2003 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 12-23-2003 

# Lo ck h a r t v . M atthew P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-2914

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" L ock h a r t v . M atthew " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 33. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/33NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

No. 02-2914

AL SO N L OC KH AR T, S R.,

Ap pellan t,
v. M AV IS L . M AT TH EW , M .D.; H ER BE RT SA ND ER S, M .D.; GOVERNMENT OFTHE VI RGI N IS LANDS

___________ ON APPEAL FROM THE DI STRI CT COURT

OF THE VIR GIN I SLANDS (D.C. Civi l No. 00-cv- 00129) Distri ct Judge: The Honorable Stanl ey S. Brotman

___________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

December 8, 2003
BE FO RE : NY GA AR D, B EC KE R, a nd S TA PL ET ON , Circu it Judges
.

(Fil ed: December 23, 2003)2 ___________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

___________ NY GA AR D, Circu it Judge
.

Pro S e A ppella nt A lson L ockh art, Sr. bro ugh t suit aga inst A ppelle es M avis L. Matthew, Herbert Sanders , and the Government of the Vir gin Isl ands (col lectively “the Government”) when his application for renewal of hi s emergencymedical technici an (“EMT”) license was denied. The Dis tri ct Court he ld a bench t rialand enter ed a ju dgme ntin fav orof t

he Go vernmen t. Lockhart appe al s a nd we wil l a ffi rm.

I. Becau se the facts are k now n to the parties, w e review them on ly briefly . In the Virgin Islan ds, EM Ts are license d by the territorial governm ent. EM T licenses are valid onl y for

two year s and must be r enewed for each peri od therea fter. To obtain an EMT lice nse, an appl icant must: ( 1) nati onally

regis ter; (2) complete a four-y ear high school cour se of study or the equi valent ; (3) be able t o lift and carry

100 pounds (the “lif

t and c arry requ ireme nt”); (4) h ave a valid V irgin Isla nds d river’s lice nse; (5 ) succ essfu lly complete t

he Emergency Defensi ve and Evasive Dri ving cours e; and (6) verify good character an d good physical and m ental health. V.I. Ex ec. Orde r No. 23 3-1979 , § 2(a)(1)- (6) (Fi led June 25, 1979). The re quirement at is sue in t

his cas e is Lockhart’s abili ty to li ft and carry 100 pounds. The Government does not requi re appli cants t o undergo a phy sical3

test , but relie s on the appl icant ’s desi gnation i n a “ye s” or “no” box as to whether he can
me et the lift an d ca rry req uire me nt.

Lockhart was first licensed as an EMT in 1980 and renew ed his license everytwo year s ther eafter . In 1992, Lockhart suf fered a back i njuryand was off the j ob for four months . He reinj ured his back in 1998, went on disabi lit y for two months, and upon returning to dut

y se rved a te mporary assignment as a dis patcher

because he was unable to meet the physicaldemands of an EM T. From 1999 to 2000, Lockhart acted as a “third-party” on EMT dispatche s, meani ng he was an extraperson not reli ed upon to do liftin g an d ca rrying
.

When Lockhart sought r enewal of his EMT lice nse in March 2000, he fill ed out the applic ation f orm and o n the lif t and c arry ques tion ch ecke d that “ yes,” he c ould
mee t the req uirem ent, bu t noted a cros s-refe rence to disab ility informa tion fro m h is doctor. The doctor’ s note t hat was appended t o Lockhart’ s appli cati on recommended “light duty ” and indicated that Lockhart should do no lifti ng over ninety pounds.

Based on the co ntradictory information in Lock hart’s applic ation—Lockhart sa id he coul d meet the l ift a nd carryrequir ement but hi s doctor indicated Lockhart

could li ft only

ninety pounds, l ess than the 100-pound t hreshol d—the Government could not

relysolel y on Lockhart’s c hecking the “ye s” box. The Dire ctor of Eme rgency Services c onsulted L ockha rt’s personnel file an d discove red that Lo ckhart had been li mited i n his l ifti ng and carrying activities si nce 1999. The Government4

inter preted t he aggregat ed information to s how that Lockhart could not meet

the li ft and carryrequir ement and therefore deni ed his appl ication for EMT license renewal. The Government then gr anted Lockhart three e xtensi ons of ti me to show he could meet t he lif t and carry requir ement, but

Lockhart fai led to provide such i nformati on untilafter the third exte nsio n ha d ex pire d.

Lockhart f

il ed s ui t a gai nst

th e Gov er nmen t, maki ng c la ims und er42 U. S. C. § 19 83 an d 48 U.S .C. § 1 561 . The Distric t Cou rt denie d pre trial mo tions f rom both parti es that

would have prevent ed tri al. The case proceede d to trial wit hout a jur

y, and on May 30, 2002, the Dist

rict Court is sued a judgment in favor of t

he Government. We have juri sdiction over Lockhart’s appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. II. A. Findings of

fact made bya District Court during a benc h tri al shal l be set aside b y this Co urt on ly if clearly erron eous . Fed. R . Civ. P . 52(a); see also Newark Branch, NAACP v. City of Bayonne , 134 F.3d 113, 119-20 (3d Cir . 1998) . We exercise plen ary rev iew ove r qu estio ns o f law
. See Riley v. Tayl or , 277 F.3d 261, 278 (3d Cir. 200 1) (e n ba nc) . B.

Lockhart challenges the District Court’s judgment on various grounds, most of which warrant l ittle dis cussion he re. Contraryto Lockhart ’s ass erti ons, Executive5

Ord er 23 3-19 79 is leg ally valid an d un amb iguo us as to the ne ed fo r all app licants, b oth new and renewal, t o meet the l ift a nd carryrequir ement. The Dist rict Court found that the Government reasonably concluded Lockhart could not sati sfy the requirement. We agree. In s uppor

t of his equa l pr ote ct ion cl ai m, Loc khart po int s t o otherEMTs license d by the te rritory wh o suf fer fro m b ack p roblem s. Loc khar t alleges he is sim ilarly situated to these individ uals wh ose injuries w ere accom mod ated. As the D istrict Court noted , Loc khar t fails to a ppre ciate tha t he is no t similarly situa ted be caus e he f ailed to provide any

information to rebut

his doct or’s i ndication that he could not

carryover ninety pounds. The Government pr ovided Lockhart ample ti me— three e xtensi ons—to do so, yet the information was delayed for more than three months. Loc khar t’s due proc ess cla im co nsists o f asse rtions th at, as an EM T w ith ninete en years e xper ience , he w as a ten ured pub lic em ployee w ith a pro perty intere st in his licen se. U nlike c ases w here th is Co urt has been willing to reco gnize a pro perty inter est in a lice nse , Lo ckh art’s EM T lic ens e ex pire d ev ery tw o yea rs. Cf. Herz v. De gna n, 648 F.2d 201, 208 (3d C ir. 1981) (holdi ng that a person had a property i nterest in a profe ssionallice nse that was automati call y r enewed). Natur al expi rati on of the licen se n ega tes a ny cla im th at it is a pro per ty intere st pro tecte d by th e du e pr oce ss cla use .

Finall y, Lockhart cl aims that the Dist rict Court err ed by eva luati ng the propri etyof the Department of Health’ s li cense rene wal decisi on, as oppos ed to the as y et
unr end ered Pu blic E mp loyee s R elatio ns B oar d (“ PE RB ”) d ecis ion . W e are unp ersu ade d.6

Lockhart cont

roll ed the timing of hi s suit and clearly cannot complai n about the Distri ct Co urt’s failu re to rev iew an a dm inistr ative dec ision that h as n ot yet b een ma de. III. For th e reaso ns set f orth, w e w ill affirm the D istrict Co urt’s jud gm ent in favo r of the Go vern men t._________________________

TO THE C LERK:

Please fi le the foregoing opi nion.

/s/ Richard L. Ny gaard Circuit Judge