S-23-0945 M’Moupientila “Marc” N’Da and Dignity Non-Emergency Medical Transportation, Inc. (Appellants) v. Mike Hybl, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Nebraska Public Service Commission; Mary Ridder, in her official capacity as Chair of the Nebraska Public Service Commission; Rod Johnson, in his official capacity as Vice-Chair of the Nebraska Public Service Commission; Tim Schram, in his official capacity as Commissioner on the Nebraska Public Service Commission; Crystal Rhoades, in her official capacity as Commissioner on the Nebraska Public Service Commission; Dan Watermeier in his official capacity as Commissioner on the Nebraska Public Service Commission; Nebraska Public Service Commission; Dannette R. Smith, in her official capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services; and Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (Appellees)
Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County, Judge Kevin R. McManaman
Attorneys: Perry A. Pirsch (Pirsch Legal Services, PC, LLO for Appellants), William Aronin, Andrew Ward, Joseph Gay, and Justin Pearson (Institute for Justice appearing as pro hac vice for Appellants) and Eric J. Hamilton and Grant D. Strobl (Asst. Solicitor General for Appellees)
Civil: Declaratory judgment
Proceedings below: The district court affirmed the Nebraska Public Service Commission’s denial of Appellants’ application to receive a Medicaid non-emergency medical transportation designation of authority. Appellants petitioned to bypass the Court of Appeals, which the Supreme Court granted and transferred this case from the docket of the Court of Appeals to its docket.
Issues: Appellants make the following assignments of error: 1) The district court erroneously analyzed the due process and special legislation claims under the federal rational-basis test rather than Nebraska’s real and substantial test; 2) The district court erroneously held that the convenience and necessity law accords with Nebraska’s due process clause; 3) The district court erroneously held that the law accords with Nebraska’s special legislation clause; and 4) The district court erroneously held that the law accords with Nebraska’s special privileges and immunities clause.
Appellees make the following assignment of error on cross-appeal: 1) The district court erred in ruling that Appellants lack an equally serviceable remedy because they cannot appeal an order entered by the Public Service Commission.