A Philadelphia law firm has sent letters to several local
municipalities warning them that they may be in violation of
federal law if they have an exclusive contract with the City of
Bradford ambulance service.

“…your municipality is one of several McKean County
municipalities currently engaging in conduct that we believe
violates federal antitrust and unfair competition laws,” reads the
letters sent out to Bradford, Corydon, Foster and Lafayette
townships and Lewis Run Borough.

The letter is signed by Attorney Carl Hittinger of the firm
Stevens & Lee, who represents CTS Inc., doing business as
Priority Care Ambulance. The ambulance service is owned and
operated by Brian Gustafson, who purchased McCormack Ambulance
Service last year from Bill and Joan McCormack of Bradford and
merged the service with his business.

Gustafson is involved in a lawsuit in McKean County Court with
the McCormacks, alleging that Bill McCormack, who is Bradford City
fire chief, is intentionally trying to destroy his business.

That suit, Gustafson explained, will soon be moved to federal
court.

“We sent letters to the municipalities to give them the
opportunity to not be involved in the federal lawsuit,” he said.
“Letters were sent to the five municipalities that were involved in
the deal with the city and us last fall.”

Last year, after Gustafson purchased McCormack Ambulance
Service, the City of Bradford told area municipalities at the Tuna
Valley Council of Governments meeting that they needed to find a
way to support the city’s ambulance service. This started a lengthy
process where McCormack and Bradford City Mayor Michele Corignani
went to the area municipalities explaining their services and what
the costs would be.

Each municipality ended up signing an agreement with the city,
each paying a different amount based on the number of residents,
for ambulance service.

Then, Priority Care Ambulance began to experience difficulty in
obtaining business from facilities that had used McCormack’s
service previously.

According to the suit, Gustafson learned the City of Bradford
“was seeking to establish itself as the exclusive ambulance service
to provide emergency and non-emergency transportation of
individuals from and to various medical facilities and nursing
homes within the area in which McCormack Ambulance Services had,
according to Plaintiff William McCormack, exclusively provided
non-emergency transportation.”

The letters sent to the municipalities, Gustafson explained, are
seeking to clarify what the agreements are between each
municipality and the City of Bradford.

“We’re moving the lawsuit with Mr. McCormack into federal
court,” Gustafson reiterated. “We’re going to amend the claim.
We’re figuring out now who we’re going to attach to it. We’re
looking for clarification in the contract with the city.”

He referred further questions to his attorney, who was not
immediately available for comment Friday.

Hittinger did explain in the letter to the municipalities that
the city may be creating a false impression regarding the
arrangement currently in place.

“We understand that the city has characterized the service
agreements as creating an exclusive relationship between the city
and each of the municipalities that prevents the municipalities
from using (Priority Care Ambulance) as a provider of emergency
ambulance services,” the letter reads. “This is false.”

There is no exclusive arrangement, Hittinger says.

“We also understand that the city has advised some
municipalities that utilizing the emergency ambulance services of
(Priority Care) will result in the cessation of ambulance services
by the city to the municipalities, thereby pressuring the
municipalities to refuse to use (Priority Care) as a provider and
to engage in a group boycott of (Priority Care),” the letter
reads.

“We believe that this situation raises serious concerns under
federal antitrust and unfair competition laws. We are writing in
the hope that we can resolve this issue with the municipalities
without the need for litigation.”

Hittinger calls the actions of the municipalities a “conspiracy
to boycott and drive (Priority Care) out of business” and adds
“this type of concerted action … constitutes an unlawful restraint
of trade.”

He goes on to explain that the municipalities are not exempt
from antitrust liability in this circumstance, and cites case law
supporting his position.

“Accordingly, since we believe that your municipality is
involved in the above-described anti-competitive practices, we ask
that you or your attorney representative contact us to discuss this
issue and to clarify if you, in fact, intend the services to be
exclusive.

“We would like to reach an amicable resolution of this matter,”
Hittinger wrote.