Recent content by bobbylee123

thanks, are you an AME? I had another quick question.

Thanks, I didn't go to an orthopedist, just went to a normal doctor. But okay, I will just write knee pain. Do you recommend also writing the results of the visit in the "reason" box? Like do I write x-ray and all tests came back normal?

okay

I'm not lying. I would argue providing too much information that is not necessary is making my life tough for myself.

God, I hate when people say this. I'm here to gather information from different sources and form an opinion. What I do with that information has nothing to do with you. It is none of your business if I decide to follow your advice or not. He asked me why I was considering not just writing down...

because I've been warned to not provide any more information than the absolute bare minimum.

what if there is no diagnosis? They took x-rays and also tested me for arthiritis, no issues.

For reason of visit, how much detail do I need to put down? For example, if I go to the doctor because my knee hurts, can I just write "not feeling well" for the reason of visit?

Bruce why do you write in riddles...I have no idea what you are saying in this comment

I have yet to read about a concrete example of someone getting caught for diagnosis over 20 years ago. If the FAA had this power, they wouldn’t need to ask you to fill out the form.

Do your medical records from 20 years ago even exist….

found this online, my guess is no: "In all cases when a drug test is reported as positive with dilution or positive dilute, it is always a positive drug test. A test result reported as a Negative Dilute is not a positive and should not be a violation of employer policy."

you get this figured out yet?

lol the information we have is obviously not the same information the judge will have. I assume op is smart enough to not tell the judge everything

Any good lawyer will obviously argue that OP had every right to refuse a breathalyzer. It’s perfectly within his right to do so because HE WAS NOT DRIVING. He was a pedestrian. Ultimately, it will depend on what op argues. He will need to explain to the judge why he was driving erratically...