The controversy over ambulance service in the Bradford region
reached new heights Wednesday with a charge of disorderly conduct
being filed against the Bradford City Fire chief.

In a citation filed Tuesday with District Judge Dom Cercone,
William McCormack of 18 Gates Hollow, chief of the City of Bradford
Fire Department, is charged with disorderly conduct by Brian
Gustafson, director of Priority Care Ambulance.

The complaint alleges that on June 1, McCormack was at 200
Chestnut St. Extension – the station of Priority Care Ambulance –
and created an offensive condition by conducting actions “with
intent to alarm, annoy, stalk and confront” employees of the
service, specifically Bryan Dunn and James Taylor.

Cercone said McCormack will be sent a summons in the matter, and
will be asked to respond with a plea of innocent or guilty. If he
enters a plea of innocent, a hearing will be scheduled where
Gustafson must present evidence to support his claim and where
McCormack can cross-examine any witnesses.

Also on Wednesday, both Priority Care Ambulance and the City of
Bradford submitted ads to The Era – both of which appear in today’s
edition – responding to Priority Care’s recent membership
drive.

While Priority Care’s ad is thanking the Bradford community for
the “overwhelming support” and response to the drive, the city’s
position seems quite the opposite.

The city’s ad, sent by City Clerk John Peterson, says the city
wants to answer some questions that have arisen. First, the
statement explains the membership letter has no affiliation with
the city or the city’s fire department services.

“Many individuals have asked what to do with this request,” the
statement reads. “The answer is quite simple. If you are currently
satisfied with the response times, service and quality of care that
you have received for more than 50 years from the City of Bradford
Fire Department Ambulance and Medic Services, you need to do
nothing with this subscription request, and you will continue to
receive the professional care and attention you have come to rely
on in times of emergency.”

The ad goes on to say that depending on where a person lives,
they may need to specify the ambulance service they want to respond
when needed. “Each and every citizen has the right to determine
what provider of emergency ambulance or paramedic services they
wish to use,” it states.

Gustafson is currently involved in litigation with McCormack,
and has said he plans to name the city as a defendant in federal
anti-trust and unfair competition litigation he will file soon.
Gustafson alleges that after he bought McCormack’s private
ambulance service last year, McCormack and the city intentionally
sought to drive him out of business.

Gustafson and his attorney have spoken with representatives of
municipalities in an effort to determine if Priority Care can
operate as an emergency provider there, or if the municipalities
feel service agreements with the city exclude other providers. If
they are excluded, Gustafson plans to sue in federal court based on
unfair competition.

Referring to the city’s ad in today’s paper, Gustafson said,
“They are making my case for me.

“What they’re actually saying is mind-boggling. ‘Go ahead and
ignore it, the city is the provider of service, we’re excluding
them,'” Gustafson said, giving his interpretation of the city’s
statement as telling people to exclude Priority Care as an
option.

Contacted for further questions, Peterson did not return a call
seeking comment Wednesday evening.