NaroEscape

“Can and Should” is different than “required to”.
If I set a minimum standard for you to meet, and you meet it, I can SUGGEST you do better but you met what I deemed as minimally acceptable and I shouldn’t be able to disapprove it.
If I state the minimum of something is 1”, and you do 1”, can I say “not approved, sorry I decided today I want to see 2”, then maybe tomorrow I decide it needs to be 3”… but the minimum standard still states 1”?

Veloce Raptor

Now let's argue about how many angels fit on the head of a pin

jakermc

African or European?

thebishman

Todd, can you remind me again whether the ‘Medical Committee’ was asking for proof/data showing long term CPAP usage or had you had a temporary stoppage and they wanted to see data for compliance after resumption of use?

Sorry, it’s a long thread and I’m just trying to make sure of the eliciting event.

TIA

Mahler9th

ADA = American Diabetes Association.

I worked in this area for a few years and attended ADA meetings.

Manifold

The reason why "minimum standard" has the word "minimum" in it is because it's envisioned that there could be circumstances where someone should, or can be required to, do more than the minimum. Otherwise, it would be called a "standard" rather than a "minimum standard".

I'm opposed to authoritarian overreach by PCA, but I believe that their leaders have, and should have, the authority to ask someone do more than a minimum in particular cases, if they deem necessary. That authority can be abused, as I think it has been in Luigi's case, but they still have the authority. It is what it is.

Mahler9th

Read the first post.

The OP had a license that was active, yet submitted a new medical form and this time disclosed OSA.

He was then asked for rx compliance data from a CPAP device.

As I read it, it seems that the OP provided the data he had "at the time," which was limited because a CPAP machine had failed and its data was not available. The "limited" data was from one or two machines that were recently purchased and used.

It seems the amount of data available "at the time" was "insufficient" for PCA CR because it did not meet a standard from the trucking world.

So the OP's active PCA license was revoked.

Then the OP asked "why is trucking even relevant?"

All of this happened before a race or races that the OP wished to attend, and I think there would never have been enough time before the event(s) for the new machine(s) to collect sufficient data to meet a standard from the trucking world.

CPAP machines time out. They are regulated medical devices.

They should be used in accordance with their labeling. Does PCA CR care about any of this?

There are associated disposables that also time out.

Does PCA CR care if there is compliance data that reveals incorrect and/or ineffective usage?

When the machines time out, they give a warning that basically tell the patient "you better get a new machine soon."

But in some cases (like one with which I am presently dealing), there are obstacles to getting replacement machines.

PCA CR policies and procedures should take such things into account if CPAP rx compliance data is required.

Here it seems the OP made a good faith effort to provide data, and PCA CR did not have a way of dealing with his situation.

Then he logically asked about why a trucking standard was even being used.

PCA CR may have some thinking to do.

What about glucose meters that store data?

We have heard from the OP, but we have not heard from PCA/PCA CR directly. I suspect that may come. It should come.

peterp

All of this "minimum standard" stuff is totally irrelevant to solving this issue, and moves the cause backwards. The reality is that PCA should always have the right to ask for more data if their review of the information determines that is warranted. That's the way it should always work for everybody's best interests. No simple medical form will ever be perfect as a pass/fail screening. That said, if they add the checkbox to the form as has been suggested (where the applicant specifically signs themself up for liability), then it work better than it does now and will be closer to perfect as a pass/fail test.

To complain that the PCA is too structured and slow and arrogant -- and then hit them with legalese of minimum standard, and that the medical committee isn't structured property, and that CPAP use isn't really that important anyway, is to move the discussion backwards. All this has been made worse by the angry mob of posters piling on to validate elements of this that objectively aren't valid. Everybody loves a dumpster fire of controversy, -- I get it -- but let's instead focus only on the relevant points that will help get this resolved, instead of worsening the situation and reducing the chances of PCA cooperating.

peterp

He did have the opportunity to get it approved. This is a cut & paste from the whistleblower letter:There is an obvious reason why PCA could not allow bypassing the ruling to be public. If it was made public, and there was any kind of incident, the person/family who was affected (who might not otherwise have had any inclination or rationale to sue), would suddenly have rationale and motivation to sue simply by hearing about PCA ignoring its own ruling. That person would also have massive leverage in court (e.g. argument in court: "so, let me get this straight, there was a ruling, by a PCA doctor who disqualified the license, but you chose to allow him to race anyway??????").

.

Mahler9th

Not sure the statements about legal liability in post #969 are accurate.

Well pretty sure they are not.

And in my opinion, it does not matter.

PCA and PCA CR volunteers deserve respect and admiration for their contributions from which many of us benefit. My wife and I have certainly enjoyed membership, and for over 30 years (yikes).

The OP had a situation arise which suggests that PCA/PCA CR can benefit all members by being more clear, complete and proactive about the matter at hand, which is their potential demand for information supporting "historical" compliance with rx for a chronic condition that they feel may have an impact on safety.

And they can benefit members by creating some type of process by which these types of issues can be resolved more quickly.

For example, the form I downloaded includes an attachment that describes a type of peripheral vision test and a reference to this test on page 3.

And it has somewhat ambiguous language about a "medical clearance for any history of diabetes."

Not clear what that even means.

I suspect that PCA CR volunteers have often dealt with candidates that are trying to get things done in a big hurry (although that was not the case here).

Communicating more clearly and proactively can potentially help both candidates and volunteers avoid stresses by setting clearer expectations.

Here, it might have been helpful if PCA CR had a better way of dealing with the inability of the candidate to provide data, in a timely fashion through no fault of his own, right at the beginning.

If that were the case, then there might still be an argument about the appropriateness of the "requirement" for such data, but the context might be different.

LuigiVampa

You are misrepresenting what PCA offered and misstating what I am asking for.

winders

This is incorrect. The minimum standard is the minimum you need to do to be in compliance. Period. You can do more...or maybe even should do more...but it is not required. You cannot do less and be in compliance. The word "minimum" is used because it indicates the least you must do to meet a standard. You can't set a minimum standard and then change it arbitrarily. At least not without repercussions.

Veloce Raptor

Hahahaaaaaa! Yes

Manifold

It depends on who gets to decide if more than the minimum needs to be done. I think PCA would assert that they get to decide. These things aren't contracts, and I think PCA has discretion in deciding what they consider to be 'enough'. I don't think this fight is going to be won with legalistic arguments.

NightBlueTTS

If we wanted to move away from debating the minimum standard, the easiest path would be to treat certain medical conditions as disqualifying for a race license unless the applicant receives a waiver. That waiver could be subject to additional data requests/reviews.

But if there is a minimum standard to achieve and a person achieves it, then it doesn't make sense that additional requirements above the minimum standard could be levied subjectively.

Lastly, I have yet to hear how "impairment due to OSA" is being objectively and quantitatively measured -- right now it sounds like the medical committee can sound the alarms based on a arbitrary measure that is neither quantified vs. the individual or the population that would possibly be impacted by allowing said person to race i.e. maybe the person with OSA even with their "impairment" is more capable than the average racer at their best -- how could you definitively disprove that?