BasicMed

[Brett Elliott]

Physician attestation statement for BasicMed and for ICC Physicals

There are some inaccurate postings comparing Physician attestation statement for BasicMed and for ICC Physicals

For both Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) exams and the Third Class FAA Medical there is no requirement for the physician to attest that the person is medically fit to drive a truck or fly a plane; rather the physician attests to the applicant meeting the guidelines defined by the Feds in the pertinent regulations.

The BasicMed attestation statement is fundamentally different:

“I certify that I discussed all items on this checklist with the individual during my examination, discussed any medications the individual is taking that could interfere with his or her ability to safely operate an aircraft or motor vehicle, and performed an examination that included all of the items on this checklist. I certify that I am not aware of any medical condition that, as presently treated, could interfere with the individual's ability to safely operate an aircraft.”

Here the doc is asked to say: IT OK 4 U 2 FLY, and even touches on the person's ability to safely drive a motor vehicle.

 

[midlifeflyer]

FMCSA certification statement:

I certify that I have examined [Last Name: First Name:] in accordance with (please check only one):

the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 CFR 391.41-391.49) and, with knowledge of the driving duties, I find this person is qualified, and, if applicable, only when (check all that apply)​

OR

the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 CFR 391.41-391.49) with any applicable State variances (which will only be valid for intrastate operations), and, with knowledge of the driving duties,I find this person is qualified, and, if applicable, only when (check all that apply):​

And, as one might expect, there have been cases against certifying physicians going back quite a few years under the ICC rules and with various other certifications as well. Fortunately, and I think we can expect this with the BasicMed certification as well, they have been very few and far between.

So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, Brand-New-Poster-With-A-Fear-Creating-Point-To-Make.

 

[midlifeflyer]

BTW, for anyone curious about the subject, this is a paper from a law firm that does this type of work. No date on it, but based on other sources it was republished as recently as 2015 and goes a bit beyond the DOT issue although that is its primary focus.. http://www.evans-dixon.com/DOT Risks--Attorney.pdf

And to see how the more things change, the more they remain the same, here's an article from aa 1998 issue of the American Academy of Family Physicians, discussing some of the practical risk factors of DOT exams, http://www.aafp.org/afp/1998/0801/p415.html

 

[MassPilot]

I discussed it with my doctor and showed him the exam checklist and declaration he would have to sign and he said no problem. There are quite a few other posters on the many threads we've had on this topic that have said the same thing.

 

[Brett Elliott]

FMCSA certification statement:

I certify that I have examined [Last Name: First Name:] in accordance with (please check only one):

the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 CFR 391.41-391.49) and, with knowledge of the driving duties, I find this person is qualified, and, if applicable, only when (check all that apply)​

OR

the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 CFR 391.41-391.49) with any applicable State variances (which will only be valid for intrastate operations), and, with knowledge of the driving duties,I find this person is qualified, and, if applicable, only when (check all that apply):​

And, as one might expect, there have been cases against certifying physicians going back quite a few years under the ICC rules and with various other certifications as well. Fortunately, and I think we can expect this with the BasicMed certification as well, they have been very few and far between.

So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, Brand-New-Poster-With-A-Fear-Creating-Point-To-Make.

Reply:

Appreciate the feedback, however I believe the current, revised form does NOT have the verbiage you describe. Please go to page four and five of the current, uploaded file. It also can be downloaded by googling MCSA-5875.pdf. The slightly older form has the verbiage your reference.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Reply:

Appreciate the feedback, however I believe the current, revised form does NOT have the verbiage you describe. Please go to page four and five of the current, uploaded file. It also can be downloaded by googling MCSA-5875.pdf. The slightly older form has the verbiage your reference.

I still don't see a substantial difference. The certification still says the drive meets the standards of 49 CFR 391.41 which begins:

A person subject to this part must not operate a commercial motor vehicle unless he or she is medically certified as physically qualified to do so​

The form may have changed verbiage, but the regulation still says what is being certified. If the underlying issue reg was also changed and the Final Rule says it was changed to remove doctor liability, I might agree.