CFT Ambulance Service v. State Fire Prevention Commission
K16A-02-005 JJC
| Del. Super. Ct. | Oct 24, 2016Background
- CFT Ambulance Service, licensed in Delaware since 2009 as a non-emergency ambulance provider, faced repeated inspections from 2009–2015 revealing deficient, missing, or malfunctioning equipment and safety hazards; multiple vehicles were placed out-of-service.
- A former employee reported management misconduct (switching license plates between certified and non-certified units; improper axle/tire repairs) and testified at the Commission hearing.
- A customer complaint in August 2015 alleged an ambulance transported a patient without functioning air conditioning, causing dangerous overheating and requiring emergency transport; ensuing inspection found additional violations.
- The State Fire Prevention Commission held a hearing (CFT admits it received notice) but CFT failed to appear; the Commission decertified CFT and denied its petition for rehearing.
- CFT appealed to Superior Court arguing due process violation (insufficient opportunity to be heard), defective statutory notice under the APA, abuse of discretion in denying rehearing and in sanction severity, and that its failure to appear was excusable neglect.
- The Superior Court reviewed for substantial evidence and legal error, found the Commission complied with due process, that APA notice provisions did not apply or were waived, that the denial of rehearing and decertification were not abuse of discretion, and that CFT’s failure to appear was not excusable neglect; the Commission’s order was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process / opportunity to be heard | CFT: did not get a meaningful hearing because it did not appear; right to be heard not satisfied | Commission: proper notice was delivered and a hearing was held; CFT waived opportunity by failing to appear | Court: Due Process satisfied—notice was reasonably calculated and hearing occurred; CFT’s absence does not invalidate process |
| Sufficiency of notice under APA | CFT: notice failed to meet APA §10122/§10131 requirements and omitted key details (e.g., revocation) | Commission: APA provisions relied on do not bind this agency; CFT did not raise objection timely | Court: CFT waived the APA-notice claim; in any event APA Subchapter III/IV provisions do not apply to this Commission |
| Abuse of discretion / denial of rehearing | CFT: denial of rehearing and decertification were arbitrary, capricious, and disproportionate | Commission: followed regulations, provided notice and hearing, sanction authorized by regulation | Court: No abuse of discretion; Commission acted within authority and reason; proportionality argument fails absent statutory power for court to modify sanction |
| Excusable neglect for failure to appear | CFT: failure to forward notice up chain was excusable neglect (part‑time employee, holiday stress), justify relief | Commission: company negligence in internal procedures is not excusable; Rule 60 inapplicable to agency final orders | Court: Even applying Rule 60 standard, not excusable neglect; company failed to implement basic internal safeguards; relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Olney v. Cooch, 425 A.2d 610 (Del. 1981) (defines "substantial evidence" standard for administrative review)
- Digiacomo v. Bd. of Pub. Educ., 507 A.2d 542 (Del. 1986) (standard that court may not reweigh evidence on agency review)
- Floundiotis v. State, 726 A.2d 1196 (Del. 1999) (abuse of discretion defined as arbitrary, capricious, or beyond reason)
- Vincent v. E. Shore Mkts., 970 A.2d 160 (Del. 2009) (administrative hearings must afford notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Straley v. Advance Staffing Inc., 984 A.2d 124 (Del. 2009) (Due Process satisfied when notice reasonably calculated to afford opportunity to be heard)
- Apartment Communities Corp. v. Martinelli, 859 A.2d 67 (Del. 2004) (corporation cannot claim excusable neglect where internal safeguards failed to forward service)