GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — Appeals Court judges heard arguments Wednesday on whether Ottawa County's health officer rightfully holds her seat.
The county's attorney argues she does not, while Adeline Hambley's attorney says she does.
The judges' decision could have significant implications.
"We understand not only the gravity of the situation but also the need for speed," Judge Christopher Yates said.
The judges say they plan to have a decision soon, but it's not clear what exactly they mean by "soon."
For almost an hour, the judges asked questions as both attorneys worked to prove they're right on Hambley's status as health officer.
"I see the subsequent board doing exactly the same thing as the prior board," Judge Michelle Rick said.
Michigan Court of Appeals Judges Michelle Rick, Christopher Yates and Douglas Shapiro listened to arguments Wednesday over whether Hambley is Ottawa County's Health Officer and an injunction preventing the county from firing Hambley.
It's one piece of a larger lawsuit filed by Hambley against the county and board of commissioners. She claims they wrongfully demoted her with the goal of eventually firing her.
"It stands to reason, given the sequencing of the way the motion was made approval, MDHHS approval, then the background check, that board approval was first, not last. Am I miss reading that?" Shapiro said.
Ottawa County's corporate council, which is the Kallman Legal Group, argues the previous board didn't properly appoint her. Hambley's attorney, Sarah Howard, said she was.
"There was a discussion about needing to vote to appoint her. And that, of course, happened when they took the vote. It's a strained interpretation of a motion that's made orally. And, of course, the whole reason why they use written resolutions on a regular basis is to be clear about what they're voting on. And what they're deciding," Howard added.
"They had to have MDHHS approval prior to appointing Ms. Hambley. And, again, Judge, the case that we cite in our brief, I think, speaks to this: it's not the court's position to look at something that a legislative body does and decide whether or not it makes sense or as logical to the court," David Kallman said.
The judges spent time questioning the attorneys on their cases.
"What you're suggesting is the equivalent of digging back into legislative history or comments made during the course of a debate on the floor to override what the ultimate act is when the legislature, for example, passes a bill. And I don't see why we would accept that invitation to create chaos," Yates explained to Kallman.
Yates also asked the county's attorney about the board's actions on January 3, the day new commissioners were sworn in. Moments after being sworn in, a majority moved and voted to name Nathaniel Kelly as the county's administrative health officer.
"But, on January 3, the new commission appointed somebody else before they had approval for MDHHS. Was that an unlawful act?" Yates asked.
"No, because they did it differently, judge. They put in Ms. Hambley as the interim health officer because of the fact that there was no permanent officer at that point," Kallman added.
Hambley and her attorney spoke with reporters following Wednesday's hearing.
"I was pleased that the judges that obviously, they're well prepared and know the issues, and we're hopeful that we'll get a result that will permit us to continue the status quo just happens,' Howard said.
"It's hopeful that we'll be able to have a chance for having a fair and impartial due process," Hambley said.
The court hearing comes just weeks before a planned removal hearing, where county commissioners will consider several charges against Hambley.
She's accused of incompetence, misconduct and neglect of duty during the county's budgeting process.
"I think she made some public statements that were deemed to have been insubordinate. Is that fair to say?" Shapiro asked.
"Well, I don't know so much insubordinate, but just false and misleading and causing panic and problems in the community by giving the community false information," Kallman explained to the judges.
Hambley's attorney wants a decision from the judges before that hearing can take place.
"We know what they've intended since day one. And so it's really hard to have a lot of faith in this commission as an impartial decider of the facts, given all of the statements they've made since the beginning that what they want to do and install their own person," Howard said.
The judges explain that they understand the gravity and timing of this case.
"Thank you, both counsel and those in the audience, for your time. This matter is being submitted, and we will have a response to you very shortly," Rick said.
FOX 17 did reach out to Kallman. He said, "We are anticipating a court ruling soon and happy to comment after the ruling."
