Sometimes my brain's not big enough to understand some of your arguments, 43. I didn't say that just because Avmed does not know, means it's legal. I gave your post a 'like' before you added that.
There are plenty of pilots who are not legally obliged to hold a medical certificate issued by CASA and are not legally obliged to tell CASA anything about their medical 'conditions'. Agreed?
Those are consequences of a regulatory regime created by exemptions granted by an organisation called "CASA", for whom the safety of air navigation is the highest priority. Agreed?
You seem to be trying to make the point that mere compliance with the civil aviation legislation - or exemption from it - does not automatically result in someone discharging their duty of care when taking to the skies. If that's the point you're trying to make, I agree. (BTW: It's also true that non-compliance with a statutory obligation does not automatically result in the circumstances of non-compliance constituting a breach of a duty of care.)
But that's the same outcome whether the person is obliged to have a CASA-issued medical certificate or is exempted from the obligation, and the same outcome whether the person is obliged to keep CASA informed of specified matters or exempted from the obligation. Agreed?