1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MATHEW SELOVER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 3:20cv04698-TKW-HTC 

ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD 

OF COMMISSIONERS and 

RAYME EDLER, 

Defendants. 

___________________________/

ANSWER

Defendant Rayme Edler (“Dr. Edler”) answers Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint as follows:

1. On information and belief, admitted.

2. On information and belief, admitted.

3. Admitted.

4. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 4, and on that basis denies them. 

5. Admitted that Plaintiff was employed by Escambia County Board of 

County Commissioners as a paramedic at various times relevant to his First Amended 

Complaint. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 5, and on that basis denies 

them.

6. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 6, and on that basis denies them.

7. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 7, and on that basis denies them.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 40 Filed 07/08/20 Page 1 of 12
2

8. Admitted.

9. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 9, and on that basis denies them.

10. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 10, and on that basis denies them.

11. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 11, and on that basis denies them.

12. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 12, and on that basis denies them.

13. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 13, and on that basis denies them.

14. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 14, and on that basis denies them.

15. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 15, and on that basis denies them.

16. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 16, and on that basis denies them.

17. Admitted that on April 23, 2019, Dr. Edler convened a Quality Assurance 

pursuant to the Raymond H. Alexander, M.D., Emergency Medical Transportation 

Services Act.” Fla. Stat. §401.2101, et seq. to review plaintiff’s medical 

performance.

18. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 18, and on that basis denies them.

19. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 19, and on that basis denies them.

20. Admitted that Ivey Lett attended the April 23, 2019, QA meeting.

21. Admitted that the April 23, 2019, QA board included Dr. Edler, 

Commander Shawn Hoopaugh, Captain Craig Ammons, and Commander James 

Maddrey.

22. Admitted.

23. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 23, and on that basis denies them.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 40 Filed 07/08/20 Page 2 of 12
3

24. Denied.

25. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 25, and on that basis denies them.

26. Admitted.

27. Denied.

28. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 28, and on that basis denies them.

29. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 29, and on that basis denies them.

30. Admitted that a meeting occurred on or around May 13, 2019, between 

EMS Chief Leon Salter, Interim Public Safety Director John Dosh, and Dr. Edler. 

Otherwise, denied.

31. Admitted that after the April 23, 2019, QA review, Dr. Edler limited 

Plaintiff to performing basic life support, rather than advanced, and required that he 

work under supervision. Otherwise, denied.

32. Admitted that after the April 23, 2019, QA review, Dr. Edler limited 

Plaintiff to performing basic life support, rather than advanced, and required that he 

work under supervision. Otherwise, denied.

33. Admitted that after the April 23, 2019, QA review, Dr. Edler limited 

Plaintiff to performing basic life support, rather than advanced, and required that he 

work under supervision. Otherwise, denied.

34. Admitted that after the April 23, 2019, QA review, Dr. Edler limited 

Plaintiff to performing basic life support, rather than advanced, and required that he 

work under supervision. Otherwise, denied.

35. Admitted that after the April 23, 2019, QA review, Dr. Edler limited 

Plaintiff to performing basic life support, rather than advanced, and required that he 

work under supervision. Otherwise, denied.

36. Denied.

37. Admitted.

38. Denied.

39. Denied.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 40 Filed 07/08/20 Page 3 of 12
4

40. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 40, and on that basis denies them.

41. Admitted that after the April 23, 2019, QA review, Dr. Edler limited 

Plaintiff to performing basic life support, rather than advanced, and required that he 

work under supervision. Otherwise, denied.

42. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 42, and on that basis denies them.

43. Admitted that after the April 23, 2019, QA review, Dr. Edler limited 

Plaintiff to performing basic life support, rather than advanced, and required that he 

work under supervision. Otherwise, denied.

44. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 44, and on that basis denies them.

45. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 45, and on that basis denies them.

46. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 46, and on that basis denies them.

47. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 47, and on that basis denies them.

48. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 48, and on that basis denies them.

49. Admitted that after the April 23, 2019, QA review, Dr. Edler limited 

Plaintiff to performing basic life support, rather than advanced, and required that he 

work under supervision. Otherwise, denied.

50. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 50, and on that basis denies them.

51. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 51, and on that basis denies them.

52. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 52, and on that basis denies them.

53. Admitted that after the April 23, 2019, QA review, Dr. Edler limited 

Plaintiff to performing basic life support, rather than advanced, and required that he 

work under supervision. Otherwise, denied.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 40 Filed 07/08/20 Page 4 of 12
5

54. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 54, and on that basis denies them.

55. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 55, and on that basis denies them.

56. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 56, and on that basis denies them.

57. Denied.

58. Denied.

59. Admitted that after the April 23, 2019, QA review, Dr. Edler limited 

Plaintiff to performing basic life support, rather than advanced, and required that he 

work under supervision. Otherwise, denied.

60. Denied.

61. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 61, and on that basis denies them.

62. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 62, and on that basis denies them.

63. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 63, and on that basis denies them.

64. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 64, and on that basis denies them.

65. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 65, and on that basis denies them.

66. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 66, and on that basis denies them.

67. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 67, and on that basis denies them.

68. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 68, and on that basis denies them.

69. Admitted that after a full and thorough review of the facts and relevant 

authorities, Human Resources Director Jana Still determined that Dr. Edler was 

authorized to limit Plaintiff to performing basic life support, rather than advanced, 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 40 Filed 07/08/20 Page 5 of 12
6

and to require that he work under supervision, and that Dr. Edler had not engaged 

in retaliation. Otherwise, denied.

70. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 70, and on that basis denies them.

71. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 71, and on that basis denies them.

72. Admitted that after a full and thorough review of the facts and relevant 

authorities, Human Resources Director Jana Still determined that Dr. Edler was 

authorized to limit Plaintiff to performing basic life support, rather than advanced, 

and to require that he work under supervision, and that Dr. Edler had not engaged 

in retaliation. Otherwise, denied.

73. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 73, and on that basis denies them.

74. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 74, and on that basis denies them.

75. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 75, and on that basis denies them.

76. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 76, and on that basis denies them.

77. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 77, and on that basis denies them.

78. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 78, and on that basis denies them.

79. Denied. 

80. Dr. Edler is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 81, and on that basis denies them.

81. Denied.

82. Admitted that after the April 23, 2019, QA review, Dr. Edler limited 

Plaintiff to performing basic life support, rather than advanced, and required that he 

work under supervision. Otherwise, denied.

83. Paragraph 83 does not contain specific allegations of fact or liability 

against Dr. Edler which require a response from Dr. Edler. However, to the extent 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 40 Filed 07/08/20 Page 6 of 12
7

that any portion of paragraph 83 may be construed to assert, or is intended to assert, 

factual or legal conclusions which would operate to impose or implicate liability on 

the part of Dr. Edler, Dr. Edler denies same.

Count I

84. The Court has dismissed Count I against Dr. Edler; consequently, Dr. 

Edler is not required to respond to the allegations in paragraphs 84-99. 

Count II

100. Dr. Edler adopts and incorporates herein her previous responses.

101. Paragraph 101 does not contain specific allegations of fact or liability 

against Dr. Edler which require a response from Dr. Edler. However, to the extent 

that any portion of paragraph 101 may be construed to assert, or is intended to 

assert, factual or legal conclusions which would operate to impose or implicate liability 

on the part of Dr. Edler, Dr. Edler denies same.

102. Paragraph 102 does not contain specific allegations of fact or liability 

against Dr. Edler which require a response from Dr. Edler. However, to the extent 

that any portion of paragraph 102 may be construed to assert, or is intended to 

assert, factual or legal conclusions which would operate to impose or implicate liability 

on the part of Dr. Edler, Dr. Edler denies same.

103. Denied.

104. Denied.

105. Admitted that after the April 23, 2019, QA review, Dr. Edler limited 

Plaintiff to performing basic life support, rather than advanced, and required that he 

work under supervision. Otherwise, denied.

106. Denied.

107. Paragraph 107 does not contain specific allegations of fact or liability 

against Dr. Edler which require a response from Dr. Edler. However, to the extent 

that any portion of paragraph 107 may be construed to assert, or is intended to 

assert, factual or legal conclusions which would operate to impose or implicate liability 

on the part of Dr. Edler, Dr. Edler denies same.

108. Paragraph 108 does not contain specific allegations of fact or liability 

against Dr. Edler which require a response from Dr. Edler. However, to the extent 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 40 Filed 07/08/20 Page 7 of 12
8

that any portion of paragraph 108 may be construed to assert, or is intended to 

assert, factual or legal conclusions which would operate to impose or implicate liability 

on the part of Dr. Edler, Dr. Edler denies same.

109. Denied.

110. Denied.

In response to the unnumbered paragraph immediately following paragraph 

110, Dr. Edler denies that plaintiff is entitled to any benefits, damages, or other relief 

of any type, amount, or nature whatsoever.

Count III

The Court has dismissed Count III against Dr. Edler; consequently, Dr. Edler 

is not required to respond to the allegations of paragraphs 111-126.

Count IV

The Court has dismissed Count I against Dr. Edler; consequently, Dr. Edler is 

not required to respond to the allegations of paragraphs 127-143.

Count V

The Court has dismissed Count I against Dr. Edler; consequently, Dr. Edler is 

not required to respond to the allegations of paragraphs 144-161.

Count VI

The Court has dismissed Count I against Dr. Edler; consequently, Dr. Edler is 

not required to respond to the allegations of paragraphs 162-171.

Count VII

The Court has dismissed Count I against Dr. Edler; consequently, Dr. Edler is 

not required to respond to the allegations of paragraphs 172-184.

DENIAL OF ALLEGATIONS NOT EXPRESSLY ADMITTED

To the extent that any paragraph or allegation contained in Plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint has not been expressly admitted, denied, or otherwise 

specifically answered, it is hereby expressly denied.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 40 Filed 07/08/20 Page 8 of 12
9

AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES

Without assuming the burden of proof as to any matter which must be 

established by Plaintiff, Dr. Edler sets forth her affirmative and other defenses, as 

follows:

First Defense

Dr. Edler is protected from liability and suit under the doctrine of qualified 

immunity. 

Second Defense

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may 

be granted and should therefore be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P.

Third Defense

Escambia County’s Emergency Medical Service operates under the supervision 

of the Florida Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services, within 

the statutory framework of the Raymond H. Alexander, M.D., Emergency Medical 

Transportation Services Act.” Fla. Stat. §401.2101, et seq. (“EMTS Act”). The 

Department of Health has responsibility for issuing and reviewing medical licenses 

for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, like plaintiff. Dr. Edler is 

responsible for reviewing the performance of EMS personnel so that they operate 

within their scope of competence, including the April 23, 2019, quality review of 

Plaintiff’s medical competence, subsequent report to the Department of Health, and 

consequent limitation of Plaintiff’s medical performance. This Court lacks jurisdiction 

to determine plaintiff’s medical competence and should abstain from deciding 

whether his medical performance was properly limited.

Fourth Defense

As Medical Director, Dr. Edler was obligated to supervise and review plaintiff’s 

medical performance, to conduct necessary quality reviews, and to report her 

concerns about Plaintiff’s medical performance to the Florida Department of Health

under the EMTS Act, and is immune from suit under Fla.Stat. §401.425.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 40 Filed 07/08/20 Page 9 of 12
10

Fifth Defense

Plaintiff is unable to meet the legal requirements for the entry of declaratory 

and injunctive relief and his First Amended Complaint should be dismissed.

Sixth Defense

Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that he has a protected property interest in his 

employment such that he is entitled to procedural due process. Moreover, Plaintiff is 

not able to establish a deprivation of his property interest as he was never demoted, 

disciplined, or terminated.

Seventh Defense

Dr. Edler is not the final policymaking authority on whether paramedics within 

her department are able to be demoted, be placed on administrative duty, or be 

terminated. Although Dr. Edler has authority to maintain the quality assurance 

standards within her department and determine which individuals are fit to work 

under her medical license, Dr. Edler lacks managerial authority to demote or 

otherwise discipline individuals such as Plaintiff. Consequently, Plaintiff’s cause of 

action as to Count I cannot be maintained under a theory of liability under 42 U.S.C. 

§1983 against Escambia.

Eighth Defense

Plaintiff had multiple opportunities to be heard with regard to his medical 

license. Plaintiff had an opportunity to be heard at the QA Meeting. Plaintiff had or 

will have an opportunity to be heard by the Department of Health. 

Ninth Defense

Plaintiff had multiple opportunities to be heard with regard to his County 

employment. Plaintiff had appellate rights available to him under Escambia’s Human 

Resources Policies and Procedures to be heard by the Merit System Protection Board. 

Plaintiff had grievance and appellate rights under the Collective Bargaining 

Agreement between Escambia and Union Local R5-325 (the “CBA”). However, 

Plaintiff failed to timely appeal pursuant to Escambia’s Human Resources Policies and 

the CBA.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 40 Filed 07/08/20 Page 10 of 12
11

Tenth Defense

Plaintiff did not suffer a reduction in rank, reduction in pay, abatement of 

benefits, and/or lose the opportunity to work overtime during his employment with 

Escambia after the April 23, 2019, QA Meeting.

Twelfth Defense

Dr. Edler acted in good faith.

Thirteenth Defense

Dr. Edler had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for taking the actions 

complained of in the First Amended Complaint.

Fourteenth Defense

Each and every decision and action taken with respect to Plaintiff was based 

on legitimate, non-discriminatory factors, for which there can be no recovery in this 

action.

Fifteenth Defense

Plaintiff caused his own damages by resigning his employment. 

Sixteenth Defense

Dr. Edler did not act with evil motive or intent or with reckless or callous 

indifference to Plaintiff’s federally protected rights, and Plaintiff is not entitled to an 

award of punitive damages.

/s/ Cecily L. Kaffer

Cecily L. Kaffer, 

pro hac vice 

The Kullman Firm

A Professional Law Corporation

Post Office Box 1287

Mobile, Alabama 36633

Telephone: (251) 432-1811

clk@kullmanlaw.com

Attorney for Defendant Rayme Edler

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 40 Filed 07/08/20 Page 11 of 12
12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on July 8, 2020 I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk 

of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to 

the following:

Katie Gudaitis

Stephanie Pidermann

Lydecker Diaz

495 Grand Blvd.

Miramar Beach, FL 32550

Telephone: (305) 416-3180

kg@lydeckerdiaz.com

sp@lydeckerdiaz.com

J.J. Talbott

Law Office of Jerimiah J. Talbott, P.A. 

900 East Moreno Street

Pensacola, Florida 32503

Telephone: (850) 437-9600

jjtalbott@talbottlaw.com

/s/ Cecily L. Kaffer

Cecily L. Kaffer

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 40 Filed 07/08/20 Page 12 of 12