OSA, Driving and Government Run Amuk

[frh]

Sometimes you just need to vent...

My wife checked the P.O. Box yesterday and got 3 letters from the Department of Motor Vehicles. Essentially they said her drivers license was revoked because she has COPD, OSA, a bad back and bad vision. Not just her school bus certificate and/or commercial drivers license, but her regular drivers license as well. It did not say she has X number of days to prove she is fit to drive, They just said her license was revoked as of the date of the letter. The letters went on to threaten jail if she is caught driving and stated the registration to any vehicle she owns will also be revoked.

I called the DMV to ask what is going on? The unpleasant woman I talked to told me someone sent in a letter alleging my wife is unfit to drive, so they acted on that information. I asked this woman "how the hell can you revoke my wife's license with out any proof of any of this?" (It kind of went downhill from there.) The lady told me not to cuss at her. I told her not to be condescending with me...

This has to be the stupidest, most insane thing I have ever heard of. I thought our Constitution is supposed to prevent government from doing arbitrary crap like this. The call ended after I offered to contact a lawyer to find out exactly what my rights are, and then do my best to throw a monkey wrench in their policies by inviting TV stations and State Legislators to a press conference on their front steps. (The government can not stop you from trying to ridicule their stupidity in public.)

My wife and I decided to press the issue in person at the local DMV office. She took a number and filled out a Drivers License application. When she handed it in, the clerk at the counter told my wife she can't have a license because she is impaired. When I asked her to describe in what way my wife appears to be impaired the clerk just said it says that on the computer screen. Then real quick, she called the supervisor over. The supervisor agreed that my wife did not appear to be mentally or physically impaired and seems to function just fine without a cane, walker, oxygen tank or CPAP machine. (She is supposed to wear oxygen when she walks, drives and sleeps, but not when she is just sitting in a waiting room.)

This supervisor asked us to wait while she called the department that sent those letters. (Turns out she talked to the woman I butted heads with earlier.) After a very long wait they had my wife take a vision test (which she easily passed). After another very long wait they called her to the counter and traded her commercial license (and $10.00) for a regular drivers license.

I have to admit this could have gone a lot different, We were very, very lucky. My best guess is, since my wife easily passed the vision test, and does not appear to be impaired in any way, the supervisor figured the other allegations may not have much merit either. Regardless, now we have 30 days to get a MD to fill out their form and verify she is medically fit to keep her drivers license. (She'll take the papers to the Pulmonologist who advised us to sue the school district for not letting her drive a school bus with her oxygen tank.)

This supervisor told me most of the time that kind of letter is sent in by a police officer, judge, MD or a family member. But she confirmed the system is so screwed-up that I (or anyone else in the waiting room) could get her (the supervisor's) license revoked simply by sending in such a letter, without any proof of anything. (We suspect the letter was written by co-worker my wife did not get along with where she used to work.)

They told us my wife's medical oxygen is not what got her license revoked. It was her "alleged" bad vision and sleep apnea. The supervisor said they are very concerned because people who have it fall asleep while they are driving. My wife responded by telling her that's called narcolepsy... The DMV just does not seem to recognize the difference between treated and untreated sleep apnea.

My wife thinks we should check to see if this was a violation of the Americans With Disabilities ACT. Tuesday morning I intend to take advantage of the $17.00 a month I pay for access to a lawyer. At the very least, I intend to write (or ask the lawyer to write) a letter to my State Legislators about this. I'm not sure the TV stations would be interested, but it might be worth a try.

[Julie]

Shades of the French revolution! Just call up and send someone to the gallows with no evidence! When I worked for neurologists in Toronto a few yrs ago, stroke, or epilepsy, or other similar patients had to be retested by a certified agency who knew how to do it properly (not just a regular driving school) and they reported to the MD, who then told the patients whether or not they could continue driving. There is no way at ALL that someone with a private beef could make it happen!

[timbalionguy]

I hope when you are done with the DMV that there will be a few folks there who will have an alternate way to deficate! What you experienced at least borders on unconstitutional.

[frh]

Julie, you are right, someone in a little office with way too much authority seems to be stuck in the dark ages. I posted the story in this forum because the supervisor at the DMV said they revoked my wife's license because of her "alleged" sleep apnea. Perhaps the person who made that arbitrary decision has undiagnosed sleep apnea - otherwise they would have been thinking a little more clearly...

I woke up this morning and I'm still angry about the way this happened. I do not think I am willing to simply let it go.

[chellesings]

Now this is a scary story! I thought about the fact that I have OSA when I tested for my cdl last year. But, I only drive for field trips, so that's a little different, I guess. However, I am working on lowering my bp, because I know my doc will not sign my 2 year certificate if it's not within the acceptable number. I'm sorry all this happened with your wife.

[scbeaver]

My wife retired from the Texas Department of Public Safety, Driver License Devision six years ago. The last ten years, she was an examiner and part of her job was to investigate cases like the one mentioned. Part of that examination was a face to face talk with the person in question and administer a driving test if needed and forward the results with recommendations to higher up's. Everyone got a chance to state there case. It looks as though Az is taking the attitude of "My way or the Highway". Not good. Try to get legistlation changed to give everyone a fair chance.


Sleep Well

Steve

[torontoCPAPguy]

As a matter of interest. In Ontario (and probably in most states) your MD is required, by law, to report any 'illness' that may affect your ability to operate a motor vehicle. YOU will never know this because they don't want to lose you as a patient or get into a hassle. My dad had his license yanked two years ago. Went to the DMV, rewrote the exam and got 100 percent on it. Got his license back that day after paying the necessary fees.

Government has not run amuk as you may believe... it has ALWAYS been overbearing and that was one of the reasons our founders wrote the Constitution the way they did, including the Second Amendment (The right of the people to keep and bear arms). That right was not etched in stone to ensure a standing army/militia but rather to ensure that the government was held in check by the people at all times by an armed populace that had escaped persecution in Europe for hundreds of years. It also gave the people the ability to gather food and protect themselves from assault as the government was not (and is still not) responsible for your wellbeing. Over the years, government has run off the rails slightly, but the truth of the matter is that we still have the best governments in both the USA and Canada of anywhere in the world. And the best countries to live in as far as Im concerned.

Look at this as an aggravating minor inconvenience. Trust me. It gets worse. I mean better. I think.

Congrats on regaining that license. I don't know if you are going to do much better. Just don't change MD's cuz your current MD has fulfilled his legal obligation and won't be sending in another report. If you change MD's? After that first visit he/she is going to probably be obligated to advise the DMV of the ailments again and since the DMV has no idea of what they are or the extent of impairment they ALWAYS err on the side of caution to cover their butts. Same with the guys that issue firearms permits... you got a misdemeanor for drunk and disorderly from when you were 18? Kiss that permit goodbye in many states or at least be prepared to appear before a board or judge to argue your case. I don't want whackos, felons, druggies or drunks running around with legal firearms, of course, but there is a point at which reason flies out the window and it is building unfortunately, as folks without anything better to do need to be kept busy.

[Kilopy]

Since you deal with a Dr. that apparently likes to practice law why do you need to contact an attorney? Or perhaps you could contact an attorney that likes to pracitce medicine on the side.

[frh]

Toronto CPAPguy, we're pretty sure the letter was written by a former co-worker who got promoted to an office job. We ran into this lady in a WalMart store a few weeks ago. Something she said about my wife's vision and drivers license did not make sense at the time.

The first call my wife made was to the School District's HR Department. They denied sending or authorizing such a letter. But the order of the symptoms matches the wording in my wife's request for a medical leave of absence last April. About that time a temporary side effect of Prednisone caused something they called a floating detachment in her eye. (Fortunately, the eye doc says she is fine now.)

But since my wife already passed the DMV's vision test we are not too worried about the outcome. She has an appointment with her GP next week. We're pretty sure it wasn't him, but we'll see what happens when when she asks him to fill out the form. She also has an appointment with her pulmonologist in two weeks. There is no doubt in my mind he'll be pretty pissed-off about the situation if she needs to ask him to fill out their form. (They only require one doctor to fill out the form.) And we really don't think it could have been any of the other specialists she is seeing (eye doctor, back doctor, cardiologist, etc.), because none of them know much about things they are not treating her for.

[torontoCPAPguy]

Since you deal with a Dr. that apparently likes to practice law why do you need to contact an attorney? Or perhaps you could contact an attorney that likes to pracitce medicine on the side.

Nice troll attempt.
What you are reading is good information. Take it or leave it but don't knock it. That's just rude.
If you did not have a good night of sleep last night and are cranky stick a post-it on your keyboard to that effect. We all have cranky days. But, I was taught that once the words are out of your mouth its tough to retract them.

I don't see any doctors practicing law here. What I see is doctors bound by state or federal law that must report to the pertinent authorities. For instance, a doctor treating a patient with a gunshot wound is bound by law to report it immediately to the police in most every state. A doctor examining a commercial pilot that notes an adverse condition must, be federal law, report it to the FAA immediately. And so on. No doctor's practicing law... just trying to follow the law, as if life's not complex enough for them already.

[torontoCPAPguy]

Since you deal with a Dr. that apparently likes to practice law why do you need to contact an attorney? Or perhaps you could contact an attorney that likes to pracitce medicine on the side.

Hey Kilopy, just took the liberty of checking out your other posts in case I was missing something here. Don't think I am. Your CPAP machine does not appear to be working. You are perpetually cranky. Read my signature. Look at the picture. You may not agree but I can tell you that 3-4 weeks in darkness struggling for life changes your view of things really fast. Hoping it never happens to you but get that CPAP looked at, huh?

Kiss. Kiss. Hug. Hug. Shake hands. Friends now.

[Jay K]

You might want to ask your lawyer whether your state has a public information disclosure law (or anything else) that would enable you to see whatever is in your wife's file that may have led to the revocation of her license. Often, information that would otherwise be private may be released to the affected individual (and the one whose privacy would be violated if the disclosure were made to someone else).

I am curious though about another possible aspect to this that was not not raised (and about which I do not profess to be an expert). I understand that in certain circumstances in order to drive commercially, someone with certain medical conditions, such as sleep apnea, is required to show therapy compliance to either the state DMV, or some federal agency such as DOT. Is there a possibility your wife's revocation of her licenses was not directly the result of her medical conditions, but rather resulted from not providing documentation that her medical conditions were being treated, or that she was in compliance with respect to such things as CPAP therapy? I understand that she had all of her licenses revoked, commercial and non-commercial, but perhaps having determined that she did not provide necessary documentation for one type of license but continued to drive, this resulted in a blanket revocation of all licenses.

I WANT TO BE CLEAR though I am not stating as a fact that your state required such documentation, I am only raising the possibility.

[Kilopy]

Have not visited this chat room for a while, as I have yet to find something useful.

My OSA is treated very successfully. I do, however, appreciate your concern for my well being, even if you are ill informed. Occasionally I get bored so take a quick glance at this chat room - Based on some of the posts yes it is a chat room (reference "love in the forum" among others).

Sometimes I just can't resist the urge to respond. It simply is not my problem if I replied to someone that did not provide the full facts and you took the bait. For your information if you read the full original post of the topic you will notice that the Dr. did reference a suit.

[BlackSpinner]

Have not visited this chat room for a while, as I have yet to find something useful.

So you are a drive by troll after all.

[ziggytosh]

What happened to your wife is bullsh!t, and far be it from me to try to justify it. It is stupid and the epitome of dysfunctional bureaucracy.

Still, I have a government job, and I think I can understand why this SORT of thing (though maybe not this particular thing) happens. I mean, government is always a matter of balancing competing interests. Some advocacy group years back probably pressured some state legislators to take action on road safety. At the time no one cared much, other than the advocacy group, since no one imagines ahead of time that they will be the ones facing this kind of complication. The DMV has an interest in making things as simple for itself as possible, since it has lots of work to get done and not enough staff to do it (I'm not a big spender, but it's worth mentioning there is some correlation between low taxes and crappy service). It's also worth mentioning that driving is classified as a "privilege" and not a right, meaning government isn't Constitutionally obliged to overcome the same presumption of innocence that would apply in other areas of law.

Anyway, the result is that the DMV satisfies the outspoken advocacy groups, but does it in a way that is designed to limit the possibility for resource-intensive arguments and appeals. I guess the thinking is that most people will just say, oh well, guess I can't drive any more.

If you are the DMV, and you accept that you are going to have to do what the legislators have told you to do as far as revoking licenses based on unproven allegations, and if you are also facing a resource crunch, it makes a certain kind of sense to try to revoke the licenses quickly, forcefully, and with as little chance for complicated argument as possible. After all, you've got to move large volumes of people through the pipeline each day and you don't have enough staff and resources to do it. In the tough, underfunded world of government, this type of thinking is what passes for "efficiency."

Anyway, there are lots of things that suck, and this is one of them. I'm glad you were able to get her license restored in the end, and I hope you can get her commercial license back to.