In a “tentative ruling,” meaning a proposed ruling, Superior Court Judge Donna Geck ruled in favor of an American Medical Response (AMR) request to stop the county from implementing a decision by the Board of Supervisors (BOS) to invalidate a legal contract with AMR, and instead make the Santa Barbara County Fire Protection District the provider of ambulance services throughout the county and all incorporated areas.

Court documents specify that the Prehospital Emergency Medical Care Personnel Act of 1980 (EMS Act) “sets forth which types of agencies can be the LEMSA (Local Emergency Management Service Agencies), which includes a county health department.

A county may not designate more than one agency to share the statutory powers of a LEMSA.

Judge Geck concluded that “After consideration of all of the arguments and authorities presented by the parties, by the state EMSA, and by CFA, the Court has concluded that AMR has established a strong likelihood of prevailing on the merit of its declaratory relief claim.”

Judge Geck issued a preliminary injunction and ordered the county of Santa Barbara to extend the AMR contract until the case’s final resolution.

Court documents explain: “The purpose of the preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until a final determination of the merits of the action. The grant or denial of an injunction does not amount to an adjudication of the ultimate rights in a controversy.”

The first hearing will take place July 16.
 
Several legal opinions were submitted. One, from the state attorney general said: “AMR is likely to prevail on the merits because state law prohibits counties from creating back doors around their LEMSAs and selecting preferred providers through discretionary permits.”

And that’s exactly what the BOS did when it passed a resolution that created a new methodology for the delivery of pre-hospital care (ambulance service).

The county tried to get many of the documents provided by AMR eliminated from discussion, however the court “disagrees with County’s contentions, and will overrule County’s objections. The documents relate to County’s abrupt cancellation of the competitive RFP process it had been long pursuing under the terms of Health & Safety Code section 1797.224, and are therefore highly relevant to the contentions made by AMR in its first cause of action for declaratory relief. They also provide relevant background information for the petition as a whole.”
 
So, to defend itself the county counsel just wanted the court to forget about the illegality of the BOS action.
 
So, what’s the cost of this apparent negligence?

Well, the “County asserts there would be substantial financial harm to County and County Fire, given that County Fire spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in preparing and submitting its permit application, and millions preparing to take over ambulance services, and County resources would be wasted because it has already approved a budget revision for County Fire worth nearly $19 million necessary to implement the new EMS system, plus $1.4 million for staff.”
 
“As for the waste of County resources, the Court accords them very little weight, given that they have been expended as a result of conduct by County which may very well have been in violation of law, in particular the creation of an EOA (exclusive operating area) for County Fire in a manner which purports to evade EMSA approval or oversight, and without complying with the strict statutory requirements for establishing EOAs under the EMS Act.”

Now that the public has access to all the evidence in this case, it appears obvious there were several levels of incompetence within county government and elected officials in this mess. Their negligent actions have caused a substantial loss to the taxpayers and voters of this county. 

This case was not about whether the Santa Barbara County Fire Protection District or AMR could provide better service, it was about the legality of the process of selection.

You can hold politicians accountable for this blunder in the March election. Neither of the three incumbent supervisors should be reelected; they have failed to properly follow the laws of the state in this matter.

Then there is the matter of the county administrator, county counsel, and other senior staff who conspired to create an arguably illegal situation that required the intervention of the Superior Court to resolve — all should be replaced with more competent leadership.

References:
https://www.santabarbara.courts.ca.gov/tentative-ruling/23cv04250-1
 
https://www.noozhawk.com/judge-rules-in-amrs-favor-in-ambulance-services-case-against-santa-barbara-county/