Four pilots indicted

[flyingron]

I'm going to start a new thread rather than tacking on to the other poster's PTSD thread.
Actually, it's four pilots (just two from the bay area).

As Dr. C. says... don't lie. It will catch up to you.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/2-bay-area-pilots-indicted-on-charges-of-lying-on-medical-forms

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I for one hope he's convicted. He's been basically stealing from the taxpayer and lying about it.

He is charged in that indictment with lying on a government form, nothing else.

While collecting any money taken by the government by force from citizens could be considered receiving stolen property in some sense, a lot of people do it. But if he was receiving less than he and his family paid in, it could be considered recovering what is rightfully yours.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Maybe the BATF needs to take notes from the FAA data mining methods?

Like the FAAs data mining methods can be shown to prevent accidents ?!?

In many ways, the same statistical problems in trying to prevent both phenomena. Rare or very rare events. Low sensitivity and specificity in any available (and likely possible) testing or investigative method. This means you will always have vastly more false positives than true positives whenever you don’t have a very high false negative rate.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

It will be interesting to hear the evidence. The first two counts are the lying on the medical form. The others allege behaviors that could be pretty bad behaviors or the defendant trying to defend himself and that being construed in a certain way by the prosecutors.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Would be quite interesting. The prosecution’s statement of the facts in the indictment will always be slanted as much in favor of guilt as is possible without appearing utterly ridiculous.

Adding a bunch of charges is of course a way to try and put on pressure to induce settlement.

The lack of detail regarding the other charges is also interesting here and may reveal a weakness in those charges.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Peter, there is a lot of detail in Chrisman's 54 page "Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence and Communications with Defendant Chrisman's Doctors and the Fruits Thereof."

Most of the docket for this case is available for free now at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7740830/united-states-v-chrisman/ . Dkt #33 and its attachments do contain a fair amount of detail.

From what I can see there, the "witness tampering" may have consisted of asking Dr. Brath (acting as therapist) to write a letter that Dr. Brath already knew about the disability benefits which Chrisman was receiving. Dr. Brath did not do so. (Always dangerous to have any contact with the investigators or parties during an ongoing case and investigation. See for example the Martha Stewart case.)

The motions to suppress are interesting. Chrisman argued that the information on 8500-8 is compelled under threat of job loss in the case of professional pilots and that precedent in a prior case Garrity argues that such evidence is therefore immunized from use in a criminal proceeding as it is essentially compelled testimony in violation of the fifth amendment. The government argued that the AME is an agent of the government so HIPAA privacy does not apply and that the principles in Garrity only apply to employment of government employees. The motion to suppress was denied in the hearing and there is a transcript request for that hearing pending. I can see a possible appeal developing from this.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Appears from that evidence that Chrisman had suffered from alcoholism and was receiving disability for PTSD from the VA. At the same time failed to disclose such on the FAA aeromedical form or to the AMEs.

Like most psychiatric diagnoses, PTSD can be a fairly soft call. Dr. Brath thought he was not suffering from it at the last exam.

My speculation would be that Chrisman may have suffered from PTSD more severely earlier and just let the VA disability payments continue after it subsided and failed to disclose this to the AMEs or on the form. The facts at trial will be more informative.