Sarcs – there are some interesting lessons within the AAT summaries. This one caught my attention while doing a skim through, I stopped and read the whole thing (2 pages). It speaks volumes (not tongues) of the 'mindset' at Sleepy Hollow Medical. This Mr. G, like all of us I expect, has honestly discussed with his DAME the en's and em's of his medical condition; and his DAME has decided that the Mr. G's medical condition was 'satisfactory'. It's a hell of a state where not only is Mr. G's honesty called into question, but that of the DAME as well and this, mind you, all based against 'paperwork'. Maybe someone let the watch dog off the chain and it's now on the high street chasing cars.
Then again, if this case represents the lengths to which Avmed are prepared to go to, in blind support of their decisions, it does raise, yet again the sceptre of top cover for Hempel. It appears that some horsepower is needed to influence the 'Professors' opinion. Maybe, he finally managed to catch one of those cars.
(
2013)~AATA 48.
The decision under review is set aside and the matter remitted to the respondent for reconsideration in accordance with a direction that the applicant did not knowingly or recklessly make a false or misleading statement in relation to his application for a medical certificate.
1. That decision was made because the delegate concluded that Mr G had knowingly or recklessly made a false or misleading statement in relation to his application for that medical certificate.
6. (7) CASA must not issue a medical certificate to an applicant if it is satisfied that the applicant:
(a) has knowingly or recklessly made a false or misleading statement in relation to the application for the medical certificate; or
10. The submissions for CASA did not descend to any detailed examination or analysis of what the expressions “knowingly” or “recklessly” conveyed. Its representative appeared to accept that the matters that needed to be demonstrated for me to be satisfied that Mr G had knowingly or recklessly made a false or misleading statement in relation to the application were:
13. The evidence falls well short of demonstrating that Mr G suffered from glaucoma from November 2007 onwards. The latest of the reports is from September 2005. Moreover the evidence from Mr 's current ophthalmic surgeon, Dr Stephen O'Hagan, is to the contrary. In a report to CASA of 10 November 2011 Dr O'Hagan wrote,