Why do we not assume it to be the other way around though? We don't really have enough evidence to make an assessment. One is to conclude that he certainly lied somewhere along the line. Was he taking medication for his condition? What does his RX record look like? is there evidence of regular counseling for PTSD/depression?
I have no idea which one is the truth, I am just pointing out how a conflict between receiving a pension for a disqualifying condition and holding a first class medical can be logically resolved. The motions seem to indicate that its the other way around and that he doesn't actually suffer from the condition. There is a third possibility. He does have PTSD but it has none of the features that disqualify him from flying. The statements from the AME in the record indicate that he withdrew his approval of Chrismans medical after he learned about the PTSD diagnosis but that 'the FAA would allow him to fly for the time being and that he has 90 days to reply'. As it is now more than 90 days and the FAA has issued him several first class medicals since, they dont seem to think that his PTSD is disqualifying from flying an aircraft.
It'll be interesting to see whether what he discloses in the current proceedings will be used by the VA to claw back the pension benefits he received. Considering that all the interviews in the record were performed jointly by agents from OIG-DOT and OIG-VA, they are certainly familiar with the facts. We had a pretty egregious case of benefits fraud locally and sometimes they do decide to go after those pension abusers:
https://www.thebaynet.com/articles/...rged-with-stealing-820000-in-va-benefits.html
Given the political hullaboo around PTSD, they may just be reluctant to go after him on that issue as it would not be a question about whether he had the disease, only about the degree to which it was disabling.
These filings shine an interesting light on the oddities of the HIMS system. Some of Chrismans suppression argument hinges on Brath not only acting as a FAA AME but also as his personal psychotherapist. It should be a bit of a warning to those who use their personal physician as their AME (or vice versa). By signing the 8500, you pretty much allow the FAA to sit in on your doctors visit, you can't turn around afterwards and say
'but this part, this is is excluded'.
On the HIPAA issue and how the government interviewed those medical providers: As part of my work, I occasionally get involved as a witness for the government in criminal cases. It typically revolves around assault and child abuse. Before I say a word, I insist on receiving a court order signed by the judge compelling me to disclose protected health information. There have been disagreements between myself and the the young prosecutors who just want to move their case along, but without that judges signature and a specific direction to disclose PHI, all you get out of me is 'name, rank, number' (and no missy, that's not 'obstruction of justice' ;-) ).
