact, are reasonably expected to result in a significant increase in the cost of doing business, a significant reduction in property values, the loss or significant reduction of government benefits or services, the imposition of state mandates on units of local government as defined in the Constitution of Maine, Article IX, Section 21, or other serious burdens on the public or units of local government. 5 MLR.S. § 8071(2)(B). This category is subject to a full rulemaking procedure, and after being provisionally approved by the agency, must be submitted to the Legislature for review and authorization before final adoption. 5 M.R.S. § 8072; Stewart v. Maine Dep't of Health and Human Services, ROCSC-CV- 12-063, (Mar. 12, 2014).
10 Meanwhile,
Under Section 8071, <[t]he Legislature reserved to itself the authority to assign an agency's rules to one category or the other, and it does so at the time it adopts the legislation authorizing the agency to promulgate the rules.= Stewart, ROCSC-CV-12-063 (emphasis added). This is the reason why some authorizing statutes, such as the enabling statute under which the Board acted in this case (see 32 M.R.S. § 84(1)(A)), do not specify whether the agency rules to be promulgated are
For rules promulgated pursuant to 32 M.R.S. § 84(1)(A)4which is an authorizing statute enacted prior to the 1995 amendments that has not been given a designation4the
Indeed, Section 8071 is clear that
1] after January |, 1996; the statutory authorization allowing the agency to promulgate the rules also has come after 1996.
Thus, because 32 M.R.S. § 84(1)(A) is a pre-1996 enabling statute and because the Legislature has not subsequently amended the provision to include a
3. Whether the Immunization Rule Violated the A gency9s Duties and Obligations Under the EMS Act by Increasing Worker Shortages.
Plaintiffs further maintain that the immunization rule contravenes the applicable statutory scheme by increasing worker shortages, thereby preventing local governments from maintaining the staff necessary to serve Maine communities.
As discussed above, the Board acted within its statutory authority when it promulgated the immunization rule. Adopting a vaccination rule to promote public health and safety4even if it ultimately had adverse effects on staffing4is a classic policy decision that warrants deference by the court.
Because Plaintiffs9 challenges to the immunization rule fail as a matter of law, Defendants9 motion to dismiss will be granted.
Il. Plaintiffs9 Motion for Summary Judgment and Other Pending Motions
Also pending are Plaintiffs9 (1) motion for summary judgment, (2) motion for leave to amend their statement of material facts, and (3) motion to exempt the parties from the ADR process. Having granted Defendants9 motion to dismiss, these motions will be dismissed as moot.
The entry is:
e Defendants9 motion to dismiss is GRANTED;
12 e Plaintiffs9 motion for summary judgment is DISMISSED as moot;
e Plaintiffs9 motion for leave to amend their statement of material facts is DISMISSED as moot; and
e Plaintiffs9 motion to exempt the parties from the ADR process is DISMISSED as moot.
The clerk is directed to incorporate this order on the docket by reference pursuant
to MLR. Civ. P. 79(a).
Date: July 14, 2023 < Ve )
Michaela Murphy ~ Justice, Maine Superior Court Entered on the docket 4+ | 3/22 .