# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Taxay v. Shaffer > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385606_0563%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1972 - **Citation:** 405 U.S. 1073 ## Text ; ; : | - Supreme Gouri ULS, = 4 > = fe FILET! INTHE °° 1 € Supreme ( Court of the United States. No. é i Lv 4 1 — i EMIL P. TAXAY, M_D.. ee manana | : Petitioner, —_ —_———— JOHN H. SHAFFER, Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration: PETER V. SIEGEL, M.: D.. Federal Air Surgeon, Federal Aviation: Administration: f HARRY-M. FAULKNER, M. D., Regional Flight Surgeon, Southern Region. Federal - Aviation Adniinistration, : Sane op Respondents. — PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. ROBERT D. POWELL - SMITH & PEPPER | ' 1776-K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Attorney for Petitioner s. asmington D C - THIEL PRESS 202 393-0625 es a (i) ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS. ror ar Page © JUDGMENT BELOW ..... PRN ae Ao - 2, Appendix’ A SURISDICTION 2... one eee Peo e 2 QUESTION’PRESENTED ......... 2.202... 05.00.. 2 STATUTORY AND — PROVISIONS INVOLVED | ge 8 . | Appendix B “STATEMENT OF FACTS. SU Sn ea REASONS. FOR GRANTING THE WRIT: es A. The Action of Respondents in Refusing Redes-. » 2 _ ignation of Petitioner- as an AME, Constitutes .. oa: an “Order” Reviewable under Section 1006 of | ae the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 Direct eee ee oS. * Due Process of Law Required a Hearing at Same = _ Stage of the Proceedinghat the Administrative ” - Level. 2... 2.2... Wes Aas eres b Nace ey ne ce CONCLUSION: ....2.0:...@.....00 05. ewe ne ae - “APPENDIX A - Judgment Below APPENDIX B - Statutory and Rules Provisions . §314(a) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 49 US ¢. 1355(a) MOP ING, SEKAI cet RENE eas NNT TY Be hy Ib ee SE enn Whey Rie Ib * § 1006 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 49 USC. peas MG =. ks eee ae as 1 '§183.15 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, 14 CFR a ee 183.15 ere ere er on tay Nats ot _ APPENDIX C- Pertinent Correspondence | a. - Letter of John H. Shaffer, October 23,1970............. lc Complgint of Emil P. Taxay, M.D., July 8, 1970 ..+.:..... > 2c _, Letterfof Harry W. Faulkner, M. D., March 25,1970 ./.... 13¢ _ Letter of J. N. Coker, Esq, Apri oiiedetaree 2 Nae. — i eee eis ON 3 ? . . ‘ . - a: . yh. : = + es ae ; (ii) | Letterof IN. Coker, Esq., April 20, ene 5 Letter of Peter V. Siegel to Emil P. Taxay, M.D., - | 3 B- - pgel 24, 190 ©... eco en do ee ce a | Letter of John H. Shaffer, June 16,1970. reo eine? 17¢ “Letter of Robert D. Powell, May 21,1970 .....--.--- a | 1 "Letter of Peter V. Siegel, M.D., June Se TABLE OF — | IEE Bie EN Cb Aha “Cases: American Federation of Labor v. NERB, 308 US. 401° ~ (1940) eee eee eee ee Bee Agee nore ao 8” : - Bratton v. Chandler, 260 US. 110 Ec. cones arenes ol - |. Columbia Auto Loan v. Jordan, 196 F.2d 568 (D.C. Cir. aie g as ay ges ee =~ = 710 a Columbia Broadcasting System, | Inc. v, U. s. 316 U s. ee — : » 407 (1942) -...---: foot 5 teal eleng ee aa ee veces ow Crocker v. U.S., 127 F.Supp. 568 (Ct. Cl. 1955) . pS ee 10 _. Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. a 39 Se F.2d 584 (D.C.Cir. BE hae une ne kee see ss ae, Goldsmith v. U.S. Board of Tax Appeals, 270 U.S. 117 | ROT on Cy slab ta ea le heaeaiaa =“ Hornsby v. Allen, 326 F. 2d 605 (Sth Cir. 1964) Lae ee 11 - In re Carter, 177 F.2d 75 (D.C. Cir. 1949), 192 F. 0d. 15 ; *s (DC. Cir. 1951) cert. denied 342 US. 862. .....--- ee 11 International Navigators Council of America v. Shaffer, os wo. 444 F.2d 904 (D.C_Cir. ee ae ee See: Medical’ Committee for Human Rights v. Securities and’ Exchange Commission, 432 F.2d 659 (D.C Cir. 1970) iene. © Minkoff’ v. Payne, 210 F.2d 689 DCL. 1953)... ee -.-: 10 Morgan v. U.S. 304 U.S. 1 (1938)... - e+e Lo hea 11,12 Federal Aviayon Administration | Before: DANAHER, Sétier Circuit Judge. arid MCGOWAN and TAMM. Circuit Judges. 5 JUDGMENT. This case came on to be heard on the record from the Federal Aviation Administration, and was argued by -cotin- sel. While the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion, they have been accorded full cogsideration by the Court. See Local Rule 13(c). Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is , ‘ ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by this Court that the _ petition for review herein is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdictjon. See International Navigators G ouncil of - aS {OTT Ae RP RT &: a e “ge - America v. Shaffer, US. App. D.C. - .444.F.2d - “904 (1971). ee: | 7 | cS Per Curiam. Dated: November’ 16, 197] Ib ; j APPENDIX 'B SECTION 314(a) OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION . ACT OF 1958, 49 U.S.C. $1355. Delegation of Powers’ and Duties to Private | Persons; Application for Reconsideration (a) In exercising the powers and duties vested ‘in him—_ by this chapter, the Administrator may, subject to such — regulations, supervision, and review as he may prescribe, delegate to any properly qualified private person, Or to any - employee or employees under the supervision of such per- _ Son, any~ work, business, or function Tespecting (1) the ' examination, inspection, and testing necessary to the issuance of certificates under. subchapter VI of this chapter, and (2) the issuance of such certificates in accordance with standards established by him. ‘The Administrator may establish the maximum fees which such private persons may .charge.for their services and may rescind any dele-_ gation made by him: pursuant to this Subsection at’ any time and for‘any reason which he deems appropriate. SECTION 1002(a) OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION . ACT OF 1958, 49 U.S.C. $1482. Complaints to and Investigations by the Adminis- frator’ and the Bgard—Filing of Complaints: | Complaints Against Members of the Armed Forees ‘ (a) Any person may file with the Administrator -or the Board. as to matters within their respective jurisdictions: a complaint in writing’ with respect to anything done or omitted to be done by any person in.contravention of any provisions of this chapter, or of any requirement established pursuant thereto. If the person complained against shall not satisfy the complaint and there shall appear to be any reasonable ground for investigating the complaint, it shall be the duty of the Administrator or the Board to investi- gate the matters complained of. Whenever the Administra- ° Ma ie | >» tor or the Board is of the opinion that any complaint does not state facts which warrant ‘an investigation or action, such complaint may be dismissed without hearing. In the case Of complaints against a member of the Armed Forces of the, United States acting in the. performance of his official! duties, the Administrator or the Board, as the case may be, shall refer the complaint to the Secretary of the _ department concerned for action. The Secretary. shall, — within ninety days after receiving such a.complaint, inform the: Administrator or the Board of his disposition of the ‘ :complaint, including a report as to any corrective or dis- ciplinary actions taken. . eo SECTION 1006 OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION - ACT OF 1958, 49 U.S.C. $1486. Judicial Review—Orders Subject to Review: ' - Petition’ for Review : (a) Any order, affirmative or negative, issued by the Board or Administrator under this chapter, except any order in respect of any foreign air carrier subject to the approval of the President as provided in section 1461 of this title, shall be subject to review by the courts of appeals ’ of the United. States or the United States Court of Appeals forthe District, of Columbia upon petition, filed within sixty days after the entry of such order, by any person disclosing a substantial interest in such order. ‘After the expiration of said sixty days a petition may be filed only by Jeave of court upon a showing of reasonable grounds — for failure to file the petition theretofore. - ts _ Venue - (b) A petition under this sectign shall be filed in the _ court far the circuit wherein the petitioner’resides or has ; his principal place of business or in the United States Court .- Of Appeals for the District of Columbia. ; . 3b Notice. to Board or Administrator; Filing of Record (c) A copy of the petition shall, upon filimg, be forth-' with transmitted to the Board or Administrator by the clerk of the court, and the* Board or Administrator shal] thereupon file in the court the record, if any, upon which the order complained of was entered. as sarees in sec- ~ tion 2112 of Title. 28. “ Sis of G ourt (d) Upon transmittal of the’ petition to the Board or ‘Administrator, the court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to affirm, modify, or set-aside the order complained of, ’ in whole Or in part, and if need be, to order further pro- ceedings by the Beard or Administrator. Upon good cause shown and after reasonable notice to the: Board or Admin-. istrator, ‘interlocutéry relief may be granted by stay of the -order or by such ey or ‘other relief as may be “~ appropriate. Conclusiveness of Findings of Fact; Objections (e) The findings of facts by the Board or Administrator, if supported by ‘substantial evidence, shall be conclusive. No objection to an order of the Board or. Administrator shall be considered bythe court unless such qbjcction shall have been urged before the Board or Administrator or. if it was not so urged, unless there } were reasonable grounds , _ for failure to do so. : - Ret iew by Supreme Court (f) The judgment and decree of the court aftirenine, . modifying, or setting aside any such. order of the Board - or Administrator shall be subject only to review by the - Supreme Court of the United States upon certification or a certiorari as provided in section 1254 of Title 28... “See. * at ’ PLES LEM LOTR NS INT PERT SEER | RR TSR en tet _ 4b - SECTION 183.15 OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS (14 CFR 183.15). $183.15 Duration of Certificates. (a) Unless sooner terminated under paragraph (c) of this section, a designation as an Aviation Medical Examiner is effective for | year after, the. date it is issued, and may be renewed for additional periods of | year in the Federal Air Surgeon’ 's discretion. A renewal is effected by a letter and issuance, of anew idetifification card specifying the renewal period: — : (b) Unless sooner terminated under paragraph (c) of this section, a designation as a Flight Standards Designated Representative is effective for one year after the date it is issued and may be renewed for additional periods of one | year ‘in the Administrator’ s descretion. .(c) A designation made. under this- subpart ecanacalles— (1) -Upon the written request of the representative; (2). Upon the written request of the employer ir any case in ‘which the recommendation of the employer is required for the designation, . ” (3) Upon the ‘Tepresentative being separated from the employment of the employer who recommended him _ for certification; : is (4) Upona finding ‘by the Administrator that the representative has not properly performed his duties under the designation; : (5) Upon the assistance of the representative being no lon er needed by the Administrator; or | (6) For any reason the Adntinistrator considers appropriate, ea : Ic foe ee ‘ APPENDIX C. DEPARTMENT OF -TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 Robert D. Powell, Esquire October 23. 1970 Smith, Pepper, Shack and L’Heureux_ - 1776 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Re: The Matter. of the. Complaint of Emit F. Taxay, M.D. Dear Mr. Powell: “This is in reply to the Complaint of 8 July 1970 filed by — you concerning action taken by the Federal Aviation Administration declining to redesignate Emil P. Taxay, _ M.D., as an Aviation Medical Examiner. -Upon receipt of the Complaint, we ‘caused it to be referred _ for consideration by an Office unrelated to either the Office ‘of Aviation Medicine or the Office of the General Counsel. That. Office has furnished to us. and we have reviewed, their independent evaluation | and recommendation con-.” cerning the action. taken by Dr. Peter V. Siegel, M.D., the Federal Air Surgeon, and Dr. Harry Faulkner, M.D.. Regional Flight Surgeon. Southern Region, under authority delegated to them. From a review and consideration of both the Complaint and the report, we have concluded that, there - does not exist any - ‘reasonable basis for reversal of the . decision made by Dr. Siegel and Dr.. Faulkner not to- redesignate Dr. Taxay. - - 7 7s ' ‘As we are of the opinion that the Complaint does: not con- ‘tain facts which would warrant further investigation, we therefore consider this matter dismissed | without the neces-. sity for additional action. by Sincerely, J.H. Shaffer, Administrator f. . + RA RRL AASV. ia is ' 2c : : L T= COMPLAINT Comes now Emil P. Taxay, M. D. (hereinafter “Plaintiff” ), by his attorneys, and files this Complaint, pursuant to Sec- tion 1002(a) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, against John H. Shaffer, Administrator. of the Federal Aviation Administration; Peter V. Siegel, M.D”, Federal Air Surgeon of the Federal Aviation Administration; and Harry V. Faulkner, M.D., Regional Flight Surgeon for the Southern Region of the Federal ‘Aviation Administration. - ff. Plaintiff is currently practicing medicine in Miami, Florida. He is a° Diplomate-of the American Board of Internal Medicine -and specializes in both internal medicine — and cardiology. Plaintiff sees approximately 150 patients a week, about 15 per cent of whom are pilots. He is on the staff.of four hospitals in the Miami area. He has served on the faculty of the University of Miami School of Medicine, both as an instructor and assistant professor. Plaintiff holds memberships in a number of local, national and international medical associations and has published over ‘twenty -articles in medical-journals. He served four years active and nine years reserve duty as.a flight surgeon with the U.S. Air Force: Plaintiff's academic record: is. excellent. He éntered thé University of Cincinnati at age fifteen, graduated at item eighteen, and received-a*Master’s degree in chemistry at age nineteen. He then entered medi- . cal school .at Cincinnati and graduated ‘in 1954. He. was honored, by receiving an internship at Walter Reed Army \ —_ \ \ a — 3c sy Hospital, a much coveted position. A copy of Plaintiff's curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Attachment A. 2. Plaintiff was originally designated as a Senior Aviation . Medical -Examiner (AME) by the FAA on August 7,. 1961. In this capacity he has examined approximately 100 airmen a year to determine their qualifications for medical certi- fication under Part°67 of the Federal Aviation Regalations: Plaintiff cannot recall any occasion during the time si ce ‘his designation when he was advised by the FAA that work was unsatisfactory. In fact, Plaintiff has been otaived - by’ FAA officials for his work as an AME (see Attachment . tiffs record of activity as an AME and that “it would not B). To his credit, Plaintiff has attended all: required refresher courses in aviation medicine and for Several years has voluntarily participated in the FAA— —sponsored Air Traffic Control Program and the FAA— Semeur: Accident Investigation Program. 3. On- March 29, 1970. Plairitiff received a letter _— , | Dr. Harry/Faulkner, Regional Flight Surgeon for the South- ern Region! of the Federal Aviation Administration, dated March 25, 1970, notifying Plaintiff that his designation as - an AME would not be renewed and that his function as such would terminate as of March 30, 1970 (see Attach- ment C). Dr. Faulkner stated that he had reviewed Plain- be in the ‘best interests of the Federal Aviation Adminis- fration to reappoint [him] as = Medical. EExam- iner.””” No other reason was given. 4. On March 30, 1970, Plaintiff engaged the undersigned; Robert D. Powell, Esq., to aid him in attenipting ‘to regain his designation. On April 6, 1970, Mr. Powell, on behalf. ; of Plaintiff, wrote to Dr. Peter V. Siegel, Fetleral Air Sur- geon for the Federal Aviation Administration, to .request - reconsideration of Dr. Faulkher’s action (see’ Attachment D). On April 7, 1970, Mr. Powell wrote to Dr. Faulkner’ ‘\ _Tequesting a definite statement of the reasons for Dr. - Faulkner’s refusal to redesignate Plaintiff (see Attachment ‘E). Mr. Powell’s letter to Dr. Faulkner was referred to. | EFL AE PSPS Ore * fe n= = Sai ee ees 4c ae = 3, ee IN. Coker, Esq., Rediowil Counsel for the Southern Region. of the Federal Aviation Admiréstration, for reply: In.. _ response to the request ‘for a definite statement of reasons, Mr. Coker replied: “It is believed that you and Dr. Taxay are aware of the reasons - ‘for such determination.’ (see Attachment F)... 5. On April 3, 1970. Mis ‘Powell wrote to Mr. eaker " to again request specific reasons for Dr. Faulkner’s refusal, to redesignate as Mr. Coker’s first.letter was deemed an — insufficient explanation (see Attachment G). Mr. Coker responded to this further request by letter dated April 20, 1970 (see Attachment H). His letter was brief, considering the’ gravity of the action, taken, and contained misinterpre- tations of the situation involved. In the second paragraph ‘of his letter, Mr. Coker implies that Plaintiff has appeared - in National Transportation Safety Board proceedings on - contested medical certification cases as an expert witness - in opposition to the FAA while characterizing himself as ‘a represeritative | of the Administrator.. ~ This is simply | untrue, as an impartial review of the facts would: clearly show. Further, Mr. Coker states that Mr. Powell has used, and is using, Plaintiff as a consultant “in opposing the Administrator” in contested cases. This.statement is also. a half-truth, the, unfavorable implications: of which. can easily be: dispelled by an examination of Plaintiff's dealings with Mr. Powell. : 6. Dr. Siegel exhibited this same attitude in his jJetter to Mr. Powell dated April 24, 1970 (see Attachment 1).. There ‘he stated: “I do not need to go into great detail with you since you, know that it is difficult for an individual to both serve aS a representative of the Administrator and as a répresentative against the Administrator.” © Dr. Siege! also wrote to Plaintiff on April 24 and charged: him with serving on a regular-basis as a paid consultant to attorneys opposing the Administrator (see Attachment J). Clearly. Dr. -Siegel has charge Plaintiff with a conflict of integest, an ethical rat quens Plaintiff's fitness to serve as an i 4 . PES AME. Dr. Siegel’s statement that such a charge is no reflection on’ Plaintiff is untrue; it is clearly a yeflection ‘on; and impugnation of, — professional ethics. and character. “2 i - 2 , 7. The Redeial Aviation Administration. hi¢ expanded on its position with regard to Plaintiff inetters directed to United States Senators who had inquis® about the situation — . at Plaintiff's request. On April 9,°1970, Jamés: Rogers, Director of the Southern Region for the Federal Aviation, - Administration, wrote to the Honorable Spessard L. Holland ° (see Attachment K). Mr. Roger’s letter is a classic example of the use of half-truths and innuendo that is damaging to ‘Plaintiff's professional reputation. In paragraph 4, Mr. Rogers berates Plaintiff for aiding Mr. Powell'in develoting - a case against the Administrator in the instance of a pilot. whom. “the Administrator does ngt feel is qualified” for medicak certification. This pilot j not identified by Mr. Rogers, but Plaintiff believes he knows to whom Mr. Rogers is refefring. Plaintiff's sole activity’ in this case’ was per- formance of a physical examination and a flight test, after _ . . which he denied the pilot certification ‘because of the - Administrator’s expressed position on the case, forwarding the results of the examination to the Regional Flight Sur- geon for further action. . Fo date, -the Regional Flight _ Surgeon and the Federal Air Surgeon. have not acted on this case. Mr. Rogers cannot be heard to complain.of this ° - type of activity which was strictly “by the book.” Mr. Rogers goes on in paragraph 4 to state that Plaintiff has _ disagreed with . the Administrator’ s action in certain cases. This statement is another example of misinterprétation . a representatives of the Administrator. Plaintiff has appeared for pilots: in two cases before the National Transportation © Safety Board. In ‘one; the-chief witness, for ‘the Admin-" . _ istrator, agreed with Plaintiff's position; in the: other, Plaintiff appeared and offered a medical explanation. for loss of con- _ sciousness suffered by a pilot who had been’ denied certification by -the Administrator , for disturbanée | of consciousness without RRRNEY medical explanation. : he * K ° . = : : 6° . ° : > . . neither case, could Plaintiff be charged with disagreeing with the Administrator. Further, in paragraph 5, Mr. Rogers ; engages in a ¢haracterization of Plaintiffs ethics that is _" unsupported by fact and that is slanderous in its impli - cations. Thé import of Mr. Roger's letter. is-the charge that Plaintiff has engaged in a wonflict .of interest situation and has actively sought to undercut the authority of the Adniinistrator. Titis charge is supported. not by fact. but _ by suggestion. and must fall before an impartial feview of ” Plaintiff's activities as an AME. The Administrator hiniself + responded to-an inquiry from the Honorable Edward J. Gurney. United States Senator. in a lefter dated June 16. ‘ 1970 (see Attachment L). For the most part. his Jeter. is, couched in general tergs with all the carmarks of a state- . ment of pelicy. For instance. the Administrator equates mn AME‘s with employees of the Administration and states, that the policy of the. Department of Transportation is to forbid cniployees and AME’s from taking “positions adverse to the Department in legal progeedings between tlic Depart- ment and third parties” (Paragraph 2). Ag AME is in =, 4 a position analogous to that of av ‘employee. he stat ; because an AMB receives “a, certain amount of sing ag and information and beoomes privy to FAA’SViews on ; ° _omedical facts critical to its decisions.” The Administrator * concludes that relationship involves 4 degree of trust Ae: and confidence.Q( Paragraph 2). ife goes on to say that - becaute” individual and public interest often collide in the . area Of airman medical certification. fo man can essentially —- occupy both sides (paragraph 3) and. according to the Administrator. this is exactly what Plaintiff has done “as . ap Organized course of conduct.” (Paragraph 4). This one” “+ “8 sentence js the only. specific refyrence to Plaintiff"in the. Administrator's entire letter. Hoyer. it is interesting to note that the Administrfior would not object to an AME “occasionally taking an applicant’ s Side in proceedings before . FAA when he feels conscientiously impelled to do so in the -: “interest of individual justice.” (Paragraph 4). Plaintiff ee - Tc 4 e submits that an impartial review of the facts of his case would reveal that he has done no more than what the Administrator considers acceptable. : ° 8. Plaintiff strongly disagrees with the positign taken “by the Administrator and his authorized representatives in the handling of the matter and believes that all the facts ef sidered or that an- unfair interpretatiop has ‘been placed upon. them. In an effort to present his “side of the story ° . Plaintiff authorized Mr. Powell to request a meeting with Dr. Siegel or his representative. Although this request was made on two separate occasions (see Attachments D and M). no such meeting ever took place. However, Mr.. Powell did attempt to present Plaintiff's position at « meeting requested by Mr. Jennings Roberts, Associate General Counsel of the Opérations and Evaluation Branch of ‘the Federal Aviation Administration and held at Mr. Roberts’ offices. Present were Mi. Roberts, Mr. John John Marsh, also of the Office of General Counsel, Mr. Powell and Mr. Robert Buenzle, Mr. Powell's associate. It is interesting to note that Mr. Roberts’ stated reason for ~ requesting this meeting was to discuss possible legal action which Plaintiff might bring against the Federal Aviation Admfnistration. Its main pyrpose was not to present Plain- tiffs ppsition. nor was the Federal Aviation Administration prepared to discuss in detail its reasons for refusing to renew Plaintiffs designation. Rather, Mr. Roberts indicated that it was the Federal Aviation Administration's wish to _ put an end to AME’s participation in any aviation medical case from a.position favoring a pilot. except under sub- poena. Mr. Roberts indicated that it was the Admjnistra- tion's aim to deny a pilot the assistanve of 4 physician skilled and recurrently trained in aviation medical matters. - This type of expertise was to be retained by the Federal Aviation Administration alone so that the Administration would be able tg win more cases at the hearing level. This is similar to the position later taken by the Administrator in his letter to Senator Gurney and discussed. supra. A +. @e “more reasonable position ‘was taken by Mr. Marsh who thought that what was being complained of was the belief ” that Plaintiff’ was acting as an AME on specific cases. pass- ing-on them as a representative of the Administrator , and lates appearing at a National Transportation Safety Board hearing on behalf of the pilot-as a regular course of con- duct. Mr. Powell indicated that this was not an accufate _ description of Plaintiff's involvement in airmen medical cases and offered to write an explanatory letter. Mr. Marsh agreed that this was a good idea and indicated that, if there was in fact a mistake or misunderstanding,’ Plaintiff would be redesignated. since good AME’s are hard to come by 9. Mr. Powell followed Mr. Marsh's suggestion by letter dated May . m1, 1970 (see Attachment N). Dr. Siegel replied by letter dated June 10, 1970, in which he indicated that Mr. Powell's letter presented no new information that would lead him to renew Plaintiffs designation as an AME -(see Attachment O). Except for this letter to Mr. Marsh Plaintiff has been given no opportunity to present his posi- - tion concerning the charges levelled against him by the Administrator and his aythorized representatives, even though those chasges have direct bearing on his fitness to perform the duties of am AME and on his professional ethics. Furthermore, Plaintiff has been given no oppor- tunity at all to confront directly the indiyiduals wha have formulated: these charges and to test their coonny by cross-¢xamination. . 10. The mere fact that the Adsainistrator and his authorized representatives are granted discretion to renew or refuse to.renew an AME’s designation [8 314(aJ, Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended; 8183.15, Federal Avia-* tion Regulations (14 C.F.R. § 183.155]. is not de terminative ‘in this case. No administrative official is granted discretion to act in an arbitrary or capricious manner and the conclu-’ sions reached by the Administrator, Dr. Siegel and Dr. Faulkner in: this case are arbitrary. Prior to issuing his refusal to redesignate the Plaintiff,"Dr. Faulkner failed to. _ advise Plaintiff that his activities were considered ingproper. | 9 © initially failed to apprise Plaintiff of the- nature of the charges placed against him, and failed to learn Plaintiff's position on those charges. It is submitted: that these failures on Dr. Faulkner’s part remdered it impossible for — him to make a fair and impartial decision on the question of Plaintiff's redesignation. When reasons for Dr. Faulkner's action were finally obtained from the Administrator and- his representatives; they were presented in vague and general terms and included misinterpretations of the facts of this case. Although he has been charged with conflict of interest, to this day ‘Plaintiff dées not know exactly on which cases he is supposedly in conflict with the Federal Aviation Administration. Therefore, the rebuttal prepared - by Mr. Powell at Mr. Marsh’s request must of necessity be inadequate, for he was, and is, unsure of what had to be‘ ° rebutted. Thus, it was impossible for Dr. Siegel to render fair and impartial reconsideration of Dr. Faulkner’s action as he’was exposed to only one side of the argument. Plain- tiff has not been fully informed as to which of his activities have been considered.grounds for the refusal to renew ‘his designation as an AME, nor has he been allowed to adequately present his views concerning those activities. Refusal to renew Plaintiff's designation under these circum- stances must perforce be arbitrary and outside the scope of the discretion granted by the Act and the Federal Avia- tion Regulations. ; 11. Bayed on-the faets as sin herein, Plaintiff. registers - * the follwing complaints: | (a> That the Administrator and Dr. Siegel, the Federal Air Surgeon, acting as the designated representative © of the ‘Administrator, have established a policy prohibiting designated Aviation Medical Examiners from testifying on behalf of airmen at National nsportation Safety Board hearings: and, that the A@ministrator and the Federal Air Surgeon have acte¥ in contravention of Section 601(a)(6) of the Federal Aviation Act’ of 1958, as amended, and Section 552 of the Administr tive Procedure Act [5S U.S.C.A. $552), by establi —_ a policy and ~~ 10c - ‘failing to follow the prescribed procedures for noti- fication of the Plaintiff and other Aviation Medical Examiners of that policy by publication prior to enforcement. ~ (b) (e) That. Dr. Faulkner, Resend Flight Surgeon. under authority delegated by the Administrator. acted in ~ contravention of Section 314(a) of thé Pederal Aviation Act of 1958, 4s amended, and Section 183.15 of the Federal -Aviation Regulations [14 C.F.R. 815] by arbitrarily refusing to renew Plain- tiff’s designation as an Aviation Medical Examiner without informing Plaintiff of the charges against _ hin or affording Plaintiff the opportunity to rebut those’ charges. , That Dr. Siegel. Federal Air eee sities auth ority delegated by the Administrator, acted in con- travention of Section 314(a) of the Federal Aviation . Act of (958, as amended, and Section 183.15 of the -(d) (ce) Federal Aviation Regulations [14 C.F.R. $183.15] - by arbitrarily refusing to renew Plgintiff’s designa- tion aan Aviation Medical Examiner, on reconsid- eration of Dr..Faulkner’s action, without affording | Plaintiff the opportunity to rebut- the charges _ levelled against him. : That the Administrator, Dr. Siegel. and Dr. Faulkner have acted in contravention of. Section 314(a) of. the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. as amended. and Section 183. IS pf. the Federal Aviation Regulations - ‘(14 C-F.R. $183.15] by refusing to renew Plaintiff's ’ designation as an Aviation Medical Examiner asa..° ‘means of punishing Plaintiff for activities. which Plaintiff was never advised were considered im- ‘ proper by the Administrator or his designated representatives. ; That the interpretation of the role.of the Aviation Medical Examiner exhibited by Dr. Siegel and Dr. Faulkner im their cAnduct in this . matter and expressed by Mr. Jennings Roberts and the .Admin- istrator in regard to expert testimony of Aviation Medical Bxaminers in hearings before the National Transportation Safety Board has*no. basis in the statutory authority of Section 314(a) of the Act or in Subpart B of Part 183° of the Federal Aviation Regulations and constitutes an infringment of Plaintiff's 7 constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech by denying renewal of his designation and thus, punishing him for exercising that right. 12. The arbitrary refusals on the part of Dr. Siegel and , Dr. Faulkner to renew Plaintiff’s designation as an Aviation Medical Examiner has resulted in damage to Plaintiff's financial position and professional reputation. Because he can no longer examine airmen as an AME, Plaintiff has lost a portion of his practice that. amounted to approx- Vee $600.00 per year. Further, Plaintiff has been ied the practice of aviation medicine to which he dedi- | d a great deal of time, effort,.and- interest over. the ‘ past eight and one-half years. The scientific interest in- aviation medicine which Plaintiff gratified by participation. in AME and AME-related programs far outweighed the remuneration he received and constitutes more of a loss to. Plaintiff personally than does the-loss of incgme. What is. most important, however. ig that by the terms of the cor-. respondence attached hereto, the Administrator and his authorized representatives have clearly stated that they question Plaintiff's proféssional ethics and conduct. Such serious charges should never have been’ arbitrarily made and opportunity must be afforded to rebut them. '_ WHEREFORE, UPON THE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Administrator exercise the pewer granted to him by Section 1002(a) of the Fed- eral Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, by compelling Dr. +. Siegel to renew Plaintiff's designation as an Aviation Medi- cal Examiner, or: in the alternative, that the Administrator , conduct an investigation of the Circumstances surrounding | a * “evidencee ide Tae _ te Dr. Siegel’s and Dr. Faulkner’s refusals to renew Plaintiff's designation as:an Aviation Medical Examiner by means of - an evidentiary hearing at whic) Plaintiff would have a full opportunity to learméte trr€é nature of the charges against him, to cross-examine witnesses presented by the Federal - Aviation Administration, and to present his position con- cerning this matter through documentary and testimonial i ; : Respectfully submitted, "Emil P. Taxay, M.D. By - Robert D. Powell By William H. Roberge, Jr. - His Attorneys : | SMITH, PEPPER, =e -SHACK & L’HEUREUX 1776 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. July 8, 1970 er ee es, 2 s Armseanecor Ci ‘13¢ a es ; ‘ove ee Gee 4. oem ¥ + . i.) ah. - DEPARTIAENT .OF TRANSPORTATION ara Le FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION a ee” « Ceeertern yan, . lassie" RETURN RECEIPT REQUITTNY + ATLANTA, GLORGIA 30720 - aes : 25 March 1970 he ake . ‘ Emil P. Taxay; M.D. The Red-Sunset Building 7 * 6915 Red Road Coral Gables, Florida 33134" P “ 10 APR 1970 . Robert .D, Powell, Esquire : Z Smith, Pepper, BShagk & L'Heureax 700 Montgomery -Building ~ 1776 K Strect,; Northwest mr. . Washington, D. G. 20006 = . = Dear Mr. Powel ug “~ '* s Dr. Faulkner has referred.to me for reply yqur yetter of . 7 April 1970, concerning Emil P. Pree A. D. - “ -In your letter of 6 April 1970, to Dr: Siegel, you indicate your awareness that designation of private persons to act as representatives of the Administrator, under the law and regulations, is purely a disc tionary matter. ; . - a . Pursuant to authority delegated to°him, Dr. Faulkner has determined that Dr. Taxay should not be authorized to act as a representative of the Administrator. It is * ‘believed that you and Dr. Taxay are aware of the reasons for such’ determination. : . eek - Are we to assyme that your letters of 6 April 1996, to Dr. Siegel, and 7 April 1970, to Dr. Faulkner, -fndigate an intention-to challenge legally or otherwise ‘the determina- - tion made by Dr. Paasnaes ? Very truly a Fae 07) bea 3 / 3. NW. COKER y — "i Regiopal Counsel nae ‘ : = Mt 1, ier , € cy i sf af “DEPARTMENT OF TRi..SPORTATION, = a » Arincurtswr W | FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION _ - : " gle A "SOUTHERN REGION | ‘ P.O. BOX 20636 . : ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30320" oh arr ) oo , Robert D. Powell, Esquire | 4 . * Smith, Pepper, Shack & L'Heureux \ 700 Montgomery Building ‘ 1776 K Street, Northwest. ee . cacti D,°C, 20006 J : ce f.* aie." ‘Dear Mr, hewetis j ; : 4. Reference fis mate to your letter of 13 April 1970, concern- - ing Dr. Taxay. / As you are aware, Dr. Taxay, while serving as a designated representative of -the Administrator and identifying himself accordingly, has appeared as an expert medical witness in’ -._ . opposition to the position of the: Administrator in semaines > —_ before the National Transportation Safety Boara. You have savinet Dr. Faulkner that you are using Dr. Taxay as a consultant in opposing the Administrator in contested \ medical certification’ cases and there is no ddubt about this. = a " a - Curtzindy there is no question as to Dr, Taxay' s right to- » ‘serve as gp nebenG, whomever he pleases or to testify for . whomever he chooses, However, it is not sensible or ena seimche - to continue his dae teens tin as a pb pemnas: non of thé . Administrator under the existing circumstances, The circunstenves. described above are considered “to fully support ana justify the determination made by Dr. Faulkner that Dr. Taxay's designation should not be ae —— truly yours, r i fp ae er ae er J, N, COKER z ‘a . i c h Fs seer e.. -% “ pe: 3 oa . a : ad ose8 —* - 2 a psnans Coungel Pats, Red TT LCR Ge Be - ‘ Ay \ 2 — ‘ 24 Apr. 1970 +6c°*> ’ . DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION y ° ‘ * eo Emil P. Taxay, M.D. The Red-Sunset Building -6915 Red Road Coral Gables, Florida. 33134 Dear Dr. Taxay: a a ars ~ This is in. fesponse to your letter of f April 1970 concerning . your designation as an aviation medical examiner. As ‘you _know, the designation of aviation medical examiners is dis- cretionary with the Administrator. As an aviation medical examiner you have served as a representative of the Admin- istrator. However, over the past several months you have also Sangh etgnans of pilots against the Administrator. You have s¢rved so regularly as a paid consultant to attor- ‘neys opfosing the Administrator in particular cases, that, : Without any reflection on you, it is preferable from this agency's standpoint not to continue you at the same time’ in the position of an aviation: medical examiner, in. which you represent the Administrator and assist in carrying out ~some of the Administrator’ S. authority and sais deseo outer’ de — We do not shallots your qualifications and we welcome. you to continue to provide expert medical opinjon in the _.,interest of fairness and justice. We do not feel it would. -be.in the best interests of the Federal Aviation Administra- tion to have:you continue as a designated representative of the Admipistrator. Sincerely, _P.V.. SIEGEL, M.D. - - _ Federal Air Surgeon, AM-] — Washington, D.C. 20590 -N »-, _y Taxay of Coral Gables; Florida. In your letter you_set forth a sum- | : ee: : an es a dose +t b MOLiv ty bakery Pe peeve dM ° y : e . . FEDERAL AVIATION . ZMINISTRATION 7 Arttenpsar oh. i mi WASIIINGTON, D.C. 20590 * Z. e \ e . : Fae * * : ; % x ’ : : ; : ‘ 16 JUN 1970 - =i ae ; OFFICE OF . : : pa a : THE ADMINISTHATOR Honorable Edward J. ‘Gurney Pi al rota ree ae United States ‘Senate x me ‘ Committee on Government Operations , j . “4 Washington,, D.C. 20510 , é BACs : ’ Dear Sonator Gurney: 3 ions os ' This is in reply to your jetter of 27 May 1970 concerning Dr. Emil P. mary of Dr. Taxay's involvement in 20’pilot certification tases-——__ handled by a law firm. You ‘consider that Dr. Taxay’ should be com- , mended for his participation in these cases and not "arbitrarily fired;"'and you invite our comments. . — a ‘ -t— . : 7 : te - * Dear Joha-., , - . + you will recall, at qur meeting in Mr, Roberts’ office - 2 -“on May & 1970s you offered me the opportuntty of settmg - . > “for in, writing Dr. Faxay’s pesition in the matferof the, — =" 5 decision ‘of Dr. Faulkfer not to redestgnate Dr. Taxay as an ~ ~ = °. Aviation Medical Examiner. There may be a-materiat mis- .. understanding ori this suifject sod thank you for this oppor- * _ Ses gunity to square the record. =. . a _ + 2 “asf expressed during our meeting. Dr. Taxay sa gom =. 7 * * * _ petent, Ronotable, professional and highly ethieal physician. ‘He has been an.Aviatipa Medical Examiner for gine years. * «2 gnd his competence and professeonal juligment fate never > 5. * beentGuestioned During this period of time If has devel- = _Gped medical files that have resulted 16 either Jhé certifica __.. tion of ultimate denial of many dirline pilots. > «2. Dr _Taxay- became known to this office in a dimited way fi 1 On December 19, 1968! He was the phyvcian of an airline. ** « ' pilot I-had represented in the past, William S. Ewing. I had ‘ ~~) abandoned: Ma. .Ewing on acts | had avatiable jn carly 1968. My. Ewing and Dr. wanted to-kaow if there i S, was a chance’to obta® a certificgte-dor Mr. Ewing fcestain » * additional testingwas accomplished. 1 évitwated the proposal_- : | " (One fpr arteriography and cardiac metabolism testing) and . ? informed Mr.-Ewing tbat if he were willing tq undergothe -_ . | — " ¢ tests and risks involved. } would be. happy to lodk at the — . : /£ . . : ’ - - - -. , . : ‘ . a 19¢ \ . ; es case again: upon their completion. On April 15, 1969, after - completion of testing, Dr. Taxay acting- 4s an AME per- S, formed an examination of Mr. Ewing fer a Grst class certi- ; ficate. but declined Jo issue the certificate because of an | abformal electrocardiogram indicating Left Bundle Branch Block. ‘The informatiqn relative to the testing Mr. Ewing ~ -had undergone and his entire case history was developed into a protocol, and furnished to Dr. Faulkner along with the first Glass examination. Dr. Taxay did not consult ‘me as to whether er not he should, perform a fifst class physical examination on » pilot after develping informa- tidn pertinent to him. He\did not think it improper not to - issue the certificate. and t a that one beissued. He was advised that this woulg be considered an improprigty..\or ee nee Se impropriety. Dr. Tansy Seattlied ut the healing on tite anutti ce Ocie- “* ber 8, 1969, and consulted with me to its conclusiag. As - . you know, we gre all awaiting Examiner Fowler's decision. During the legnth of his participation, Dr. Taxay was not ° advised that he was acting improperly. The position he took .was that of an.cxpert, but his testimony did not vaty substantjally*in its-conclusion from that of Dr. Westura, ¢.¢.. that Mr. Ewing should be permitted a certificate that would . enable him to functian in some flight training capacity. Dr. Taxay’s situation ris a vis Mr. Ewing is therefore * summarized as &ilows: Mr.-Ewing was his patient. Dr. Taxay reviewed his files and ‘saw that further testing might help his patient resume some aspect of his livelihood: He iad this information developed hoping’that he-would find _agreemenf at the Federal Air Surgeon's office. The AME examination was only a vehicle to ‘the case recon-” . sidered in light of the newinformation. It is significant that -as ay Dr. Taxay did not issue a certificate but ; placed the ma the hands of the Federal Air Surgeor. a4 * Leven though he did some form of a certificate should . * be. issutd. Teeth Gea so Set en te pen ee Oe * point. s =Vt 3 = | submit further that Dr. Taxay’s appearance and consul-- ° tation on the Ewing case is equally. blameless. The Begin- nings of the case necessitatéd an AME, and becaysé of his _professionalism Dr. Taxay played that role in accofdance with the guide furnished him. After the Federal Afr Sur-. geon denied Mr. Ewing, Dr. Taxay’s participation was an examifiing physician and consultant, not AME. Had he not acted as AME in the matter, there would not even -be the slightest reason fo suspect his ethics, though in dcting as AME; he was ethicat-as the recerd will bear out. Ht certainly © cannot be said that a doctor, who is an AME, and so acts on many cases, may not be permitted to consult or act as an expert on.a‘case in which he ‘plays no part as physician — for the Government. -*We do net intend here-to admit, therefore, that a conflict of interest exists under these cir- cumstances, but because the problem has arisen, and because of the warning that Dr. Taxay has received by way of the: °° development of the factors leading. fo the refusal to redesig-, nate, he ts now on notice that this practice js unacceptable to FAA. As such, Dr. Taxay is periectly willing to comply. with.FAA’s wishes in this-aréa. if it will heop to resolve thé difficulty. ou ’ Well after tite beginning of Dr. Taxay’s jnvelvement in ' Mr. Ewing’s situation, I had sent him somé éases to review. | had done so because | was in need of medical expertise. . and because of the very impressive jab Dr. Taxay was doing in: factually developing the Ewing case. He did not act as AME on them, he servéd merely as an consultant. He has acted as AME on:two and has not served as a consultant. An example.of such a case is the Joseph Burrell -case. cur- | _ ently before NTSB. The reason for Mr. Burrell’s referral to Dr. Taxay for an AME work-up was that Mr. Burrell had moved ‘into the Miami area after he became my client. He asked if I knew an AME in the area, and knowing that Dr. 7 Taxay was competent and qualified, | recommended Dr. ' Taxay. Dr. Taxay’s work-up of Mr. Burrell should be avail-. able to you. He had Mr. Burrell obtain opthomologist tests. and head x-rays before considering him forsa certificate. Dr. _ Taxay ultimately denied Mr. Burrell. The other example of A - e * - “2ic : a case in which Dt. Taxay acted as AME is K_D. Wright, to, ' . be considered bélow. ae ey ce . Dr. Taxay has participated in five (5) cases as a consultant in which the airman was certified by either Dr. Siegel or ‘the Panel. 'In eight (8) cases, he participated as a egnsultant © . and advised me to.drop the cases as the pilots should not be certified. and. should not fly: He has téstified in two (2) cases, Ewing and Shrage. ‘He was d consultant only-in Shrage. The Ewing matter was developed largely before he _beggn to advise me on certain other cases. Dr. Taxay has acted as a «consultant on a case currently before the NTSB—that*of |“ * ‘Piche. . Hefwas the AME on the case, and: will probably testify. ef eee ig De ’ Dr. Taxay has been accused by Dr. Faulkner of acting as consultant to me on a.case which he knew that the Admin-- ~~ . istrator would not be in favor of the pilot returning to tuty. The case is K.D. Wright. Dr. Taxay has not acted as a con- Bs. Cosas on this case. It is a psychiatric case. Dr. Taxay is an internist. ‘What he did was give Captain Wright a first : class physical, and look over this past record to ascertain . . whether there was cause for denial; He found ‘such cause in . the fact that Captain. Wright had previously been denied. and.accordingly denied him. In order to ‘develop informa- — -° tion concerning the reasons for the past denial,-Dr. Taxay, a licensed pilot, flew with Captain Wright, having on board f _ 4 psychiatrist, and a nurse to take blood pressure readings. This was the extent of his parti¢ipation And it was accom- ' plished to aid thie Federal Ait Surgeon: in evaluating the — alleged “fear of Tlying”-in Captain Wright. No criticism was -levelled at ‘Dr. Tyxay for this action at the time he acted. Dr. Taxay has done much the sante thing,by way of extra stress testing at the request of Oklahoma City on: numerous . cardiovascular cases after turning down the pilot. It is much - the samé as asking for an audiogram in the’ case of a pilot . having hearing problems. If Dr. Taxay testifies at the Wright hearing, it will beeunder subpoena. Dr. Faulkner's allega- tion that Dr. Taxay has acted-gontra to a known decision . _ * . . - . * * = . * * ‘ ’ “. of the Administrator is without foundation. - First. as the, . matter is still in the hands of the Region, there has currently been no decision of the Administrator. Secondly, Dr. Fexay, ‘has not acted contra to the Administrator. He ‘turned C ap- tain Wright down, even after. having performed a pertinent: , flight test. MoreoYér: Dr. Norwood, at FAA ‘indicated to - me in a meeting that’ the Wright case would be reconsidered by FAA if there was a change in Captain Wright's life-style, or status. As fos conSultdition on.the case, my constrltants ‘are Dr. Philip B. Phillips, Dr. Lucio.Gatto, and Dr. Irving™ A. Fosberg; Ph.d. ‘None of these gentlemen know or have * — to Dr, Taxay. . The ‘outline of Dr. Taxby's icone is rfot extensive. It 1S impressive to note that in most of the cases on which he has acted as a consultant, the cases have- been dropped. In‘ five (5), the pilots have been certified by, either Dr. “ Siegel or the Paneti Theretore, in the vast majority of ‘the cases he has acted upon, the best interest of the public has ~ been realized. He has testified at two ‘bearings, and did the . AME- work-up on only ohe of these, although not certifying ‘the pilot though he believéd ‘there should be certification. He was not advised at any time that he-was ina conflict situation, nor did he act in such & manner that would render him guilty of such a.charge. It is unfostunate that Dr. ‘Taxay did the workup on Ewing, but there was no bad faith involved. He has never aeted in“a way that could, be called . unethical. - His disagreements with the Admihistrator have always been within the framework of the Regulations. More cannot be asked. of a scientist; ‘physician. Se ¢ We request: 6n behalf of Dr. Taxay, that these facts made-known to Dr.. Siegei. Dr. Taxay should be: allowed to remain /as.an AME, as he is a good one. Yoti need only ; check with Oklahoma City to verify that fact. If he is -allowed to remain, you have my word, and Dr. Taxay’s, that he will net appear as an expert in a case of a pilot on whom.he has performed the examination of a designated ’ Aviation Medical Examiner if sweh examination is prefatory_ *. — = Eee 8 - a a= — ss “~*~ + «>. , f=. ore ? -to a denial of-a certificate by the Federal ais Surgeon, unless subpoenaed. It is believed that this commitment on * Dr. Taxay’s“part, while nat necessary from, the point’ of - view of Dr. Taxay’s ethics, should serve to allay any doubts that the Fedéral Air Surgeon. may have concerning’ Dr. Taxay’s activities. ae Very truly yon, - Robert D. Powell’ ‘ec: The Honorable Herman Talmadge The Honorable Richard L..Ottinger ‘ The Honorable Spessard L. Holland The Honorable Edward J. Gurney tw The Honorable Fletcher Thompson ‘The Honorable. Dante Fascell RDP; pat it aa bale ks ‘ 2 : e.3° i DEPARTMENT or TRA. ‘ORTATION ; : : FEDERAL AWIATION ADIZINISTRATION ; Arr etonr °. eH - WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 = “Ay 5: s ve ae , >. 10 Jun 1970 | JUN. 197) a Cwebiv cll) , Mr, Robert D. Powell. _ Smith, Pepper, Shack and L' dourent: " Attorney at Law - 700-Montgomery Building 1776 K Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20006 da! igh bie coat Dear Mr, Powell: a ; sa ¢ “oc Your, letter: of 21 May 1970 addressed to Mr. ‘John A, Marsh, het ; ee domes Projects ‘and Appettate Branch, 6C-32, has been referred: for ; “reply. I have ee your letter and rig no new ares scone = which would lead me to designate Dr. Emil P. .Taxay as an Aviation Medical Examiner for the Federal Setaiiae Administration at this time. ‘ a an ae Sincerely, ele e. Fy; Vege M,D. ; ‘ Federal Air Senger, AM- 1 > ns mk: . . ‘ - * . ‘ - . 2) 6. ° ‘ . » oe . ‘ . . * : . *. . ° : \ r . ° ¥ . . o . . . P . e . . ' ’ ‘ . . . ‘. : ° a a . . ’ . . . . “ . . : , . , . ° . 4 a : . . ; *. . ‘ . . J a . . : ‘ ‘e e . - - ‘ “ .% \ | of . . ' . . . ° ’ : ’ . . r s : e . . 7) . * . ‘ . > Ole v . ° . . . e - “ ‘ ; ° oe ® . eo ® . nia . . p . . ; . * . - : ) ‘ v3 . : J ° . ioe Sea . ’ v ~~ q --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385606_0563%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.