Therapy with no Diagnosis - Will Airlines know?

[Fearless Tower]

I don't know about now, but in the past they HAVE used it as a screening tool. When I was in the market, there were a lot of companies that required 20/20 uncorrected vision to get hired.

They may not be able to advertize that now, but I bet that internally they will use it to cull some of the thousands and thousands of applications they get if they want.

I'm just curious about the situation now.

That was a major reason I didn't start flying back when I was in high school in the 80's. I has 20/200 uncorrected and IIRC, that wasn't good enough got a 1st or 2nd class back then.

The idea back then of flying a bug smasher if I couldn't ultimately do it professionally just didn't seem appealing. So I fought the urge until much later in life.

 

[Lindberg]

Ron, can you cite that case? And was it before or after the FAA changed the vision requirements?

I was told by an AME that if you meet the vision standards for a 1st class medical which currently only requires correction to 20/20, then they couldn't hold your uncorrected vision against you.

I'm not sure if it's the case Ron was referring to, but in Sutton v. United Airlines, the Supreme Court held that sister pilots with really bad uncorrected but 20/20 corrected vision were not protected by the ADA precisely because their vision was correctable. Since their vision was correctable, it couldn't limit them in a major life activity, hence they weren't disabled. That case didn't exempt the airlines from the ADA, but the Court did hold that

An employer runs afoul of the ADA when it makes an employment decision based on a physical or mental impairment, real or imagined, that is regarded as substantially limiting a major life activity. Accordingly, an employer is free to decide that physical characteristics or medical conditions that do not rise to the level of an impairment—such as one's height, build, or singing voice—are preferable to others, just as it is free to decide that some limiting, but not substantially limiting, impairments make individuals less than ideally suited for a job.​

 

[Unregistered]

And while Bruce is paying attention... I think the OPs concern is that if he continues talk therapy as an adult, because he likes it (and hey, preventive maintenance is maybe not a bad idea), will he have problems with his medical in the future?

My rephrasing of this situation would be something like "what CAN I go to a mental health professional for that won't mess up my medical?" Stress management?

The instructions for the 8500-8 says "List visits for counseling only if related to a personal substance abuse or psychiatric condition." Doesn't that mean that you wouldn't have to report going to a therapist just because you like talk therapy or marriage counseling or your parents are getting a divorce, etc and have no mental health diagnosis?

 

[bbchien]

The problem with that, is that you need to find out what the mental health professional used to bill for his services, e.g, his "code" for diagnosis.

Under the ACA of 2010, everything needs a diagnosis to get paid. There's the rub, the code's the thing....

 

[Unregistered]

Does that mean that every rape survivor / veteran / stressed executive / divorcee who talks to a therapist on their insurance's dime ends up with a diagnosis code requiring a 'Yes' to 18?

 

[Henning]

Does that mean that every rape survivor / veteran / stressed executive / divorcee who talks to a therapist on their insurance's dime ends up with a diagnosis code requiring a 'Yes' to 18?

Remember, not every situation or answer of 'yes' will garner a deferral or denial. Many situations won't go past the DME's couple of questions, other's even if deferred will be approved upon further investigation.

 

[bbchien]

Does that mean that every rape survivor / veteran / stressed executive / divorcee who talks to a therapist on their insurance's dime ends up with a diagnosis code requiring a 'Yes' to 18?

Depends on what he used.....for a code.

 

[JimNtexas]

Airline pilot hiring is exempt from all those rules -- and that's been tested in Federal court. Test case involved sub-20/20 uncorrected (but correctable) vision.

Once again Ron, you take a narrow decision and try to paint it with a brush that is way too broad. A case about vision requirements doesn't " exempt from all those rules".