AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Living Cross Ambulance Service, Inc. (Living Cross) was the primary ambulance service provider in Valencia County, New Mexico, from 1987 until April 5, 2013. Valencia County, a rural area experiencing population growth, required ambulance services for hospital transportation, often necessitating a 20 to 35-mile trip to Albuquerque. In December 2012 and April 2013, Living Cross reduced its ambulance fleet, coinciding with the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (PRC) granting temporary authority to American Medical Response Ambulance Service, Inc., d/b/a American Medical Response, Emergicare (AMR) to operate in the county. The PRC later granted AMR a permanent certificate to provide ambulance service in Valencia County under the Motor Carrier Act, after finding Living Cross did not provide continuous and adequate service from 2011 through 2013 and was not able to do so at the time of the proceeding or in the foreseeable future if AMR’s application were denied (paras 1-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Living Cross): Contended that the PRC should not have granted AMR authority to provide non-emergency ambulance service without evidence supporting the need for such service. Argued that the lack of established rules, standards, policies, or procedures for determining missed call rates deprived it of due process. Also argued that its financial stability should not have been a factor in assessing its ability to provide continuous and adequate service and proposed implementing lease agreements with another provider as an alternative to granting AMR’s application (paras 5, 10, 16, 21).
• Appellee (AMR): Argued that it was fit, willing, and able to provide ambulance services in Valencia County, in compliance with relevant safety and financial responsibility requirements, and that granting AMR permanent authority to provide ambulance services would meet an ongoing public demand or need, thereby serving a useful public purpose (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the PRC erred by granting operating authority to AMR for non-emergency service without considering the need for such service.
• Whether Living Cross was deprived of due process as a result of the lack of established rules, standards, policies, or procedures for determining missed call rates.
• Whether the PRC erred by considering Living Cross’s financial stability when assessing whether it was providing continuous and adequate service.
• Whether the PRC erred by refusing to allow Living Cross to implement lease agreements with another provider as an alternative to granting AMR’s application.
• Whether the PRC adequately considered the financial impact to Living Cross of authorizing AMR to operate in Valencia County.
• Whether the PRC was obligated to give AMR supplemental authority rather than granting its application (paras 5, 10, 16, 21, 27, 30).

Disposition

• The PRC’s decision to grant AMR a permanent certificate to provide ambulance service in Valencia County was affirmed (para 32).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico, per Justice Edward L. Chávez, found that Living Cross’s arguments lacked merit and the PRC’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. The Court held that the Motor Carrier Act does not distinguish between emergency and non-emergency services, and the PRC did not err by not distinguishing between these services in considering the public need for ambulance services. The Court also found that the PRC did not deprive Living Cross of due process by not having established rules for determining missed call rates, as the Motor Carrier Act and the Ambulance Standards Act do not require uniform standards for response times or dropped calls. Furthermore, the Court determined that considering Living Cross’s financial stability was relevant and not in violation of the Motor Carrier Act. The proposed lease agreements by Living Cross were found insufficient to prove it could provide continuous and adequate service. Lastly, the Court concluded that the PRC did adequately consider the financial impact to Living Cross of granting AMR’s application and was not obligated to grant AMR only supplemental authority (paras 4-31).