Expert testifies Aetna can meet Wethersfield needs but flags mutual‑aid, contract limits and ownership questions

An expert witness testified on Jan. 14 that Aetna Ambulance could meet the Town of Wethersfield’s emergency medical needs if the town’s plan is approved, but he urged regional deployment planning, noted limits in the town–Aetna contract, and acknowledged he had not reviewed Aetna’s financials or some recent ownership disclosures.

The hearing before Hearing Officer Hanstead focused on competing proposals to be the town’s primary service area responder (PSAR). EMS consultant Michael Gunderson (identified in the hearing as an expert witness) told counsel he “would disagree. I still think there’s a need for, for, a complex deployment plan,” saying a plan should account for mutual aid and the town’s place in a contiguous metropolitan area rather than treating Wethersfield as an island.

Gunderson said the town’s demographic sheet showed roughly 27,000–28,000 residents and about 12 square miles of land; call volume for emergency medical service (EMS) responses was described in the record as roughly 3,500–4,500 calls per year. Gunderson told the panel that those figures, combined with frequent mutual‑aid needs, support using a deployment model that looks at regional resource availability rather than only the town’s two routinely staffed ambulances.

On contract enforcement, counsel walked the witness through the town’s proposed operational written agreement dated 01/04/2024 (included in the town plan as exhibit 2). Gunderson confirmed the contract contains performance‑measurement provisions, including response‑time reporting and a dispute‑resolution section. He described section 5.01 as addressing disagreement and possible dissatisfaction with performance and noted that a termination clause would allow either party to end the agreement on 30 days’ written notice for substantial failure to perform.

Gunderson also explained his reading of a provision saying a contract breach or termination would not automatically remove Aetna’s state authority to operate in town unless the Connecticut Department of Public Health or the Office of Emergency Medical Services (OEMS) revoked Aetna’s license or PSAR designation. "If the town... terminates the contract, that doesn't remove Aetna's right to still respond to calls in the town," he said, describing the distinction between local contract remedies and the state's licensing authority.

Counsel for the existing provider, WEMSA, and other participants pressed Gunderson on the operational impact if WEMSA’s three ambulances were removed from the local ecosystem. Gunderson testified he had formed an opinion that Aetna’s historical record of covering calls — including instances when WEMSA lacked available resources — supported his conclusion that Aetna could adjust deployments and meet the town’s response needs. He also acknowledged he had not performed a financial analysis and had not reviewed certain exhibits before the hearing, including hospital affiliation charts and some Connecticut OEMS annual‑report slides that were shown to him for the first time at the session.

During cross‑examination Gunderson confirmed he had not reviewed the Hartford HealthCare and Prospect system organization charts shown later in the session, and said he had not known that Prospect entities hold a 50% ownership interest in Aetna Ambulance until those charts were presented at the hearing. Counsel pointed to a recent filing showing Prospect Medical Holdings Inc. had sought bankruptcy protection, and asked whether that raised concerns about a five‑year, zero‑cost contract proposed by Aetna. Gunderson said he did not do a financial analysis and therefore could not speak to the financial sustainability of such a contract; he relied instead on Aetna’s operational track record.

Hearing officer Hanstead recessed the session after counsel discussed outstanding exhibits and scheduling. The parties were directed to exchange and review backup documentation for several exhibits; the record shows the hearing will continue and the panel set a briefing schedule tied to a pending motion. Counsel agreed the brief in reply to an opposition would be due by Feb. 7; the parties were asked to propose available dates in February for continuation and to provide proposed findings and briefs after the hearing record is closed.

The hearing transcript includes repeated debate about the permissible scope of Gunderson’s testimony (operations versus legal questions about PSAR authority). Counsel and the hearing officer repeatedly cautioned against requests for legal conclusions from the witness while allowing operational opinions.

The record presented at this hearing session consists of the town plan and attachments (town exhibit 2), a contract labeled as the Town of Wethersfield operational written agreement dated 01/04/2024 (sections 3.11 and 5.01 were discussed), and slides from Connecticut OEMS and hospital financial reports that Gunderson said he had not seen before this day.

Observers and parties will have the opportunity to develop additional factual detail in follow‑on filings and at the next hearing date, as the panel requested updated exhibits and scheduled future filings and dates.