WEMSA urges DPH to reject proposed decision, alleges improper communications and risk of monopoly

Weathersfield Emergency Medical Service Association attorney Mary Alice Moore Lenhart asked the Department of Public Health’s hearing officer on July 29 to reject a proposed memorandum of decision that would replace WEMSA as the town’s primary service area responder, arguing the proposed decision was “illogical, illegal, and not founded on the substantial evidence in the record.”

Lenhart told Chief Hearing Officer Ryan Burns that the proposed decision, if adopted, would effectively shut WEMSA’s certified emergency service down because WEMSA “only does responses to 911 calls” and would have no reason to operate if Aetna refused to pass calls back to it. She said the record shows WEMSA would lose about 45 jobs and that the decision would accelerate consolidation of ambulance services under large health systems and private-equity–owned companies. “Will you stand up for what is right or give Hartford HealthCare the keys to drive out WEMSA,” Lenhart asked Burns during the hearing.

Why it matters: Lenhart argued the decision raises legal and procedural questions under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act and Connecticut General Statutes §4-181, which governs ex parte communications. She said there were prior off‑record contacts involving the commissioner’s office, town counsel and Aetna that were not placed on the record and that the department therefore bears the burden of demonstrating there were no improper communications.

Town and Aetna counsel disputed Lenhart’s characterization. Arnold Menschel, who represented the town of Wethersfield, said the hearing officer’s proposed decision follows the statutory two‑prong test in Conn. Gen. Stat. 19a‑181f and the state Supreme Court’s guidance that decisions should protect the welfare of residents by providing the “safest, most efficient services possible.” Kim Reinhart, representing Aetna Ambulance, told the hearing officer that the record includes 23 hearing days, live witnesses and hundreds of exhibits supporting the hearing officer’s findings.

Lenhart also challenged the hearing officer’s rulings granting Aetna party status during the hearing, asserting the company had no existing contract or legal right in the town at the time. She asked the department to consider documentary evidence attached to a prior motion for a stay concerning Aetna’s ownership and the pending Prospect Medical Holdings bankruptcy; she argued that evidence should be admitted or the record reopened to reflect financial developments bearing on the decision.

The hearing officer, Ryan Burns, repeatedly cautioned counsel not to relitigate findings made during the hearing and said the current proceeding is limited to whether the proposed memorandum of decision should become the final decision or be modified. Burns closed the oral argument by saying he would render a final decision “as expeditiously as possible.”

Ending: The Department of Public Health will issue a final decision after reviewing parties’ oral arguments, written exceptions and the record; counsel for WEMSA requested that, if the proposed decision is adopted, any implementation be delayed to allow an orderly transition.