Michae l Selig , MD , FACC , CFI- H ! ' r^S'v^nJJ^^^ ^ " * 281 6 0refieldRoa d ^ - ^ -ii b Allentown , PA . 1810 4 -- •rr - ^ - o 9 . -^

c 

# ^^^*SU ^ Ht N o\t4G ^ U.S . DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Cynthi a Dominik , Laur a Ponto , Latony a William s Complainant s M & R Helicopters , LLC . Responden t Honorabl e Judg e Ronni e Yode r Federa l Docket . No : 2010-121 1

RESPONDENT

S REPL YTO MOTIO N FO R JUDGMEN TTO DISMIS S JUDICIA LESTOPPELS , LEGA LINCONSISTENCY AN D NOW , come s respondent , MICHAE LB . SELIG , MD , FACC , CFI-H , principl e fo rM & R Helicopters , LLC , (MRH ) (non-operationa l sinc e 2007 ) who m aver s an d files th e followin g Repl yt o Complainant s Respons e t o th e Motio n fo r Judgmen t t o Dismis s base d o n Judicia l Estoppel s an d Lega l Inconsistenc y
1 . Th e complainant s hav e continue d t o fai l t o plea d t o specifi cnumbe r paragraphs . B

yfailur e t o addres s th e specifi cpleading s an d thereb yevadin g an d circumventin g respondent' s specifi callegations .2 . Th e complainant s hav e admitte d t o formall yreleasin g th e prio rl A

mechani cfoun d t o b e o n hi s ful l tim e employer s Drug/Alcoho l progra m b yM s William s lette ro fSeptembe r23 , 2010 . 3 . This releas e pertaine d as wel l t o claim s tha t th e Mechanic/I Awa s no t o n a drug/alcoho l monitorin g progra m specificall yunde rMRH . 4 . M s William s wa s convenientl yavailabl e t o inspec t th e primaryplac e o femploymen t o fth e Mechanic / lA , t o easil yaffir m hi s credibility , credential s an d tha t h e wa s o n a monitorin g program . 5 . M s William s wa s unwillin g t o affir m tha t M rBake rwa s o n a monitorin g program , sinc e hi s plac e o femploymen t wa s no t nearby . 6 . Th e sol e an d primarypremis e fo rthi s violatio n the n shifte d as documente d i n M s William s Inspecto rStatemen t lO P 9 record , t o M s William s inabilit yt o validat e an yFA Aapprove d dru g an d alcoho l testin g progra m informatio n fo rM rBaker . 7 . M s William s wa s give n evidenc e tha t M rBake rwa s o n a program , bu t chos e no t t o pursu e primarysourc e verificatio n and/o rconfirmatio n o fthes e fact s pursuan t t o §13.224 , befor e sh e rushe d t o judgmen t t o affir m he rviolatio n wa s entered , onl yon e da yprio rt o th e 2 yea rstatut e o flimitations . 8 . I n Ms William s rus h t o judgmen t an d pus h t o ge t he rpropose d civi l penalt yentere d jus t unde rth e wir e fo rth e statut e o flimitations , sh e faile d t o se e tha t th e allege d violation s cite d b ycomplainant s wer e performe d b yM rBaker ,

- 2afte rMR H terminate d operation s an d wa s n o longe rperformin g flight s fo r

huma n facto rreason s affectin g th e singl e pilo t operato ri n goo d fait h an d i n complianc e with :

119.69 Management

Personne l Require dfor Operation s Conducte dunde r

Par t 13 5 o f thi s Chapter , (a

) D R Helicopters , LL

C must havesufficien

t qualifie d managemen

t an dtechnica l personne l t o ensur ethesafet y of it s operations . DRHelicopters , LL C must havequalifie

d personnel serving i

nth efollowin g or equivalen t positions : (1 ) Directo

r of Operations . (2) Chie

f Pilot . (3 ) Directo

r of Maintenance . Responden t wa s th e Directo ro fOperations , Chie fPilot an d th e Maintenanc e Schedule rdu e t o th e huma n factor s o fa litigiou s divorce , suicid e ris k o fa mino rchild , custod ybattle , tim e an d responsibilityrestraint s o fhi s cardiolog ypractice , responden t i n goo d judgmen t an d i n accordanc e t o th e abov e regulation , stoppe d operations . 7 . Onc e M s William s confirme d tha t M rBake rwa s continuousl y(withou t break ) o n a monitorin g progra m unde rhi s disclose d ful l tim e employer , sh e the n agai n shifte d th e basi s o fth e violatio n t o M rBake rno t bein g o n MRHs ow n companie s monitorin g program , despit e alread yreleasin g th e othe r Mechanic/I Afo rth e sam e coun t o fthos e regulation s tha t wer e no t evident , disclosed , o reve n know n b ya prio rFA ADrug/Alcoho l auditor , M rVincen t Roots , MRHs FA Aoperation s an d maintenanc e inspector s o rth e Allentow n FSD O manager . 8 . i n addition , ther e wer e severa l factor s concernin g th e ambiguit yregardin g disclosur e o fregulations , regulation s tha t wer e no t clearl ycontained ,

listed , spelle d ou t o ri n a forthrigh t manne reviden t withi n th e signe d of f complianc e statemen t an d operationa l specifications , thereb yhidden , conceale d an d encouragin g violation , rathe rtha n effectiv e complianc e i n th e spiri t o fsafety . 9 . Ther e wer e severa l factor s concernin g unclea ran d dispute d interpretatio n o fth e languag e an d meanin g containe d withi n th e signe d of f complianc e statemen t an d operationa l specifications , thereb yencouragin g violation , rathe rtha n effectiv e complianc e i n th e spiri t o fsafet yan d contrar yt o standar d practice s i n Administratio n law .

I n Administrativ e La w"I n fh e interpretatio n o ftli e languag e o fregulations , wher e doub t exists a s t o tti e inten t o fth e meanin g o fth e languag e writte n an d enacte d b ya governin g body , th e languag e shal l b e interprete d i n favo ro fth e Part yan d agains t an yimplie d extensio n o fa restriction" . 10 . M s William s a s wel l ha s trie d t o hol d MR H liabl e fo rno t havin g Mr Bake ro n it s ow n companie s monitorin g program , despit e M rBake rbein g o n hi s ful l tim e employer s monitorin g program , durin g th e tim e whe n responden t recognize d i n goo d judgmen t t o withdra wal l operation s o fMR H an d i n accordanc e t o regulation s i n orde rt o no t impos e ris k t o th e public . 11 . B ywa yo fJudicia l Estoppel s an d t o b e legall yconsistent , complainant s shoul d follo wsui t b yreleasin g E d Bake rwh o wa s als o o n hi s ful l

- 4tim e employer' s drug/alcoho l program , jus t as th e mechanic/I Awa s formall y

release d fro m thos e violations , thereb yvoidin g th e legitimac yo fth e complaint . 12 . I t woul d appea rinappropriat e fo ra goliat h actio n t o b e take n agains t a smal l singl e pilo t operatio n wh o ha d lon g stoppe d operatin g i n du e diligence , goo d judgmen t an d goo d faith , accordin g t o regulation s du e t o huma n factor s o f a tragi cdivorc e cas e scenari o an d cardiolog ypractic e tim e constraint s i n orde r t o no t expos e th e publi ct o undu e risk . 13 . I t woul d appea rinappropriate , trivia l an d frivolou s fo ractio n t o b e take n agains t a smal l singl e pilo t operatio n wh o ha d don e n o harm , wa s a n innocen t bystander , tha t has bee n operatin g i n th e re d fo ryears , ha d close d al l financia l account s an d has n o assets . 14 . I t woul d appea rinappropriat e fo ractio n t o b e take n whe n change s wer e rapidl yinitiated , onc e responden t becam e awar e i n goo d faith , despit e no t performin g operation s fo ryears prior . 15 . I t woul d appea rinappropriat e t o tak e actio n agains t responden t whe n th e cas e appeare d pas t th e statut e o flimitation s an d tim e barred . 18 . I t appear s tha t preciou s scarc e judicia l resource s or e bein g squandere d o n a cas e tha t appear s frivolous , trivial , withou t merit , whil e representin g a n aggressiv e prosecutoria l pursui t tha t locks prope rinitiative , perspectiv e o rgoo d judgment . 19 . I n goo d judgmen t an d wit h prope rperspectiv e i t woul d appea rthi s lega l pursui t is no t wort h th e cos t a t th e ta xpayer' s expense , sinc e n o har moccurre d an d whe n operation s wer e bein g preforme d prio rt o th e violation , the y

wer e don e goo d faith , i n accordanc e t o th e clos e guidanc e an d supervisio n o f th e routin e FA

Ainspectors , therefor e i n th e ligh t o feffort s o fjudicia l economy , th e cos e shoul d b e dismissed . 20 . I t woul d appea rcomplainant s ar e causin g mor e har m an d risk b y takin g th e responden t concentratio n awa yfro m hi s cardiolog yservice s h e render s t o th e community . 21 . Complainant s stat e tha t th e agenc yonl yi a procede d wit h on e violatio n eve n thoug h ther e wer e 2 , du e t o evidentiar yreasons . I t no wappear s tha t ther e ar e evidentiar yreason s wh yth e remainin g allegatio n is als o insufficient . WHEREFORE , th e responden t pray s tha t thi s Honorabl e Cour t wil l gran t th e Motio n fo rjudgmen t t o dismis s thi s cas e o n th e ground s o fJudicia l Estoppels , Lega l Inconsistenc yan d i n effort s fo rjudicia l economy . Respectfull ySubmitted , Michae l B . Selig , MD , FACC , CFI- H Dat e