Emergency Medical Dispatcher Immunity: EMSA Governs Liability Over Enhanced 911 Act

Introduction

Ferlic v. Mesilla Valley Regional Dispatch Authority, decided April 21, 2025 by the Supreme Court of New Mexico (No. S-1-SC-40162), presents a certified question about the scope of immunity for 911 dispatchers under New Mexico law. The underlying lawsuit arises from the tragic June 2023 death of 16-year-old I.B-R, who collapsed from heat stroke while hiking in the Organ Mountains. Plaintiffs, including the personal representative of I.B-R’s estate and family members, sued two dispatching agencies—Mesilla Valley Regional Dispatch Authority (MVRDA) and New Mexico Department of Public Safety (DPS)—alleging negligent handling of emergency medical calls. Defendants moved to dismiss, invoking Section 63-9D-10 of the Enhanced 911 Act’s immunity provision. The federal district court certified to the New Mexico Supreme Court the question whether 911 dispatchers are immune from negligence claims under the NMTCA given the Enhanced 911 Act and the Enhanced Medical Services Act (EMSA).

The Supreme Court reformulated the question to address whether the Enhanced 911 Act’s immunity clause affects dispatchers’ liability for alleged negligence in emergency medical calls. The Court held that it does not, and that liability must be determined under the EMSA’s provisions—as implemented by the New Mexico Tort Claims Act (NMTCA).

Summary of the Judgment

Justice Michael E. Vigil, writing for a unanimous Court, examined two statutes:

The Enhanced 911 Act (NMSA 1978, §§ 63-9D-1 to -11.1) provides immunity “except for intentional acts” to entities involved in installing, maintaining or providing enhanced 911 systems.
The Enhanced Medical Services Act (EMSA) (NMSA 1978, §§ 24-10B-1 to -13), implemented through the NMTCA (NMSA 1978, §§ 41-4-1 to -27, 41-4-30), treats emergency medical dispatchers as health care providers and waives immunity for negligence claims under § 24-10B-8.

Applying established principles of statutory construction, the Court concluded that the Enhanced 911 Act is focused on funding and technology infrastructure—with only limited references to “public safety answering point call-takers”—and did not intend to override the EMSA’s detailed licensing and liability scheme for emergency medical dispatchers. Moreover, repeals by implication are strongly disfavored, and the 2017 amendment to the Enhanced 911 Act’s immunity threshold (raising it from negligence to intentional acts) does not demonstrate clear legislative intent to displace the EMSA. The Court therefore held that § 63-9D-10’s immunity provision is irrelevant to the liability of medical dispatchers. Instead, Section 24-10B-8 of the EMSA governs whether emergency medical dispatchers and their municipal or state employers can be sued for negligence.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court relied heavily on established rules of statutory interpretation and comity principles. Key authorities included:

Baker v. Hedstrom, 2013-NMSC-043, ¶ 11: Emphasizing that legislative intent is gleaned from plain statutory text.
Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001): Warning against “hiding elephants in mouseholes”—i.e., making major statutory changes in ancillary provisions.
Spurlock v. Townes, 2016-NMSC-014, ¶ 11: Endorsing judicial reformulation of certified questions to fit the case’s context.
Coal. for Clean Affordable Energy v. NMPRC, 2024-NMSC-016, ¶ 30: Repeals by implication require clear and manifest legislative intent.
Schlieter v. Carlos, 1989-NMSC-037, ¶ 4: Advising that courts avoid issuing advisory opinions and confine answers to determinative issues.

These decisions guided the Court in construing the two statutes in harmony, resisting any implied repeal of the EMSA, and ensuring the dispatchers’ immunity issue was properly framed.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s legal reasoning followed these steps:

Scope and Purpose of Each Statute: The Enhanced 911 Act’s text and legislative history show it regulates funding, equipment, mapping, and “automatic routing” of calls by local governments and service providers, without detailing dispatcher responsibilities.
Detailed EMSA Scheme: In contrast, the EMSA expressly defines “emergency medical dispatchers,” prescribes their training and licensure (§ 24-10B-3(J), -4(F)), and provides a liability framework for negligence (§ 24-10B-8).
Avoiding Repeals by Implication: The Court refused to read § 63-9D-10’s short immunity clause as displacing the comprehensive EMSA liability provisions, absent clear legislative language.
Statutory Harmonization: Adhering to the principle that statutes must be read as a harmonious whole, the Court assigned each act its proper domain—the Enhanced 911 Act for infrastructure, the EMSA for dispatcher liability.
Comity and Certification Limits: The Court confined its analysis to the immunity question, avoiding advisory rulings on EMSA applicability to the case’s specific facts.

Impact

The decision in Ferlic v. MVRDA establishes clear precedent on dispatcher immunity in New Mexico:

Clarity for Practitioners: Emergency medical dispatchers and their employers now know that negligence claims will be judged under the EMSA/NMTCA framework, not the Enhanced 911 Act.
Statutory Drafting Guidance: Legislatures must be explicit when revising interrelated liability and immunity regimes to avoid unintended overlaps or conflicts.
Future Litigation: Courts will apply the EMSA’s licensure and negligence standard to dispatcher-related claims. Defendants must demonstrate compliance with EMSA requirements to claim immunity.
Judicial Economy: By limiting certified‐question answers to determinative issues, the ruling promotes efficient case resolution and avoids premature advisory opinions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Certified Question: A federal court asks the state’s highest court to clarify state law on an unresolved issue before proceeding with a case.
Enhanced 911 Act: A statute funding and outlining the technology for enhanced emergency calling (e.g., location mapping), not dispatcher duties.
EMSA (Enhanced Medical Services Act): A law regulating emergency medical services, defining licensed roles (including dispatchers) and their liability under the NMTCA.
Repeal by Implication: A court-created doctrine requiring clear legislative intent before one law is read to cancel or override another.
NMTCA (New Mexico Tort Claims Act): The statute waiving governmental immunity for certain tort claims, subject to exceptions like intentional acts.

Conclusion

Ferlic v. MVRDA clarifies that Section 63-9D-10 of the Enhanced 911 Act does not govern dispatcher immunity for emergency medical calls. Instead, liability questions surrounding emergency medical dispatchers must be resolved under the EMSA’s explicit provisions—particularly § 24-10B-8—and the NMTCA’s negligence standard. This ruling provides essential guidance for legal practitioners, emergency response agencies, and legislators, ensuring that each statutory framework is applied coherently and as intended by the New Mexico Legislature.