This is the text of a letter I sent by email to CASA on 14 November to try again to pin CASA down on the “legally somewhat dubious” issue noted by the Tribunal in its reasons for denying my application for a stay:
CT SCAN RESULTS
You might recall that in my email letter to you of 31 October 2018 I requested that you seek instructions and let me know Avmed’s position on the following question:
Is Avmed’s present position that the results of a CT scan performed now could potentially convince Avmed of my compliance with the class 2 medical standard, at least to conduct day VFR operations?
You might also recall that I underwent a high quality dynamic CT scan on 6 November 2018, and provided to your client and the Tribunal a copy of Dr [x’s] report on the scan as an attachment to my statutory declaration dated 8 November 2018.
By email 7 November 2018 you said, among other things:
[A] simple CT scan I am informed may be unable to provide sufficient detail for future assessment purposes.
Your response raises two issues in the context of the scan I underwent on 6 November 2018 and CASA’s position on the results:
(1) Whether the scan I underwent does provide sufficient detail for assessment purposes, given that, based on advice I have been given, the scan was not “a simple CT scan”.
(2) When will Avmed do assessments of and make a decisions on material put before it.
On the first issue, you might recall that during the hearing on 9 November 2018 I provided to the Tribunal and your client a copy of the first page of a review article setting out what dynamic CT scans do in comparison with other forms of angiography. I hope that Avmed has conferred or will confer with experts to ascertain whether the results of the kind of scan I underwent are sufficient for assessment purposes. For your convenience, I attach a copy of the first page of the review article as well as a copy of Dr [x’s] report of the high quality dynamic CT scan carried out on 6 November 2018.
I therefore request that you seek instructions and let me know whether Avmed considers the results of that kind of scan are sufficient for assessment purposes at all, even if not, in Avmed’s opinion, determinative at this point in time.
On the second issue, there continues to be imprecision about what is, in my view, a simple and reasonable request. I reiterate that request from my letter dated 30 October 2018:
I request that the delegate confirm, in writing, whether or not s/he will consider and review the substance of medical evidence submitted to CASA, and make actual risk assessments from time-to-time based on that evidence, during the specified 12 month period [following the date of the emoblisation procedure].
The continued imprecision around this issue strongly suggests to me that the delegate meant what was said, in bold, in the decision letter:
Please be advised, CASA is unable to make a risk assessment of your fitness to return to flying until 12 months has elapsed following your embolisation procedure.
If the truth is that Avmed meant and continues to mean what is said in the decision letter, and simply refuses to do an assessment or contemplate changing its opinion until 12 months have elapsed following the procedure, could you please just confirm that. I realise that the truth may be inconvenient for CASA, but that is a problem of CASA’s own making.
It would in my view be utterly unconscionable for CASA to maintain the pretence that material I submit will be considered objectively by and potentially alter Avmed’s opinion of my fitness before 12 months have elapsed following the embolisation procedure, if as a matter of fact Avmed meant and continues to mean what it said in the decision letter.
Regards