Previously Deferred for SSRI/ Chevron SCOUTS Decision

S

Stegoo_86

Pre-Flight
Joined
May 3, 2021
Messages
39
Location
Indianapolis
Display Name
Display name:
Stego_86
Hey All,

I see that the FAA has updated guidance on previously deferred medicals for SSRI use. It appears that I would fit this bill. I was diagnosed with GAD during covid, then had a BCP prescribe me Zoloft. I took the meds just shy of 2years.

First question is:

1) It ask for documentation or verification from the AME...what does this mean? Is it the medical records from the prescribing doc? I haven't spoken to him in a long while. I also never paid for his services with insurance, just out of pocket. But obviously, insurance paid for the medication. Not sure what they would want.

2) I also tacked on a question with the Chevron SCOUTS decision, as I'm aware that has a lot to do with what federal agencies can/cannot do. Do any of you have any idea on how that may affect the medical process?

Best,
 
Stegoo_86 said:
Hey All,

I see that the FAA has updated guidance on previously deferred medicals for SSRI use. It appears that I would fit this bill. I was diagnosed with GAD during covid, then had a BCP prescribe me Zoloft. I took the meds just shy of 2years.

First question is:

1) It ask for documentation or verification from the AME...what does this mean? Is it the medical records from the prescribing doc? I haven't spoken to him in a long while. I also never paid for his services with insurance, just out of pocket. But obviously, insurance paid for the medication. Not sure what they would want.

2) I also tacked on a question with the Chevron SCOUTS decision, as I'm aware that has a lot to do with what federal agencies can/cannot do. Do any of you have any idea on how that may affect the medical process?

Best,
Click to expand...

On (2), it will likely have zero meaningful impact. All it means is that, if you sue the agency in federal court, the Court does not have to (but still can) give any deference to the agency's interpretation of its own regulations. Basically, in theory, it makes it easier for a federal judge to overrule the agency if he/she is so inclined. In practice, my guess is little will change in the spaces that are highly technical where the Judge won't want to get into the weeds. But in terms of day-to-day FAA (and other agency) practice, nothing will change.
 
bradg33 said:
On (2), it will likely have zero meaningful impact. All it means is that, if you sue the agency in federal court, the Court does not have to (but still can) give any deference to the agency's interpretation of its own regulations. Basically, in theory, it makes it easier for a federal judge to overrule the agency if he/she is so inclined. In practice, my guess is little will change in the spaces that are highly technical where the Judge won't want to get into the weeds. But in terms of day-to-day FAA (and other agency) practice, nothing will change.
Click to expand...
Especially because the medical requirement regulations aren't much up for interpretation. People have tried suing to overturn the standards but they failed without going near the issues in Chevron. In fact, there's pretty much an affirmation of the medical practice in the stuff that led up to basic med.

The FAA is going to want to see letters from your doctors as to why you were on the drugs to begin with and that you are not. The new guidance says they can review it on that if you've been off for two years and you have not more than two of the disorders listed and you have no recurrent issues (or any of the other laundry list of conditions). It's still a SI but its easier/faster.\\

And it's SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) not SCOUTS.
 
It has to be two years SINCE medication and the Dx CANNOT be major depression per the records...
 
Back
Top