This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
Superior Ambulance Service voluntarily suspended its authority to operate in Valencia County in 2000 and ceased operations. In 2008, Superior applied to the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (PRC) for reinstatement of its authority. Living Cross Ambulance Service contested this, arguing that Superior’s authority was permanently abandoned after 180 days of inactivity under the applicable rules at the time (paras 4, 6, and 8).
Procedural History
- New Mexico Public Regulation Commission, July 10, 2008: Granted reinstatement of Superior Ambulance Service’s authority to operate in Valencia County (para 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Living Cross Ambulance Service): Argued that Superior’s authority was abandoned after 180 days of inactivity in 2000 under the rules in effect at the time. Claimed the PRC failed to follow proper notice and hearing procedures required for new applications and should have treated Superior’s 2008 application as a new application rather than a reinstatement (paras 4 and 6).
- Appellees (Superior Ambulance Service and PRC): Contended that Superior’s authority was not abandoned but indefinitely suspended, and the PRC acted appropriately in treating the 2008 application as a reinstatement. Superior also argued that the current statutory scheme, not the rules in place in 2000, should govern the case (paras 5 and 8).
Legal Issues
- Was Superior Ambulance Service’s authority to operate in Valencia County abandoned under the rules in effect in 2000?
- Did the PRC err in treating Superior’s 2008 application as a reinstatement rather than a new application?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the PRC’s decision to reinstate Superior’s authority and remanded the matter for the PRC to consider Superior’s application under the rules applicable to new applications (paras 9-10).
Reasons
Per Chávez CJ (Serna, Maes, Bosson, and Daniels JJ. concurring):
The Court found that under the rules in effect in 2000, Superior’s authority was abandoned 180 days after its voluntary suspension due to inactivity and failure to resume operations. The PRC was required to treat Superior’s 2008 application as a new application, which would have necessitated compliance with notice and hearing procedures. Superior’s argument that the current statutory scheme should apply was unsupported by case law, and the plain language of the rules in effect at the time made clear that abandonment occurred automatically after 180 days without the need for an affirmative finding by the PRC. The PRC’s decision to treat the application as a reinstatement was therefore incorrect (paras 6-9).