I think you're thinking along the right track, but I doubt you're going to get a doctor to declare, after a regular physical exam, that the patient definitionally doesn't have certain conditions that are not detectable with the naked eye.
I'd disagree. Insurance companies run on an set rates on data. So far, Basic Med is not worse than 3rd class. My insurance company cared not if I was Basic Med or 3rd class. As far as Mosaic, I can't see that affecting things.
As a practicing OB/GYN, I asked my agent about coverage for BasicMed. He took it to an underwriter. The reply came back that they’d cover me until I had a claim, after which they wouldn’t renew my policy. That’s claim, not loss.
That makes sense, of course. But she and he should discuss it with their malpractice insurance carriers. Whether valid or not, they're looking at BasicMed differently.
I think you are correct and, given the low incidence of any medically-related accidents, it might even be virtually nonexistent. You'd need some combination of an accident that was due to a medical problem that was somehow traceable to the physician.
You don't. It's not about BasicMed or actuarial risk. Risk tolerance is highly personal. My PCP's only question was, "the FAA is lettings do this?" Another physician might be thinking, "I'll get sued if someone dies in an accident on day 1,460 after I sign off on this, even if it's because they dropped acid."
I agree completely. But who ever said liability fear has to be realistic to affect people's choices?
True. It’s just unfounded.
Well, because I just retired...and I'd have to fib about doing an anal exam!
In how many of the cases you're familiar with were the pilots using Basic Med? You can't extrapolate from cases where pilots had FAA medicals because AMEs are immunized.
It may be hard to extrapolate without a deeper drill down that. You'd want to know whether or not the pilot has some kind of medical issue which was claimed to be causally related to the accident, not? You'd probably want both numbers. For example
According to one doctor here all it takes is a claim to be dropped by their insurer, and while he didn't state out right, I'd bet that would include loss of *all* coverage, not just coverage for BasicMed related claims. I wonder whether the insurer would take viability into account when deciding whether or not the potato has gotten too hot. Maybe the threat is enough. I find it hard to blame the insured for declining to participate under those circumstances regardless of whether or not they would prevail in a lawsuit.
There’s nothing improper about extrapolation here because there are no cases to point to in either direction. BM has been in use since 2017 with roughly 80,000 pilots flying under it, and there are no accident findings or documented incidents that attribute causation to BM status. The only thing the real-world data lets us extrapolate is that BM safety outcomes look the same as those under traditional FAA medicals. Absent an actual safety signal, claims that BM is meaningfully different are speculative, not evidence-based.
I don't disagree that there is the fear of a suit. I think the wording the Dr. signs pretty well tightens up/limits any liability as it really puts the onus on the pilot for ongoing self certifying. I am certain that the AOPA legal and other groups would defend any suits against a pilot to help set case precedent in the Drs favor.
I didn't say the fear is of a suit. The fear I'm commenting on is, as stated, that a *claim* can cause loss of insurance.
Back to risk analysis. The probability of occurrence (filing a claim) *may* be low, but the consequences (loss of all professional insurance) are essentially catastrophic. I'm grateful there are doctors in my area who are willing to sign a CMEC but I find it difficult to fault those in the above circumstances who are not willing to do so.
As stated above, every person/practice has their own risk tolerance. Until/if a Dr actually loses their med mal insurance due to this specific occurrence, it's an unfounded fear. Dr.'s are far more likely to see a claim from their daily practice...someone above already stated the statistics. To my knowledge, no one can cite a BM related claim or loss of insurance due to such an occurrence.
How is it any different than your GP seeing you and knowing you’re a pilot and not saying, “hey, I know you got your class 3 medical, but you really should not be flying.” Is it that Dr’s responsibility to inform the FAA? If not, is that not an unreasonable position and therefore negligent? Basically, negligence means you had a duty to be careful, you didn’t meet that duty, that failure caused the injury in a foreseeable way, and someone was actually harmed.
Unfortunately we have MDs telling us that guilt is not a necessary condition to cancel insurance required to do their job:
They run that risk in very aspect of their practice, it’s not isolated to BM reviews. So perhaps not practice at all if your goal is to have zero risk to your insurance being canceled.
Some choose to minimize their professional exposure in areas outside of their primary function, area of expertise, and/or source of income. You do you.
I agree with that 100%. Is there an increase in exposure, yes. My only point is there is zero factual data/basis for saying that increased practice exposure actually translates to real increase in risk to a claim or losing insurance.
"....of an airplane". This additon was by the then shill for the ATLA, Senator Feinstein from the floor of the senate... it effecively gives a basis removing the singing off doc from the expert credential list, and to funds for the legal profession.UTLonghorn_1979 said: