Hearing officer denies disqualification, sets oral argument after briefs; Aetna warns $100,000 reimbursement shortfall

A hearing officer in a virtual administrative proceeding denied a motion to disqualify the presiding officer and set a schedule for post-hearing briefs and oral argument while parties argued over how quickly a final decision should take effect.

The ruling matters because counsel for Aetna said the company has already lost more than $100,000 under the current billing arrangement and urged immediate implementation of a proposed decision; other participants asked the officer to consider transition timing and labor-notice issues before any order takes effect.

The hearing officer told parties, “I am denying your motion to disqualify me as a hearing officer,” and said filings would be treated as timely because a motion for an extension had been filed before a deadline. The officer also said they would “proceed as if everything was filed timely.”

Counsel and the officer agreed on a short window for further filings. The hearing officer directed that papers in support of a proposed decision be filed on the schedule derived from the hearing notice — which the parties discussed as a 21-day/35-day cadence — and set a date for oral argument in the week the transcript records as the “20 ninth.” The officer said the hearing will convene at 9:30 a.m. and requested roughly a half hour per side for initial argument, with additional time for questions.

Dr. Leonard confirmed that he had filed exceptions. The hearing officer said they would review those materials and expected to issue a final decision more quickly than the full 90-day statutory or procedural allowance unless extraordinary circumstances arose.

Aetna’s counsel raised the company’s financial losses tied to current billing practices. “It’s over a $100,000 just in that issue alone at this point,” Attorney Renner said, describing unpaid claims where an Aetna paramedic providing ALS services is combined on a bill with a WEMSA BLS unit and the combined claim does not yield payment for Aetna. Renner said the company has been providing service without reimbursement to avoid disrupting town coverage.

Other counsel asked the officer to consider implementation timing. One attorney warned that an immediate effective date could create operational problems — including potential notices of termination and labor-law implications — and asked that the officer consider phased implementation or transition timing. The officer said written submissions on implementation would be accepted up to and including the day of oral argument but did not rule on any delayed effective date then.

The hearing officer also emphasized parties may rely on the full record and post-hearing briefs rather than restating arguments at oral argument. “I will have the benefit of the full record,” the officer said, adding interest in pinpointing any alleged error and responses to it.

Discussion (not a formal ruling) touched on attorneys’ scheduling conflicts: several participants described out-of-state travel and arbitration or trial dates that might affect availability. The officer and counsel exchanged constraints and then confirmed an agreed schedule for briefs and the oral argument date the parties had identified.

Next steps: parties will file briefs according to the agreed schedule (described in the hearing as a brief due by “Thursday” under the 21/35 cadence from the notice), may submit written materials about implementation up to the day of oral argument, and will appear for oral argument on the date identified as the “20 ninth.” The officer said they intend to issue a final decision promptly after oral argument.

No formal vote was taken on implementation timing at the scheduling conference; the only formal dispositive action on the record was denial of the motion to disqualify the hearing officer and the issuance of the scheduling directions described above.