American Ambulance & Oxygen Service v. Mayor of Baltimore

Gilbert, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Before an ambulance service may be lawfully operated in Baltimore City, a license must be obtained from the Commissioner of Health of that municipality. Baltimore City Code art. 15, §§ 1-7 (1966). 1 Desirous of operating a licensed ambulance service within the territorial confines of Baltimore City, Suburban Ambulance Service, Inc., of Silver Spring, Maryland, applied to the Commissioner of Health for the express purpose of having licenses issued for five ambulances. In accordance with Regulation 6 (b) (1), of the “Rules and Regulations Governing Ambulance Operations” that the Commissioner had promulgated pursuant to Baltimore City Code art. 15, § 4 (1966), the Commissioner notified “. . . each and every existing ambulance vehicle licensee . . .” of the pending application.

Regulation 6 (b) (1) requires that other licensees be advised of the time and place of the public hearing that is mandated by the regulation. In addition, a notice of the ⁴³⁴ hearing must be published in a .. local newspaper once a week for the three consecutive weeks immediately preceding the ... hearing.” 2 At the time of hearing, January 22, 1975, Mr. Willie Runyon, the owner of five ambulance services, appeared, with counsel, in opposition to the granting of the licenses to Suburban. The affidavit to which we have alluded in footnote 2, supra, recites: “... Following the hearing, the hearing commission consisting of James D. Carr, MD, Assistant Commissioner, Local Health Services, Philip A. Berman, Acting Chief, Division of Institutional Facilities, John B. DeHoff, MD, Commissioner of Health and .. . [C. Edward Sachs, Director — Bureau of Environmental Hygiene] approved Suburban Ambulance Service, Inc.’s petition for three vehicles for operation in Baltimore City.” The five services owned by Mr. Runyon, i.e., American Ambulance & Oxygen Service; Armacost Ambulance and Oxygen Service, Inc.; Community Ambulance Service; MWG Ambulance Service, Inc.; and Mayple Hill Ambulance Service, appealed to the Baltimore City -Court.

The City and Suburban responded to the appeal by filing separate motions raising preliminary objections. Md. Rule 323. The basis of the City’s motion was twofold. First, the City contended that the court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter because the Runyon-owned companies were not aggrieved persons within the meaning of Baltimore City Code art. 15, § 4, and second, there was a “Want of necessary parties.” The reason for the latter assertion was that in their appeal the appellants had named not only the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore as an appellee, but had also designated the “Baltimore City Health Department” as an appellee.

The City asserted that the Department of Health “.. . is not a legal entity ...”, but rather a department of the City ⁴³⁵ government and, thus, was not a proper party. 3 Suburban’s motion to dismiss raising a preliminary objection asserted that the appellants lacked the legal capacity to sue. In the Baltimore City Court, Judge James W. Murphy determined that appellants were . . not ‘aggrieved’ parties .. .” in that they were not .. personally and specially affected in any way different from . .. the public generally, except for a possible competition from the new licensees.” The appellants then appealed to this Court asserting that Judge Murphy erred in holding that appellants were not parties aggrieved by the action of the Commissioner and lacked standing to appeal to the trial court. Recently, in Prince George’s County v. Fahey, 28 Md. App. 312 , 345 A. 2d 102 (1975), we, on motion of Fahey, dismissed an appeal because it was not sanctioned by the Prince George’s County Ordinances and