you doctor didnt explain what Hippa laws were? who was the letter to that said they cant release that info?
Hardships
- Thread starter X-Ray Lima
- Start date
The faa has no right for the medical records of
A non faa employee. They have no reason to dispute validity when the documentation is coming from a doctor on hospital letterhead. What medical training is a faa regional person given that would enable them To have standing to dispute a doctors conclusions and recommendations for a long term patient of a doctor.
Bro needs to get a lawyer to enforce his contract
There’s one, someone will be along with the firm name, they specialize in federal employment
doodii
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 471
I think you’re talking about employmentlawgroup.com? My coworkers brother used them for a sick family member he was the caretaker for I think.
they should have the right when it comes to hardships, thats my very unpopular opinion, I am aware.
however, i agree with your point for this example and why i question this. why did they even contact the doctor in the first place? That doesn't seem normal at all, so why in this particular case? and why didn't the doctor immediately contact the person, instead of sending a letter in response. that makes no sense for this story. the doctor should have contacted them, asked for their approval or denial and then responded. if I am the FAA and I get that response, yeah i might deny it too because id question why didn't the person filing a hardship approve that release in the first place.
Phillytroll69
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 1,257
- Facility
- JNU Juneau Tower
We should all get together and band together to create a group that advocates for each other with lawyers and stuff
AB19
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 2,043
So you’re against the government mandating vaccines for their work force but for them requesting medical records of someone who doesn’t work or have any intention of working for them?
i dont believe i said im against vaccines.
and while i agree its heavy handed, i don't think its extremely unreasonable when a person says they cant live there because of a non-employee for the faa to go through every avenue reasonable to verify the truthfulness of the claim when the ability to move for others might be affected by that claim. Afterall, you are the one who brought that person in to it. you opened the door. i dont believe you can then claim the faa has zero right to ask some simple questions to see if its legit.
I think there's been some confusion here.
Did the FAA reach out to the clinic directly and say "Please give us the treatment plan for Blockairspaceisfake's wife"? If so, that would be out of line and the clinic's response of "no" is 100% the right answer.
Did Block call the clinic and say "Please give me my wife's treatment plan"? Again, the clinic is correct to say "no." Block isn't the patient and handing out the plan would be a violation of doctor-patient confidentiality.
But if Block's wife herself asked the clinic for a copy, for whatever reason, they should be able to provide it. Whether the wife shares it with the FAA afterward is none of their business.
Did the FAA reach out to the clinic directly and say "Please give us the treatment plan for Blockairspaceisfake's wife"? If so, that would be out of line and the clinic's response of "no" is 100% the right answer.
Did Block call the clinic and say "Please give me my wife's treatment plan"? Again, the clinic is correct to say "no." Block isn't the patient and handing out the plan would be a violation of doctor-patient confidentiality.
But if Block's wife herself asked the clinic for a copy, for whatever reason, they should be able to provide it. Whether the wife shares it with the FAA afterward is none of their business.
I'm not confused.
if you are trying for a hardship, your wife as the patient or not , Youd tell your doctors ahead of time that the FAA may contact them and you approve the release of specific information and to whom. The op does state they worked with the doctor to craft specific letters with A99 wording, so they clearly are involved and having conversations with the doctor. so why wasn't this done in your example?
if i call for my wifes info, the doctor does ask at some point does my wife give authorization for the release of info and to who, this is very common at most doctors offices, so why wasnt this done in your example? especially when the OP clearly seems involved, as they stated they are.
if you are claming your wife needs to move, you should be providing some documentation of the actual hardship and why specifically it is unworkable for you and the family. I don't think that is an unreasonable ask.
But that specific circumstance of why that one doctor sent that letter and to whom, is where i am confused. he said he sent some documentation of at least 1 of the 3 doctors, why not do the rest? or why possibly does the faa need more.
there are holes to this story and im sure within those holes is why the FAA said, nah this isn't legit. i am just not on the side of "The faa and natca is screwing anyone" when a pulled hammy gets you a hardship nowadays.
Blockairspaceisfake
Member
- Messages
- 7
you are confused, and I'm sorry for my writing. the one clinic couldn't/wouldn't provide info, but the other two did. the denial was based on a letterhead memo from one clinic saying they couldn't give detailed info, meanwhile the other two clinics did. it's why i was confused about the denial.
Either way, I appreciate everyone's input. I didn't mean to cause any ruckus.
why couldn't they share the info besides confidentiality of the patient, especially if you are waiving that? and who couldn't they share it with?
Blockairspaceisfake
Member
- Messages
- 7
I won't put more of my wife's business out there. I've already said enough. I appreciate your previous insight, AD.
there is no confusion as to why this was denied. the faa and natca, or whoever is approving it, expected that letter. you werent able to. If this is a legit hardship youd easily be able to provide that info like you did from the other 2 places. this looks sketchy that you cant provide a letter from one of the doctors you are claiming needs to treat your wife and is causing you hardship to remain at your current location. If a doctor says they cant share, you really wouldn't think twice about that? of course a doctor would easily provide that info if her care would benefit from living somewhere else.
get your wife to approve the release of that info or get that doctor to write you a letter like you did from the other 2, problem solved, hardship approved, live a happy life where you want. its that simple.
All the faa is entitled to know is that a doctor is affirming she has a condition and that relocation will improve her health. The faa is allowed to contact the doctor. They can verify that the doctor did in fact write the letter and confirm
That the letter is true and correct. But they aren’t entitled To, nor should they need to see her entire Medical file. The doctor is stating medical facts. The faa doesn’t get to tell you to see a different doctor or dispute your doctors conclusions. What medical training does a faa regional manager have that gives them standing to dispute a physician acting in their official capacity? A court would have a field day with this, they really don’t like agency rulemaking getting out of bounds
i agree mostly. however, the OP has not cleared up who the letter was written for, why the doctor didn't approve the release of some information and to whom. we dont even know if the FAA in fact called the doctor. its a good assumption, but why would they do that before asking the hardship submitter why they dont have info from that third doctor and then the submitter couldnt just call himself. he was able to solicit the other info. it seems suspect, and the reason he didnt get approved. seems clear to me. wouldnt you think twice if you have someone saying they need to move and cant even get his own doctor to say why? get the letter, problem solved. no need to sue. im not sure what the complaint is.
side note, have you seen some of the medical paperwork people submit? as a Facrep i have, some of it is laughable and takes zero medical knowledge to know its complete horseshit even if the doctor writes some bullshit letter. im not saying they should be calling those doctors but lets not pretend people have integrity and shouldn't be questioned from time to time. lots of people talk on this website about accountability and i agree we are lacking in this department, much has to do with traffic, why shouldn't we have that same accountability about our employment too?
Phillytroll69
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 1,257
- Facility
- JNU Juneau Tower
I think this is a HUGE problem in the contract right now. I personally know of someone going through something similar. The 'decision makers' are evaluating severity of the hardship BUT that's not what the contract says.
I understand the scam, if you've got a doctor friend you're lucky or whatever.
Can someone explain or link me to the mou of why we now have a committee evaluating the validity of doctors/physicians' opinions?
I get article 99 says it needs to be bona fide (real) but how can an hr guy or doctor or whoever be saying no I don't think it is when you have numerous doctor's notes?
ManBearPig
Forum Sage
- Messages
- 395
The hugest problem with hardships is that scammer hardships end up with basically zero scrutiny, and legitimate hardships get a run around. The fake divorcers getting a golden ticket. While the guy who's wife says "sign this paper letting me leave, or I'm taking full custody of the kids" gets told to pound sand because he was forced into an unwinnable position.
- Messages
- 14
- Facility
- ZDC Washington Center
Well, that's the way it SHOULD be. But anyone who has been around for more than a few years knows that with a few choice letters written, that person will be out the door in 6 months.
Granted the hiring process is the agency's screwup, but NATCA enabling people by actively helping people to leave facilities in high COL areas for sketchy reasons (I or my wife is anxious/depressed about having moved away from home) is just complete and utter BS. My wife wasn't happy that I got picked up to go to ZME but we made it work. Played by the rules and got an ERR to somewhere (still not "home") that we enjoy living. People knew that there was a high possibility of getting nothing but a list of undesirable facilities and chose to take the job anyway.
You know the process is being taken advantage of when you watch 5 people hardship out in the span of 18 months in just your area alone, when you've only seen one go in your entire 12.5 years prior. Hardships should be very rare and for unusual and exceptional circumstances.
Problem is the cat's out of the bag now. I can't imagine the salt if NATCA started scrutinizing people more while others who've already gotten theirs sit back and smirk
