ADHD pickle, possible childhood diagnoses found after receiving first class medical.

[Anonymous OP]

Title: I don't know what to do here. I've already received my first class and have begun applying to flight schools when I discovered a bottle of ADHD meds from 2008, when I would have been in elementary school, the name of the prescribing doctor is no longer legible (but it was probably my pediatrician at the time). I asked my parents about it and neither of them remembered for certain if I had a diagnoses, but we figured out that if I had a bottle I must have had a diagnoses at some point. My parents said that the school I was attending had a doctor that recommended medication because I was a rowdy student in class. My parents said that they didn't recall receiving any tests or anything. As far as I was aware I was just taking a pill every morning before I went to school, never on non-school days, they just said I had to take it to make me a better student and since I was a dumb kid at the time I didn't think anything of it. None of my parents have any ADHD test results in their files for me.

When I was filling out the medical it's not something that occurred to me, as I stopped taking the pills over a decade ago. I've been a good student since highschool and graduated university on time, never felt like I had anything like it. The advice I have heard from people I've spoken to about it is just to keep quiet and not go digging for things that can cause problems, if I can't prove I have anything neither can they. The other advice is to track down my scripts and take the battery before I renew my medical, and come with the proper documentation. really have no idea what to do here.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

My strong suspicion is that if you declare this you will be going down the special issuance and HIMS evaluation route. That will require 6-18 months and $5-10k to complete. If you plan on flying professionally that may be the direction you want to pursue.

Perhaps see my FAA medical information page at http://tinyurl.com/faaMedicalInfo and await further advice from the excellent AMEs who have been pinged above.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I think this may be the route I choose, just for my own sanity's sake, don't want to go through my career fearing grounding at the drop of a hat. Should I reach out to a HIMS AME and just appear to my renewal appointment with the proper docs in hand? or should I call now and re-start the process entirely.

I do fear the FAA potentially permanently grounding for failure to disclose, even though it was an honest mistake. Pilots I know in real life keep telling me to shut it and keep flying though, which is stressful. If anyone has any experience with AOPA or any similar confidential consulting I would love to hear it.

I agree permanent grounding seems unlikely. I think the appointment with a HIMS AME is fine so long as done as a consult - see link above on how to do that. PM me if you would like to discuss.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

The first rule in maintaining plausible deniability is never talking.

Yes, the OP may be posting anonymously here, but I think a legal action could obtain identifiers from PoA, unless they are not even recorded. Additionally, the OP mentions talking to others.

Likely needs to be resolved at this point.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Should I call up my local HIMS guy for a consult ASAP then? Or wait until I have to renew my medical. Ideally would like to show up to my next medical with this sorted out to avoid any grounding.

Yes, I would start the process of the consult and required work ups now. These can take some time to arrange, get records, and perform required testing and evaluation. You can then also choose the timing of any gaps without a medical for your convenience.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Ah I meant must've meant neuropsychologist, don't really know the difference.

Neuropsychologist is a psychologist with a PhD and does testing and psychological assessment. Psychiatrist or neuropsychiatrist has an MD and treats patients.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

How did you get to this from having a decades-old illegible pill bottle and no recollection from anyone in your family of you ever being tested or diagnosed?

I think he was trying to be extremely cautious when dealing with an organization (the Federal government) that has the power to completely destroy your life by jailing you for a felony and taking all your property. Especially since he may be dealing with them for the rest of his career.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

The rules do not requiring "disclosing" things that either didn't happen or that you don't know about.

Very true, how could one otherwise comply? But remember that the OP stated "but we figured out that if I had a bottle I must have had a diagnoses at some point". So if one were a Federal prosecutor bent on prosecuting the OP, could one argue that since the OP stated that and apparently discussed with his parents about it and they concurred, that he knew or had reason to know?

It strikes me they could argue such and that it constituted probable cause to believe that a crime was committed in stating otherwise on the MedExpress form. That is all they need, probable cause, to seize all arguably related property and arrest him.

Do I think either the FAA or a prosecutor would care enough to do that, certainly not normally. But if they had other reason to dislike him, or if it was part of a bigger sweep operation, who knows?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

The more that this 'I was 8 and took meds for a year then stopped' is reported and wastes valuable bureaucrat time on worthless evaluations - cries out for regulatory exceptions to the 'Have you EVER language.' I predict that sooner or later the FAA WILL come out with an exception for those under 16 Rx'd a med involuntarily.

Good points, however, I do not share the optimism regarding the FAA's response. Typically bureaucracies love to have an expanding domain and more and more work to do. It provides larger budgets and staffs and larger salaries for the managers. And thus larger pensions in retirement.

While they FAA tends to be on the more reasonable side as Federal bureaucracies go, they are still subject to all the wrong incentives.