WEMSA counsel seeks disqualification of reassigned hearing officer; scheduling put on hold

Mary Alice Moore Lenhart, counsel for Wethersfield EMS (WEMSA), told a remote Department of Public Health hearing that she filed a motion to disqualify the reassigned hearing officer on the morning of the session and objected to the supervisor handling the final decision because he supervises the attorney who issued the proposed decision.

“I filed a motion to disqualify this morning,” Lenhart said, adding that she objected to the supervisor's involvement and wanted time to file a supporting brief.

Hearing Officer Burns acknowledged receipt of a delegation from the commissioner and said he would share that document with the parties, but he said he would not make any scheduling rulings until he had received briefing on the disqualification motion. “I have received a general delegation from the commissioner, which I'm happy to share with all of you,” Burns said. He asked counsel to file authorities and briefs by Friday and to provide availability for an early-week follow-up conference.

Opposing counsel, including an attorney who identified themselves as representing the Town of Wethersfield, said they would file responses and expressed the view that supervision alone does not establish bias. Town counsel said the town had no problem staying with the original scheduling order and that a delegation letter from the commissioner could resolve any questions about authority.

Attorney Kim Reinhardt, representing Aetna Ambulance on the call, argued that the notice accompanying the proposed decision required objections within 21 days and that, in her view, the decision may already have become final. “I believe the decision is final as of the 20 seventh,” Reinhardt said, and she noted concerns that repeated continuances have imposed financial strain on parties.

Lenhart said she had filed a notice of intent to seek oral argument and a motion for extension of time; she said the extension motion had been objected to and that she filed a brief on Friday after attending trial. She asked that the parties be allowed to brief the legal issues, including case law she cited such as Campion v. MedStar and certain zoning-board decisions.

Burns directed that the original scheduling orders remain intact while the disqualification motion and related briefing proceed. He set a follow-up teleconference for 1:00 p.m. the coming Monday, blocked an hour, and required that all briefs be received by 9:00 a.m. Monday; he said there would be no responses during the conference. Burns also asked that any filings in support or opposition be submitted by Friday and indicated he would consider submitted authorities before making further rulings about scheduling.

The hearing record includes competing claims about statutory timing: Lenhart said the notice provided multiple dates and that she filed a timely notice of intent and a brief, while opposing counsel and Reinhardt argued the statutory or notice deadlines may have been missed and that a final decision could be effective under the notice. The hearing officer did not resolve those legal questions during the call and postponed scheduling decisions pending written briefing.

A follow-up conference and the deadlines Burns set are procedural directions, not final rulings on the merits of the disqualification motion or on whether a final decision already exists. The parties were directed to submit their briefs and authorities by the deadlines stated and to appear at the scheduled teleconference for further status and scheduling matters.