NY Court Rules Medic Entitled to Jury Trial Over Discipline

In a landmark decision, the New York Supreme Court for Schoharie County has concluded that the New York Department of Health cannot discipline a paramedic through an administrative hearing process, because the Seventh Amendment grants the accused the right to a jury trial. That, in a nutshell, is the holding that our firefighter-attorney colleague, Brad Pinsky, was able to secure following a hard fought battle with the state.

How the court reached that conclusion is a bit more complicated. We covered the case when it was originally filed. Here is the link to that story including a copy of the complaint. The facts as explained by the court:

• Petitioner Justin Ball (Ball), an emergency medical technician (EMT), responded to a call for help; and trouble soon began.
• A 63-year-old man had fallen and couldn’t get up. Ball believed that the patient was faking.
• As a result, he lacked any modicum of sympathy. Instead, Ball heaped scorn and ridicule upon the patient.
• Further, he provided little assistance for the patient’s efforts to get down the stairs and into the ambulance.
• And what assistance he did provide was physically rough.
• The patient, who was unsteady and moved with great difficulty, injured himself getting to and entering the ambulance.
• Upon arriving at the hospital, it turned out the patient was not feigning sickness; he was quite ill.
• Ball quickly realized that his mistreatment of the patient might spell trouble for him.
• So, he decided to secretly record a conversation with the patient where he attempted to cajole the patient into casting Ball’s actions in a favorable light. The gambit failed.
• Upon a complaint by the patient outlining the above allegations, DOH lodged charges against Ball.
• DOH set in motion the bureaucratic machinery to fine Ball and to revoke his license.
• DOH scheduled a hearing; but Ball did not like this forum.
• Instead of adjudication by DOH, Ball wants a jury to decide if he did these horrid things.
• Accordingly, he commenced this action asking the court to declare that DOH’s administrative hearing would violate his right to a civil jury trial (US Const, 7th Amend).
• Now, the Seventh Amendment provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]n Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.”
• Thus, the Amendment contains a dual threshold before a person may invoke its protections: (1) the suit must sound in the common law and (2) the potential judgment must Exceed $20.
• DOH disagrees. It maintains that Ball has no Seventh Amendment right because the Amendment does not apply to the States.
• Moreover, and in the alternative, DOH argues that in any event the Seventh Amendment would not apply in the context of public health.
• Therefore, DOH wants the case dismissed.

In historically colorful terms, the court first concluded that the Seventh Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. That in and of itself is a landmark decision. No other court, federal or state, has so ruled. To reach that decision, the court first had to explain the history of the Bill of Rights, the history of the Fourteenth Amendment, the selective incorporation doctrine, and the authority of the court (as a state court) to consider what amounts to a major federal constitutional question. The court next tackled the question of whether Ball was entitled to a jury trial. Quoting from the decision:

• Ball takes the … position…. that his supposed misconduct mirrors common law torts which are triable in courts of law.
• Moreover, he argues that the imposition of monetary penalties and the forfeiture of his license are legal remedies.
• Accordingly, he concludes that since DOH’s proceeding against him is legal and not equitable in nature; the Seventh Amendment therefore affords him a jury trial.
• DOH offers several opposing arguments.
• DOH’s line of argument is incorrect. Ball has a property interest in his EMT license.
• Significantly, Ball is allowed to keep his license unless he is found to have engaged in prohibited conduct.
• Accordingly, “since [New York] has engendered a clear expectation of continued enjoyment of a[n EMT] license absent proof of culpable conduct, [it has created a property right]”.
• Therefore, the taking of Ball’s EMT license is the taking of his property.
• In sum, in this case, any penalty hinges on proof that Ball committed torts against his patient.
• If liable, DOH means to confiscate Ball’s property-and it makes no difference whether that property is his money or his license, both are his property.
• In the end, the administrative proceeding against Ball is the equivalent of a legal action with a legal remedy.
• Thus, the Seventh Amendment provides Ball access to a jury to determine liability.
• In the end, here is what all the fuss is over-a jury trial is not as swift and certain as an administrative hearing.
• DOH may be right that honoring the Constitution will hamper and frustrate its pursuit of penalizing Ball.
• The Seventh Amendment may be a pain in DOH’s posterior.
• But as it was when conceived, as it has been in practice, and as it will always be, if we maintain our vigilance, “[t]he guarantees of the Seventh Amendment will prove burdensome in some instances… ; as surely as the civil jury was a burden to the English governors who, in its stead, substituted the vice-admiralty court”.
• To be sure, the facts alleged make it tempting to dodge the commands of the Seventh Amendment.
• If Ball did everything that DOH says he did, he is deserving of punishment.
• However, it seems wise to recall that the Seventh Amendment exists “to protect the individuals, particularly unpopular ones….
• While incursions on old rights may begin in cases against the unpopular, they rarely end there.
• The authority the government seeks… in this case-to penalize citizens without a jury, without an independent judge … contains no… limits.”

Here is a copy of the decision. Congratulations to Brad on this tremendous victory. We will be discussing this ruling at length in our next Fire Law Roundup on YouTube.