Hardware·18,997 discussions

Edited… Only barely technology related…

Locked

OH saw the company doctor today in response to his employer’s requirement to return to work. His own physicians have released him to drive, and to return to work. The company doc refused to release him, based solely on some Federal law supposedly stating that commercial drivers are disqualified from driving for 1 year after a stroke.

I’ve spent all afternoon googling this supposed law, and can’t find anything but recommendations to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

Any help I can get finding this law will be highly appreciated. Negating its existence would be better still…

*sighs*

He hasn’t been disqualified. His CDL has not been revoked, marked for watching, disqualified.

Topic

Clarifications

In reply to Edited… Only barely technology related…

Clarifications

Found this

In reply to Edited… Only barely technology related…

With ICC+commercial+driver+medical+issues:

http://www.georgiatruckaccidentattorneyblog.com/2009/02/what_medical_conditions_disqua.html

Yeh.

In reply to Found this

But, per my edit, he hasn’t been disqualified. His CDL is active. Checked it today…

More

In reply to Found this

Courtesy a mutual acquaintance with research skills:

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/topics/medical/Medical-Contact.aspx

I’d

In reply to More

give a thumb for that, but it’s a Federal Bureaucracy Contact link. We’ll have lost our asses by the time I get off hold, or get a relevant email response. :0 :^0

[i]I’ve been all over that site, and DOT all afternoon. I’ve just sent his employer an email… [/i]

Agreed

In reply to I’d

You have fallen into the maw.

I hate to say it but

In reply to I’d

I think it is lawyer time.

I wonder.

In reply to I hate to say it but

Wouldn’t surprise me that he’s being pushed into retirement.

It would save money

In reply to I wonder.

and right now any way you can reduce the payroll is what most companies want, I do believe management may want to go for it.

Sad, but possibly true.

Same here

In reply to Edited… Only barely technology related…

Just recommendations, no driving for a year recommended.

I saw where it appears the possibility of a second stroke drops off hugely in the first 6 to 7 months, then moves down slowly from there.

To prove a negative is just about not possible.

Found this, way down toward the end of the article they talk about health issues.

http://www.overdriveonline.com/featured-article-wake-up-call/

Thanks, MJ.

In reply to Same here

[i]The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has not acted on the proposal.[/i]

Looking for things like this. 😀

[i]missing ‘s'[/i]

That is what I thought

In reply to Thanks, MJ.

but wanted you to find it, but it is from March of this year.

As of November

In reply to That is what I thought

another panel has recommended the same. I’m thinking they’re pushing it hard, and he’ll never get past a DOT Certified doc because of it.

The freaking thing was a total fluke in relation to a leg injury. Geeminy.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2fy2jwx

OK Davette

In reply to Edited… Only barely technology related…

I can see your technical Problem you need to improve the Capabilities of Google to Search for something which doesn’t exist. 😉

From what I can see and understand this is just a Recommendation which may or may not have been accepted. From what I can currently see it’s not been accepted but it may currently be under review so if that’s the case right at the moment it has no Legal Standing and the Medical Practitioner who refused to sign off may well be in breach of the Applicable Laws.

However here it also depends on what the Company Involved wants to do and they may accept all Recommendations made and want to work that way.

Nothing to disprove this as it’s not been accepted currently at least, and is just a Recommendation.

But here I should ask in relation to this bit of your post

[i]marked for watching, disqualified[/i]

What does this bit mean. If there is no Current Legislation in Place to Disqualify a person is this Disqualification an [b]Official[/b] Disqualification or just something that the company concerned wants to push?

Col

I figger

In reply to OK Davette

the Department of Transportation are pushing for this safety law related to stroke. OH’s company (probably) uses DOT certified docs for medical. A valid DOT physical is required in addition to a Commercial Drivers Licene (CDL). His CDL isn’t in question. His DOT physical cert is the problem. On a point of law that as far as I can tell is coming.

I think big changes are ahead.

Later

In reply to I figger

Suddenly becomes now.

Davette regardless the Doctor

In reply to I figger

Should point to the Legislation and Section that he is using to refuse the Medical Assessment.

I’m certainly no Expert on US Law but if any person refers to the Law for anything they have to know what Piece of Legislation and the Section that they are referring to to knock back anything. If they just say No it’s the Law they leave themselves open to being Sued and being a member of the Medical Profession a Claim of Medical Negligence. 😉

I hope that is of some use Davette. 😉

Col

They need to tell you exactly what part of the law it was

In reply to Edited… Only barely technology related…

Maybe 49 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations)?

If you can get the actual section of the CFR code the doctor is referring to, you can look it up here:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/

search 49cfr for all of it. There are several sections that refer to commercial trucking and transportation.

Try this website. Its free and real attorneys will answer your questions. There’s a searchable database too.

http://www.lawguru.com.

If you can get the actual citation number that they disqualified him for, you can google that. Maybe its listed somewhere on the medical examination form? They should be able to give you that information, but if not, maybe the lawguru attorneys can help.

Hope this helps.

AV

Thanks, AV.

In reply to They need to tell you exactly what part of the law it was

Know what I’ll be doing with coffee this morning. 🙂

Reponse To Answer

In reply to They need to tell you exactly what part of the law it was

I asked a question at lawguru.com and got great feedback! It is definitely worth a try.

From all I’ve seen so far,

In reply to Edited… Only barely technology related…

it sounds more like company policy, regardless as to whether it is following a “Federal gov recommendation”.

So, this doctor cannot claiom “Federal Law”. He needs to either revise his findings, or point to the actual rule, wherever it is enshrined.

So, does this company have a habit of disappearing drivers at the least excuse, or what?

No history.

In reply to From all I’ve seen so far,

Well, not that kind of history. Of course, they do all they can to make as much money as they can. About the doc, I don’t know.

Contracts get slightly worse every new contract, but they generally treat their employees ‘fairly’.

I think the doc is a DOT Certified doc, and we’re not going to get around this if we don’t step outside the DOT Certified docs.

insurance

In reply to No history.

is it possible the companys insurance company has this in the policy and the doctor is just complying with that?

[Author]

Replies