Opinion ID: 2330453
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Health or Safety Risk to the Public at Large or a Particular Individual or Community if the Waiver is Granted

Text: [¶ 23] With respect to the fourth factorwhether waiver of the rule would pose a health or safety risk to the public at large or a particular individual or communitythe Superior Court did not question the Board's finding that the health and safety of those at the prison might be harmed if the waiver is granted. Before us, WAS contends that this finding is unsupported by record evidence. [¶ 24] WAS asserts that the Board failed to fully consider unrebutted evidence regarding the prison's twenty-four-hour-a-day, professionally-staffed infirmary. In its oral deliberations, the Board noted that, contrary to WAS's position, the infirmary cannot substitute for the emergency transportation needs of all ill or injured persons at the prison. See 32 M.R.S. § 83(5) (2006) (`Ambulance service' means any person, persons or organization which holds itself out to be a provider of transportation of ill or injured persons or which routinely provides transportation for ill or injured persons.) (emphasis added). It was reasonable for the Board to conclude that some of the patients at the prison will need a higher level of care than can be provided by the infirmary and that the infirmary cannot substitute for emergency transportation services provided by WAS. In addition, the evidence shows that the private ambulance service that might have replaced WAS if the waiver was granted is farther from the prison and does not have a primary response license for the area. [¶ 25] The Board is composed of numerous health care and emergency transport professionals familiar with the practicalities of an emergency transport system. See 32 M.R.S. § 88(1)(A) (2006). Based on the record, we cannot say that the Board's finding that there would be harm to the prison population if the waiver was granted was unsupported by substantial evidence.