Opinion
Case No. 2:03CV93DAK
November 17, 2003
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, JUDGMENT AND ORDER
The court conducted a bench trial in this matter on October 23, 27, 28 and 29, 2003. Plaintiff Eagle Air Med Corporation ("Eagle") was represented at trial by Gary G. Sackett and Ross L Romero, of Jones, Waldo, Holbrook and McDonough. Defendant Commission on Accreditation of Medical Transport Systems ("CAMTS") was represented at trial by Abigail Williams and Robert Fontana of Abigail Williams and Associates, and by Grant M. Sumsion, of Sumsion Crandall Having heard the testimony of the witnesses, considered the evidence, and heard and considered the arguments of counsel, and being fully advised, the Court enters the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Judgment and Order:
I. Findings of Fact
1. Eagle Air Med Corporation ("Eagle") is engaged in the business of providing air ambulance services in the Four Corners Area of Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado, Ninety-nine percent of Eagle's services are provided to Indian Health Services ("IHS").
2. Scenic Aviation, Inc. is a separate corporate entity from Eagle, and is not a party to this action.
3. Although Scenic and Eagle may work together to provide air ambulance services, the two companies retain separate identities.
4. The Commission on Accreditation of Medical Transport Systems ("CAMTS") accredits air ambulance services in accordance with industry standards. CAMTS is governed by a 16-person Board of Directors (the "Full Board") with certain administrative functions delegated to the four-member Executive Board. Both are chaired by Dr. Ralph Rogers. CAMTS's Executive Director is Eileen Frazer. CAMTS maintains an internet website on which it posts those programs that are accredited and permitted to advertise as being CAMTS-accredited to the outside world.
5. The process for becoming accredited by CAMTS includes the submission by an air ambulance program of a document called a Program Information Form, referred to frequently and hereinafter as a "PIF." A PIF is an extensive questionnaire concerning a program's operations.
6. Programs seeking accreditation are also required to append to the PIF requisite supporting documents and data.
7. Upon receipt of the PIF, CAMTS assigns an on-site survey team and schedules an on-site survey (site survey).
8. The information compiled through the completed PIF and site survey is presented to the CAMTS Board of Directors, which votes to determine whether to accredit the program.
9. Programs seeking accreditation are required to list on the PIF each aircraft incident or accident in which the program has been involved during the five years preceding the date of the PIF.
10. Each program seeking accreditation is also required to provide on the PIF information regarding its definition of incident and accident
11. Programs seeking accreditation are also required to provide on the PIF information regarding their plan for responding to incidents and accidents.
12. The accreditation process depends upon the honest and complete reporting by the programs seeking accreditation. CAMTS does not have the resources to thoroughly investigate each program prior to granting accreditation. Thus, CAMTS has to rely upon the integrity of the programs.
13. CAMTS' policies include a provision that allows CAMTS to withdraw accreditation from a program if CAMTS determines that the program intentionally falsified information on the PIF.
14. Eagle originally applied for accreditation on March 11, 1996, as Blanding Air Ambulance. Since 1996, CAMTS has provided Eagle and its predecessors with accreditation manuals, guidelines, site surveys and other materials to inform Eagle about CAMTS standards. Despite multiple site visits and accreditation meetings, Eagle did not in CAMTS's view achieve substantial compliance with CAMTS accreditation standards until it was fully accredited on November 19, 2001.
15. At every request for accreditation, CAMTS has notified Eagle of deficiencies, mainly with transport safety and patient care. Eagle appealed the negative accreditation decisions at each stage and requested further review. In March of 2001, Eagle applied to CAMTS for accreditation and submitted a PIF requesting review for a fixed-wing operation only. The PIF is an extensive questionnaire concerning a program's operations.
16. CAMTS conducted a site visit in early 2001, but was not informed that Eagle was operating an AS tar 350 B helicopter. Following the site visit and prior to the CAMTS Board meeting to decide accreditation, CAMTS received communication from Dr. James Flaherty, an Emergency Medical Services ("EMS") physician working at an IMS facility in Tuba City, conveying his concern about certain business practices of Eagle and claiming that Eagle was using a helicopter for patient transport. Helicopter accreditation differs from fixed-wing accreditation and requires that additional standards be met. CAMTS deferred Eagle's accreditation pending an investigation and response by Eagle, CAMTS's investigation led it to conclude that Eagle was using a helicopter in its patient transport service. CAMTS believed that Eagle was publicly advertising its helicopter service, and CAMTS contended that Eagle purposefully withheld the use of a helicopter from the site surveyor in order to gain accreditation. Eagle disagreed with this.
17. CAMTS requested that Eagle submit an amended PIF to include the helicopter. On July 30, 2001, Eagle's counsel suggested that Eagle was willing to separate the personnel for the two operations, the fixed-wing and the helicopter. This resolution, however, raised concerns for CAMTS. Eagle then agreed to stop using the helicopter, submitted another PIF in September 2001, and another site visit took place on October 12, 2001, for the fixed-wing service only.
18. With its September 2001 PIF, in response to questions regarding its post incident-accident plan, Eagle provided its accident plan.
19. Eagle's post incident-accident plan, which was submitted as part of its PIF, included the following definitions:
a. "Aircraft Accident: an occurrence with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and until all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage,"
b. "AIRCRAFT INCIDENT: An occurrence other than an accident associated with the operation of one or more company aircraft, which affects or could affect the safety of operations, or result in any of the following conditions:a) Flight control system malfunction;
The actual entity operating the helicopter was Scenic, doing business as Life Flight, a dba of Scenic.
b) In-flight fire;
c) In-flight emergency;
d) Aircraft collision in flight;
e) Aircraft ground collision;
f) Damage to a company aircraft when there was no intent to flight;
g) Damage to company aircraft when there was intent for flight;
h) Damage to company aircraft when there was intent for flight;i) Hijacking (actual or intended);
j) Injury to any person caused by the operation of company aircraft;k) Sabotage;
l) Theft (aircraft or major component thereof).
20. On its September 2001 PIF, in response to the question, "has your program had any incidents or accidents in the past 5 years" Eagle answered, "Yes" and explained that it had only one.
21. In or about November 2001, relying upon the information provided to CAMTS by Eagle, including its PIF, CAMTS accredited Eagle.
22. On or about October 30, 2002, CAMTS received an e-mail message from Eaglet former Chief Flight Nurse, Laurel Larsen, raising questions concerning the veracity of the information that Eagle had provided to CAMTS in the PIF leading to accreditation in November 2001, including accuracy of documentation of crew work scheduling, training and education of Eagle personnel, and aircraft accidents or incidents that were not reported to CAMTS.
23. Standing alone, the report from Ms. Larsen was insufficient to warrant immediate action. CAMTS planned a monitoring visit to investigate Ms. Larsen's allegations.
24. Also in October 2002, James Blick, Darcy McCracken, Nico Simponis and Jack Malone (hereinafter collectively the "Blick Defendants") left Eagle's employ to start a competing air ambulance service.
25. In November 2002, Scenic Aviation, Inc. filed suit against the Blick Defendants. That action is pending in this District as Civil No. 2:02CV:1201PGC.
26. In the Verified Complaint filed in that action, Cheryl Bowers, Eagle's Operations Manager, asserted that the Blick Defendants had developed contacts and relationships with and helped develop substantial goodwill with Eagle's customers.
27. Ms. Bowers and Mr. Hunt further asserted, in statements sworn under oath before this Court, that Eagle's customers identified Eagle with the Blick Defendants and when the Blick Defendants started a competing company, Eagle's customers thought it was still Eagle operating under a different name.
28. In November 2002, Eagle experienced a substantial decrease in flight volume over what it had experienced in October 2002. That decline in flight volume occurred before Eagle's accreditation was suspended and withdrawn. The decline in flight volume continued through December 2002 and January 2003. However, in February of 2003, the Blick Defendants' venture began to falter, and this court issued a preliminary injunction reinstating Eagle's accreditation. After February 2003, Eagle's flight volumes again began to increase.
29. On or before December 10, 2002 CAMTS' Executive Director, Eileen Frazer, received a telephone call from Larry Levy, a doctor who had been a CAMTS site surveyor in the past.
30. Dr. Levy reported that he had in his office a pilot formerly employed by Eagle, who had pictures of Eagle planes that had crashed but had not been reported on Eagle's PIF. Although Ms. Frazer was not told the pilot's name, other evidence at trial indicates that it was Mr. Blick.
31. Dr. Levy sent to Ms. Frazer, by overnight mail service, copies of pictures depicting aircraft operated by Eagle that had been involved in crashes. Ms. Frazer distributed the pictures to the members of CAMTS' Executive Board,
32. Eagle had not reported to CAMTS either on its PIF or at any other time the crashes depicted in the pictures sent by Dr. Levy.
33. On or about December 10, 2002, after a conference call in which the Executive Board discussed the reports and information CAMTS had received, the Executive Board decided, by a vote conducted through telephone polling, to suspend CAMTS' accreditation of Eagle.
34. Although Eagle has argued that the Executive Board did not have the pictures prior to the vote to suspend, the evidence at trial was undisputed. The only members of the Executive Board who testified, Ralph Rogers and Dudley Smith, both testified that they had the pictures and relied upon them in making the decision to suspend. In response to a direct question on the subject from Plaintiffs counsel, Dr. Rogers testified, "When we made the decision to suspend, I had the information in front of me in pictures, which were pretty impressive/'
35. At trial, Ms. Frazer testified that she provided the pictures from Dr. Levy to the Executive Board prior to their decision to suspend accreditation of Eagle.
36. No witnesses testified and no document states that the Levy photographs were provided to the Executive Committee only after the decision to suspend. The Court therefore finds that at the time the Executive Board discussed and voted on suspension, its members had received and considered the photographs provided by Dr. Levy.
37. At the time it received information raising concerns about Eagle, CAMTS had in place a policy for dealing with complaints and concerns regarding an accredited program.
38. CAMTS' complaint/concern policy guidelines required that complaints or concerns about an accredited program be put in writing.
39. The complaints/concerns that CAMTS received prior to suspending its accreditation of Eagle were in writing, including the pictures and narrative sent by Dr. Levy and the e-mail sent by Laurel Larsen.
40. The policy includes language that requires complaints/concerns to be put on the appropriate form and to be signed by the complainant. However, the complaint form itself, which is included as part of the policies, specifically states that the complainant is not required to sign the form. In any event, CAMTS knew that the information was from Dr. Levy and Laurel Larsen.
41. The Court finds that if there was a requirement to put complaints on the designated form, that requirement was not material. The fact that the written complaints that CAMTS received were not on the designated report form did not materially affect the decision of CAMTS' Executive Board to suspend Eagle's accreditation.
42. There is no evidence that the Executive Board's decision to suspend would have been different if the information it had received had been on the designated report form, rather than in the form of photographs showing crashes of Eagle's planes.
43. CAMTS' policies require the executive director to notify the director of a medical transport service about which a complaint is received, if the Chair or Vice-Chair of Eagle's Board determines that further action is required.
44. CAMTS' policies do not require that CAMTS notify the director of the program before any action is taken.
45. On the contrary, CAMTS' policy states that depending on the nature of the Complaint, action may be necessary before the next meeting of the full board of directors. In such events, the policies enable the Executive Board to make decisions regarding appropriate action.
46. Eagle argued that CAMTS Board members Richard Orr, Michael Brunko, and Ten Norton understood the procedure manual to require notification to a program prior to taking further action. Eagle's argument, however, is not supported by the testimony. Although these Board Members each testified that a program would be notified, none of them testified that the manual required notification prior to any action, or that prior notification was the typical protocol. The evidence at trial was that CAMTS does not typically notify programs of complaints or concerns prior to a suspension decision.
47. Among the actions that CAMTS may take in response to complaints and concerns are to suspend or withdraw accreditation of a program,
48. It is CAMTS' policy to immediately suspend a program if the Executive Board determines that the complaints it has received are of such a nature that safety and patient care are at risk.
49. In reaching its decision to suspend its accreditation of Eagle, CAMTS substantially complied with its Policies and Procedure.
50. On December 11, 2002, CAMTS orally notified Eagle that it had received a complaint and that its accreditation of Eagle was suspended.
51. On or about December 11, 2002, CAMTS sent written notification to Eagle that it had received a complaint and that its accreditation of Eagle was suspended, which notification was received by Eagle on or before December 16, 2002.
52. On or about December 27, 2002, CAMTS sent to Joseph Hunt, Eagle's program director, a letter seeking Eagle's input regarding certain alleged matters outlined in the letter.
53. On or about January 10, 2003, Eagle, by a letter signed by Joseph Hunt as Program Director and a separate letter signed by Eagle's counsel, together with a report, responded to CAMTS' letter of December 27, 2002.
54. In its January 10, 2003 responses, Eagle admitted that most of the incidents of which CAMTS had been informed did indeed happen. Eagle argued that many of the incidents were not "incidents" within the FAA's definitions. They were, however, incidents or accidents within the definitions that Eagle provided as part of its PIF.
55. One of the crashes about which CAMTS learned, and which Eagle admitted occurred, was that one of Eagle's planes had landed with the landing gear up, It is undisputed that this was an accident by any reasonable definition, that it should have been reported on the PIF, and that Eagle failed to report it on the PIF. Eagle's excuse for its failure to report the gear up landing was that it was "inadvertently omitted" in the process of copying information from a former PIF to the new PIF.
56. CAMTS' Executive Board considered Eagle's responses to the complaints/concerns that CAMTS had received.
57. After considering Eagle's responses, CAMTS conclusively determined that Eagle intentionally misrepresented on its PIF the number of incidents and accidents in which it had been involved.
58. CAMIS' conclusion that Eagle intentionally misrepresented on the PIF the number of incidents and accidents in which it had been involved was based on the following factors:
a. Eagle's airplane N47744 hit a horse on the runway on 1/29/98. Hitting a horse on the runway is an aircraft accident by any reasonable definition, including Eagle's own definition that it provided as part of its PIF. Eagle did not report this accident on its PIF.
b. The nose gear of Eagle's airplane N6935C collapsed on landing on 8/13/98. Although this was reported to the NTSB and is an aircraft accident it was not reported on the PIF.
c. Eagle's airplane N 5943M suffered a dual engine failure on 7/1/99 that was reported in the PIF as fuel contamination but found by the NTSB to be the result of the pilot failing to check to make sure that there was enough fuel in the tanks. Dual engine failure is an aircraft accident or incident by any reasonable definition, including Eagle's own definition that it provided as part of its PIF. Eagle did not report this accident/incident on the PIF.
d. The nose gear of Eagle's airplane N2655B collapsed on landing on 8/13/98. A gear collapse is an aircraft accident or incident by any reasonable definition, including Eagle's own definition that it provided as part of its PIF. Eagle did not report this accident/incident on the PIF.
e. Eagle's airplane N911EA landed with its gear up in July 2000 and again in September of 2000. A gear up landing is an aircraft accident by any reasonable definition, including Eagle's own definition that it provided as part of its PIF. Nevertheless, neither of these crashes were reported on the PIF.
f. Eagle's airplane N4119M's engine failed in flight as a result of a maintenance issue. This was noted to be an incident by the FAA but was not reported to C AMIS on the PIF
g. In April of 2001 Eagle's airplane N344ND had a propeller strike on landing. A propeller strike is an aircraft incident by any reasonable definition, including Eagle's own definition that it provided as part of its PIF but Eagle failed to report this event on its PIF
h. On 3/13/02, while CAMTS site surveyors were at Eagle, Eagle's airplane N4119M had an engine failure and was diverted to Winslow, Arizona, This is an incident by any reasonable definition including Eagle's own definition and was not only left off the PIF but kept from the site surveyors who were present at the time
i. In August of 2002 Eagle's airplane N1083S had a propeller strike on landing. A propeller strike is an aircraft incident by any reasonable definition, including Eagle's own definition that it provided as part of its PIF but Eagle failed to report this event to CAMTS
j. The members of CAMTS Executive Board of Directors did not believe that Eagle simply forgot to report such obvious and serious aircraft accidents. Rather, they concluded that it was impossible for Eagle to have forgotten two gear up landings as well as the other incidents and accidents.
59. On or about January 22, 2003, by a vote of the Executive Board, CAMTS decided to withdraw Eagle's accreditation effective March 1, 2003. The effective date of the withdrawal was delayed to give Eagle an opportunity to appeal the decision.
60. On or about January 27, 2003, CAMTS notified Eagle that it had withdrawn its accreditation of Eagle.
61. In reaching its decision to withdraw its accreditation of Eagle, CAMTS followed its policies and procedures. Any departures from the policies and procedures were not material.
62. CAMTS' decision to withdraw its accreditation of Eagle was reasonably based on substantial evidence available to CAMTS at the time the decision was made.
63. CAMTS' accreditation of Eagle was the result of misrepresentations made by Eagle, including but not limited to misrepresentations regarding the number of accidents and incidents in which the program had been involved, and misrepresentations regarding the medical direction available to the program.
64. Joe Hunts testimony that two of the accidents Eagle failed to identify on the PIF seemed outside the five-year period to him at the time he was preparing and submitting the PIF was not credible, Furthermore, even if Joe Hunt was not responsible for Eagle's operations at the time of one of the accidents, as Eagle alleges in an attempt to demonstrate that the misrepresentation was not intentional, Hunt still had a duty to submit an accurate PIF.
65. CAMTS substantially complied with its Policies and Procedures in suspending its accreditation of Eagle.
66. CAMTS substantially complied with its Policies and Procedures in withdrawing its accreditation of Eagle.
67. Hunt testified that CAMTS substantially complied with its complaint policy.
68. After withdrawal, CAMTS told Eagle to resubmit a truthful and accurate PIF and submit to a site survey to regain accreditation. Eagle was eligible to do so as of September of 2003 but has made no attempt to regain accreditation.
69. CAMTS did not breach any contract, including any implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that may exist between CAMTS and Eagle.
70. When CAMTS suspended, and subsequently withdrew, its accreditation of Eagle, CAMTS did not intend to interfere with Eagle's existing or prospective economic relations. Rather, CAMTS acted without regard for whatever existing or prospective economic relations might be affected.
71. CAMTS did not employ any improper means that adversely affected Eagle's existing or prospective economic relations.
72. CAMTS did not breach any fiduciary duty that it owed to Eagle.
73. CAMTS treated Eagle fairly, and in accordance with how CAMTS had treated other accredited programs that were similarly situated,
74. Eagle was not damaged by CAMTS' suspension of its accreditation of Eagle because the suspension was not wrongful.
75. It is impossible to determine, from the evidence properly presented to the Court, what caused the number of flights flown by Eagle to decrease beginning in November 2002.
76. It is likely that the decrease in flight volume was affected by several factors, including the loss of accreditation and the commencement of competing air ambulance services,
77. Because of Eagle's loss of accreditation, Eagle lost its Basic Ordering Agreement ("BOA") with Indian Health Services. However, without a BOA, it is possible for Eagle to charge more per flight than Eagle charges when it does have a BOA. Thus, Eagle was potentially more profitable during periods that it was not on the BOA than it was during periods that it was on the BOA.
78. The damages figures that Eagle presented were not damages alleged to have been suffered by Eagle alone. Rather, those are damages allegedly suffered by Eagle, by Scenic Aviation, Inc., and by Indian Air Ambulance Management. The Court cannot determine from any credible evidence what portion, if any, of the alleged damages Eagle incurred.
79. Any decrease in Eagle's flight volume that occurred as a result of the suspension of CAMTS' accreditation of Eagle was more than made up for while this action has been pending because Eagle has had the benefit of this Court's preliminary injunction. CAMTS acted properly in withdrawing its accreditation of Eagle on or about January 27, 2003. But for this Court's preliminary injunction, Eagle would have been unable to advertise itself as accredited, and would not have been listed on CAMTS' website of accredited services, beginning March 1, 2003. Thus, even if the suspension in December had been improper (which it was not), the nine months of the preliminary injunction have more than compensated for the brief period of suspension.
80. No evidence was produced at trial that under its written policies CAMTS could have or should have placed Eagle on a probationary accreditation status instead of suspending Eagle. The deposition testimony and that given in open court was undisputed that CAMTS* policies only allowed a program to receive probationary accreditation at its regular accreditation cycle. No testimony was received or offered that a program could be placed on probationary status mid-cycle.
II. Conclusions of Law
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Court makes the following conclusions of law:
1. The burden of proof in this case is on the Plaintiff. Eagle must prove that CAMTS breached a contract, acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and violated fiduciary duties it owed to Eagle. It is not CAMTS's burden to prove that its actions were reasonable or its conclusions correct. Likewise, Eagle has the burden of proving that it suffered damages and, if so, the amount thereof.
2. CAMTS is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Eagle has admitted that CAMTS substantially complied with its policies and procedures. Utah v. Evans, 182 F. Supp.2d 1165, 1167 (D. Utah 2001), Brinton v. IHC Hospitals. Inc., 973 P.2d 956, 964 (Utah 1998), Don Houston. M.D., Inc. v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc., 933 P.2d 403, 406 (Utah Ct. 1997), J v4aiiboro Corp. v. Association of Independent Colleges Schools, Inc., 556 F.2d 78, 80, n. 2 (1st Cir. 1977) Wilfred Academy of Hair and Beauty Culture, Houston, Tex. v. Southern Ass'n of Colleges and Schools, 957 F.2d 210, 214 (5th Cir. 1992),
3. CAMTS is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Eagle admitted that CAMTS did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Utah v. Evans, 182 F. Supp.2d 1165, 1167 (D. Utah 2001), Brinton v. IHC Hospitals, Inc., 973 P.2d 956, 964 (Utah 1998), Don Houston M.D., Inc. v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc., 933 P.2d 403, 406 (Utah Ct. 1997), Marlboro Corp. v. Association of Independent Colleges Schools, Inc., 556 F.2d 78, 80, n. 2 (1st Cir. 1977). Wilfred Academy of Hair and Beauty Culture, Houston, Tex. v. Southern Ass'n of Colleges and Schools, 957 F.2d 210, 214 (5th Cir. 1992),
4. CAMTS owes a duty to Eagle to substantially comply with its Policies and Procedures. The facts in this case demonstrate that CAMTS fulfilled its duty to Eagle. Eagle did not prove that CAMTS acted substantively irrational or procedurally unfair.
5. A claim for breach of contract must be based on a material breach of the agreement between the parties. There is no evidence that CAMTS materially breached any promise that it made to Eagle.
6. CAMTS substantially complied with its Policies and Procedures in its evaluation of concerns raised about Eagle and its subsequent suspension and withdrawal of accreditation, Brinton v. IHC Hospitals, Inc., 973 P.2d 956, 964 (Utah 1998), Don Houston, M.D., Inc. v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc., 933 P.2d 403, 406 (Utah Ct. 1997), Marlboro Corp. v. Association of Independent Colleges Schools, Inc., 556 F.2d 78, 80, n. 2 (1st Cir. 1977). Wilfred Academy of Hair and Beauty Culture, Houston, Tex. v. Southern Ass'n of Colleges and Schools, 957 F.2d 210, 214 (5th Cir. 1992).
7. CAMTS is entitled to deference in making accreditation decisions regarding Eagle and others that it accredits. Transport Careers, Inc. v. National Home Study Council, 646 F. Supp. 1474, 1482 (N.D. Ind.1986), Don Houston, M.D., Inc. v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc., 933 P.2d 403, 406 (Utah Ct. 1997), Wilfred Academy of Hair and Beauty Culture, Houston, Tex. v. Southern Ass'n of Colleges and Schools, 957 F.2d 210, 214 (5th Cir. 1992), Medical Institute of Minnesota v. National Ass'n of Trade and Technical Schools, 817 F.2d., Ambrose v. New England Ass'n of Schools and Colleges, Inc., 252 F.3d 488, 498 (1st Cir. 2001). Foundation for Interior Design Educ. Research v. Savannah College of Art and Design, 39 F. Supp.2d 889, 894 (W.D. Mich. 1998), Brinton v. IHC Hospitals, Inc., 973 P.2d 956, 964 (Utah 1998).
8. CAMTS did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in its dealings with respect to Eagle's accreditation. Don Houston, M.D., Inc. v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc., 933 P.2d 403, 406 (Utah Ct. 1997). Wilfred Academy of Hair and Beauty Culture, Houston, Tex. v. Southern Ass'n of Colleges and Schools, 957 F.2d 210, 214 (5th Cir. 1992),), Brinton v. IHC Hospitals. Inc., 973 P.2d 956, 964 (Utah 1998).
9. CAMTS' decisions to suspend and later withdraw Eagle's accreditation were based on substantial evidence that was before CAMTS at the time the decision was made. Wilfred Academy of Hair and Beauty Culture, Houston, Tex. v. Southern Ass'n of Colleges and Schools, 957 F.2d 210, 214 (5th Cir 19921 Don Houston. M.D., Inc. v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc., 933 P.2d 403, 406 (Utah Ct. 1997),), Brinton v. IHC Hospitals, Inc., 973 P.2d 956, 964 (Utah 1998), Don Houston, M.D., Inc. v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc., 933 P.2d 403, 406 (Utah Ct. 1997).
10. The question before this Court is not whether Eagle deliberately falsified information or materials presented on the PIF. Rather, the question is whether CAMTS conclusively determined that Eagle deliberately falsified information or materials presented on the PIF.
11. It is undisputed that Eagle falsified information presented on the PIF. CAMTS is not required to accept Eagle's explanation that its falsification was inadvertent. The evidence before CAMTS at the time of the decision to withdraw accreditation from Eagle was that Eagle had failed to include numerous events that were clearly incidents or accidents under the definitions that Eagle had provided as part of the PIF. The subsequent report of Randy Corbin gives voice to the reasonable conclusion of the members of C AMIS Executive Board, "How a company forgets to include a wheels up landing that resulted in the aircraft being out of service for approximately 18 months is beyond me." CAMTS' conclusion that this omission, and the omission of another gear up landing, and the omission of an accident involving a crash into a horse on the runway, were deliberate, was a reasonable conclusion.
12. CAMTS is not estopped from suspending or withdrawing Eagle's accreditation. Johannesen v. Canyon Road Towers Owners Association, 57 P.3d 1119, 1123 (Utah App. 2002). Transport Careers. Inc. v. National Home Study Council, 646 F. Supp. 1474, 1482 (N.D. Ind.1986), Don Houston, MD., Inc. v. Intermountain Health Care. Inc., 933 P.2d 403, 406 (Utah Ct. 1997), Wilfred Academy of Hair and Beauty Culture. Houston, Tex. v. Southern Ass'n of Colleges and Schools, 957 F.2d 210, 214 (5th Cir. 1992) Medical Institute of Minnesota v. National Ass'n of Trade and Technical Schools, 817 F.2d., Ambrose v. New England Ass'n of Schools and Colleges, Inc., 252 F.3d 488, 498 (1st Cir. 2001), Foundation for Interior Design Educ. Research v. Savannah College of Art and Design, 39 F. Supp.2d 889, 894 (W.D. Mich. 1998), Brinton v. IHC Hospitals. Inc., 973 P.2d 956, 964 (Utah 1998).
13. CAMTS did not interfere with Eagle's economic relations. Tremelling v. Ogio International Inc., 919 F. Supp. 392, 396 (D. Utah 1996), U.P.C., Inc. v. R.O. A. General Inc., 990 P.2d 945, 956 (Utah 1999)., U.P.C., Inc. v. R.O.A. General Inc., 990 P.2d 945, 956 (Utah 1999), Tremelling v. Ogio International, Inc., 919 F. Supp. at 396.
14. Eagle is not entitled to a declaration that CAMTS did not follow its Procedure Manual in suspending and then withdrawing Eagle's accreditation. Johannesen v. Canyon Road Towers Owners Association, 57 P.3d 1119, 1123 (Utah App. 2002). Transport Careers, Inc. v. National Home Study Council, 646 F. Supp. 1474, 1482 (N.D. Ind.1986), Don Houston, M.D., Inc. v. Inter-mountain Health Care. Inc., 933 P.2d 403, 406 (Utah Ct. 1997), Wilfred Academy of Hair and Beauty Culture. Houston, Tex. v. Southern Ass'n of Colleges and Schools, 957 F.2d 210, 214 (5th Cir. 1992), Medical Institute of Minnesota v. National Ass'n of Trade and Technical Schools, 817 F.2d., Ambrose v. New England Ass'n of Schools and Colleges, Inc., 252 F.3d 488, 498 (1st Cir. 2001). Foundation for Interior Design Educ. Research v. Savannah College of Art and Design, 39 F. Supp.2d 889, 894 (W.D. Mich. 1998), Brinton v. IHC Hospitals, Inc., 973 P.2d 956, 964 (Utah 1998).
15. Eagle is not entitled to a declaration that it is "fully accredited" nor that it is a medical transport service on "probational accreditation" status. Johannesen v. Canyon Road Towers Owners Association, 57 P.3d 1119, 1123 (Utah App. 2002). Transport Careers, Inc. v. National Home Study Council, 646 F. Supp. 1474, 1482 (N.D. Ind.1986), Don Houston, M.D., Inc. v. Intel-mountain Health Care, Inc., 933 P.2d 403, 406 (Utah Ct. 1997), Wilfred Academy of Hair and Beauty Culture, Houston, Tex. v. Southern Ass'n of Colleges and Schools, 957 F.2d 210, 214 (5th Cir. 1992), Medical Institute of Minnesota v. National Ass'n of Trade and Technical Schools, 817 F.2d., Ambrose v. New England Ass'n of Schools and Colleges, Inc., 252 F.3d 488, 498 (1st Cir. 2000), Foundation for Interior Design Educ. Research v. Savannah College of Art and Design, 39 F. Supp.2d 889, 894 (W.D. Mich. 1998), Brinton v. IHC Hospitals. Inc., 973 P.2d 956, 964 (Utah 1998).
16. Eagle has no damage because Eagle has admitted and the court finds that CAMTS substantially complied with its policies and procedures. Utah v. Evans, 182 F. Supp.2d 1165, 1167 (D. Utah 2001), Brinton v. IHC Hospitals, Inc., 973 P.2d 956, 964 (Utah 1998), Don Houston, M.D., Inc. v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc., 933 P.2d 403, 406 (Utah Ct. 1997), Marlboro Corp. v. Association of Independent Colleges Schools. Inc., 556 F.2d 78, 80, n. 2 (1st Cir. 1977) Wilfred Academy of Hair and Beauty Culture, Houston, Tex. v. Southern Ass'n of Colleges and Schools, 957 F.2d 210, 214 (5th Cir. 1992).
17. Eagle is not entitled to damages from CAMTS. Eagle has not proved that it suffered any damages as a result of CAMTS' conduct. Moreover, CAMTS' conduct was not wrongful.
18. During closing arguments, Eagle orally moved for leave to amend the pleadings to conform to the evidence before the court on the issue of withdrawal. Eagle filed its Complaint in this case on January 24, 2003, before CAMTS's notification to Eagle that it was withdrawing its accreditation. Notwithstanding that Eagle did not formally amend its Complaint to include its position that the January 27, 2003, withdrawal was improper, both parties have fully litigated the issues dealing with both the suspension and withdrawal in this case. The withdrawal action arises out of the same general set of facts and circumstances as the original suspension action. In addition, CAMTS directly addressed the issues raised concerning withdrawal throughout the proceedings and is not prejudiced by such an amendment. Therefore, the court deems the pleadings to be amended under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(b) to conform to the evidence before the court on the issue of withdrawal.
The issue of whether to allow Eagle to add Scenic and IAAM as plaintiffs is moot given the court's conclusions with respect to damages.
III. JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Court hereby enters judgment in favor of Defendant Commission on Accreditation of Medical Transport Systems on all claims, as follows:
A. The preliminary injunction entered in this matter is hereby dissolved. Thus,
1. Plaintiff is returned to the suspended accreditation status it had at the time of the filing of this lawsuit;
2. Defendant by way of the full board of directors is entitled to take whatever further accreditation actions with respect to Plaintiffs accreditation status that are in substantial compliance with the current policies and procedures; and
3. Effective immediately, Defendant may remove Plaintiff from the list of accredited programs on the CAMTS website;
B. Plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed with prejudice;
C. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 54(d)(1) and DUCivR54-2, CAMTS may submit a bill of costs within twenty days after entry of this judgment; and
D. Each party shall bear its own attorneys' fees.