How Well Do You Know Your HIMS-AME?

What happens when a physician entrusted with overseeing pilots recovering from alcohol-related issues has a serious history with alcohol himself? Should there be transparency and accountability when a HIMS-AME has personally faced the same issues they are charged with evaluating in others?

This is the uncomfortable but necessary question raised by publicly available records relating to one HIMS-authorized Aviation Medical Examiner (AME) in California.

According to court records, this physician was arrested and pled guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol in the early 1990s. The case file confirms a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit of 0.08%. For a pilot, this is exactly the kind of alcohol-related offense that would trigger immediate reporting to the FAA and mandatory enrollment into the HIMS program — a years-long process involving supervised abstinence, frequent testing, psychiatric oversight, and serious career disruption.

And yet, there is no public record that this HIMS-AME was ever subjected to the same requirements. Was he required to enter the HIMS program himself? If not, why not? The FAA has never disclosed the criteria it uses to determine whether HIMS-designated physicians must follow the same treatment or reporting standards they impose on pilots.

But the story doesn’t end there.

In 2019, the California Medical Board filed a formal accusation against the same physician. The accusation alleged gross negligence and unprofessional conduct related to the prescription of controlled substances — including failures to document diagnosis, justification, treatment plans, or follow-up care. The accusation remains publicly accessible and could potentially result in license discipline.

Business records associated with this individual reveal multiple medical-related corporations, including one currently suspended by the California Secretary of State. These business filings, while not uncommon, add to a picture of administrative inconsistency.

Still, despite the DUI conviction, the Medical Board accusation, and questions surrounding his corporate registrations, the physician continues to maintain:

• A current California medical license
• An active DEA registration authorizing him to prescribe Schedule II-V controlled substances
• A valid FAA pilot certificate
• Official designation as a HIMS-authorized AME

And most recently, the physician authored a highly damaging letter to the FAA regarding one of his HIMS clients — a pilot who had been in full compliance and had visited the AME to express his frustration with the program’s requirements. According to the pilot’s account and corroborating documentation, the visit was calm and professional.

Yet the HIMS-AME reported to the FAA that the pilot “caused a scene” in his office, a characterization that appears unsupported and defamatory. Based on that letter, the pilot was subjected to an invasive battery of neuropsychological and psychiatric testing — all stemming from what many would describe as a reasonable attempt to advocate for oneself.

Timeline Summary (Based on Public Records):

• Early 1990s: Guilty plea to DUI charges in California
• 2019: Formal accusation filed by California Medical Board for alleged negligent prescribing
• Recent years: Multiple medical corporations suspended or inactive
• 2023: FAA letter submitted that triggered involuntary testing for a compliant pilot

Pilot’s Perspective:

“I walked into his office calmly, respectfully — and left with my life turned upside down by a false report. It’s hard to trust the system when those in charge aren’t held to the same standards.”

Pilots can lose everything from a single unverifiable report. Doctors, meanwhile, can have DUI convictions and active medical board accusations — and still send pilots to forced psychiatric testing with a few keystrokes.

The HIMS program wields immense power over pilots’ careers. But when its gatekeepers are not held to the same medical, ethical, or behavioral standards, the entire system risks collapse.

Transparency and reform aren’t optional — they’re overdue.

Editor’s Note: All information referenced in this article is drawn from publicly available records. No statements herein should be construed as an accusation of misconduct beyond what is already documented by state or federal authorities.