Apr 10, 2017, 8:42 pm
Last edit by: WineCountryUA
WELCOME, THREAD GUIDELINES and SUMMARY PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING
If you are new to us, welcome to FlyerTalk! Who we are: FlyerTalk features discussions and chat boards that cover the most up-to-date traveler information; an interactive community dedicated to the topic of travel (not politics or arguments about politics or religion, etc. – those discussion are best in the OMNI forum)
The incident discussed in this thread has touched a nerve for many, and many posters are passionate about their opinions and concerns. However we should still have a civil and respectful discussion of this topic. This is because FlyerTalk is meant to be a friendly, helpful, and collegial community. (Rule 12.)
1. The normal FlyerTalk Rules apply. (Including not discussing moderation actions in thread). Please be particularly attentive to "discussing the idea and not the poster" when you have a disagreement. Civility and mutual respect are still expected and are what we owe each other as a community.
2. You are expected to respect the FlyerTalk community's diversity, and therefore refrain from posting inflammatory comments about race, religion, culture, politics, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. Do not cite, copy, or report on such.
3. While you can disagree with an opinion, the holder of that opinion has the same right to their opinion as you have to yours. We request all to respect that and disagree or discuss their point of views without getting overly personal and without attacking the other poster(s). This is expected as a requirement in FT Rule 12.
4. Overly exaggerative posts as well as posts with information that has been posted several times previously may be summarily deleted.
5. In addition, those who repeatedly fail to comply with FlyerTalk Rules, may be subjected to FlyerTalk disciplinary actions and, e.g., have membership privileges suspended, or masked from this forum.
If you have questions about the Rules or concerns about what another has posted in this or other threads in this forum, please do not post about that. Rather, notify the moderators by using the alert symbol within each post or email or send a private message to us moderators.
Let’s have this discussion in a way that, when we look back on it, we can be proud of how we handled ourselves as a community.
The United Moderator team:
J.Edward
l'etoile
Ocn Vw 1K
Pat89339
WineCountryUA
N.B. PLEASE do not alter the contents of this moderator note
CHICAGO, April 27, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- We are pleased to report that United and Dr. Dao have reached an amicable resolution of the unfortunate incident that occurred aboard flight 3411. We look forward to implementing the improvements we have announced, which will put our customers at the center of everything we do.
What facts do we know?
- UA3411, operated by Republic Airways, ORD-SDF on Sunday, April 9, 2017. UA3411 was the second to last flight to SDF for United. AA3509 and UA4771 were the two remaining departures for the day. Also, AA and DL had connecting options providing for same-day arrival in SDF.
- After the flight was fully boarded, United determined four seats were needed to accommodate crew to SDF for a flight on Monday.
- United solicited volunteers for VDB. (BUT stopped at $800 in UA$s, not cash). Chose not to go to the levels such as 1350 that airlines have been known to go even in case of weather impacted disruption)
- After receiving no volunteers for $800 vouchers, a passenger volunteered for $1,600 and was "laughed at" and refused, United determined four passengers to be removed from the flight.
- One passenger refused and Chicago Aviation Security Officers were called to forcibly remove the passenger.
- The passenger hit the armrest in the aisle and received a concussion, a broken nose, a bloodied lip, and the loss of two teeth.
- After being removed from the plane, the passenger re-boarded saying "I need to go home" repeatedly, before being removed again.
- United spokesman Jonathan Guerin said the flight was sold out — but not oversold. Instead, United and regional affiliate Republic Airlines – the unit that operated Flight 3411 – decided they had to remove four passengers from the flight to accommodate crewmembers who were needed in Louisville the next day for a “downline connection.”
United Express Flight 3411 Review and Action Report - released 27 April 2017
Videos
- Passenger one row behind and on the aisle footage BEFORE man was dragged off https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=655_1492004707
- Videos of man being removed https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4b7_1491983214 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nAZEk6nsNE
- Video of man re-entering plane https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNEQDWpYbZA (link dead)
Internal Communication by Oscar Munoz
Oscar Munoz sent an internal communication to UA employees (sources: View From The Wing, Chicago Tribune):
Dear Team,
Like you, I was upset to see and hear about what happened last night aboard United Express Flight 3411 headed from Chicago to Louisville. While the facts and circumstances are still evolving, especially with respect to why this customer defied Chicago Aviation Security Officers the way he did, to give you a clearer picture of what transpired, I've included below a recap from the preliminary reports filed by our employees.
As you will read, this situation was unfortunately compounded when one of the passengers we politely asked to deplane refused and it became necessary to contact Chicago Aviation Security Officers to help. Our employees followed established procedures for dealing with situations like this. While I deeply regret this situation arose, I also emphatically stand behind all of you, and I want to commend you for continuing to go above and beyond to ensure we fly right.
I do, however, believe there are lessons we can learn from this experience, and we are taking a close look at the circumstances surrounding this incident. Treating our customers and each other with respect and dignity is at the core of who we are, and we must always remember this no matter how challenging the situation.
Oscar
Summary of Flight 3411
Like you, I was upset to see and hear about what happened last night aboard United Express Flight 3411 headed from Chicago to Louisville. While the facts and circumstances are still evolving, especially with respect to why this customer defied Chicago Aviation Security Officers the way he did, to give you a clearer picture of what transpired, I've included below a recap from the preliminary reports filed by our employees.
As you will read, this situation was unfortunately compounded when one of the passengers we politely asked to deplane refused and it became necessary to contact Chicago Aviation Security Officers to help. Our employees followed established procedures for dealing with situations like this. While I deeply regret this situation arose, I also emphatically stand behind all of you, and I want to commend you for continuing to go above and beyond to ensure we fly right.
I do, however, believe there are lessons we can learn from this experience, and we are taking a close look at the circumstances surrounding this incident. Treating our customers and each other with respect and dignity is at the core of who we are, and we must always remember this no matter how challenging the situation.
Oscar
Summary of Flight 3411
- On Sunday, April 9, after United Express Flight 3411 was fully boarded, United's gate agents were approached by crewmembers that were told they needed to board the flight.
- We sought volunteers and then followed our involuntary denial of boarding process (including offering up to $1,000 in compensation) and when we approached one of these passengers to explain apologetically that he was being denied boarding, he raised his voice and refused to comply with crew member instructions.
- He was approached a few more times after that in order to gain his compliance to come off the aircraft, and each time he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent.
- Our agents were left with no choice but to call Chicago Aviation Security Officers to assist in removing the customer from the flight. He repeatedly declined to leave.
- Chicago Aviation Security Officers were unable to gain his cooperation and physically removed him from the flight as he continued to resist - running back onto the aircraft in defiance of both our crew and security officials.
Dear Team,
The truly horrific event that occurred on this flight has elicited many responses from all of us: outrage, anger, disappointment. I share all of those sentiments, and one above all: my deepest apologies for what happened. Like you, I continue to be disturbed by what happened on this flight and I deeply apologize to the customer forcibly removed and to all the customers aboard. No one should ever be mistreated this way.
I want you to know that we take full responsibility and we will work to make it right.
It’s never too late to do the right thing. I have committed to our customers and our employees that we are going to fix what’s broken so this never happens again. This will include a thorough review of crew movement, our policies for incentivizing volunteers in these situations, how we handle oversold situations and an examination of how we partner with airport authorities and local law enforcement. We’ll communicate the results of our review by April 30th.
I promise you we will do better.
Sincerely,
Oscar
The truly horrific event that occurred on this flight has elicited many responses from all of us: outrage, anger, disappointment. I share all of those sentiments, and one above all: my deepest apologies for what happened. Like you, I continue to be disturbed by what happened on this flight and I deeply apologize to the customer forcibly removed and to all the customers aboard. No one should ever be mistreated this way.
I want you to know that we take full responsibility and we will work to make it right.
It’s never too late to do the right thing. I have committed to our customers and our employees that we are going to fix what’s broken so this never happens again. This will include a thorough review of crew movement, our policies for incentivizing volunteers in these situations, how we handle oversold situations and an examination of how we partner with airport authorities and local law enforcement. We’ll communicate the results of our review by April 30th.
I promise you we will do better.
Sincerely,
Oscar
Each flight you take with us represents an important promise we make to you, our customer. It's not simply that we make sure you reach your destination safely and on time, but also that you will be treated with the highest level of service and the deepest sense of dignity and respect.
Earlier this month, we broke that trust when a passenger was forcibly removed from one of our planes. We can never say we are sorry enough for what occurred, but we also know meaningful actions will speak louder than words.
For the past several weeks, we have been urgently working to answer two questions: How did this happen, and how can we do our best to ensure this never happens again?
It happened because our corporate policies were placed ahead of our shared values. Our procedures got in the way of our employees doing what they know is right.
Fixing that problem starts now with changing how we fly, serve and respect our customers. This is a turning point for all of us here at United – and as CEO, it's my responsibility to make sure that we learn from this experience and redouble our efforts to put our customers at the center of everything we do.
That’s why we announced that we will no longer ask law enforcement to remove customers from a flight and customers will not be required to give up their seat once on board – except in matters of safety or security.
We also know that despite our best efforts, when things don’t go the way they should, we need to be there for you to make things right. There are several new ways we’re going to do just that.
We will increase incentives for voluntary rebooking up to $10,000 and will be eliminating the red tape on permanently lost bags with a new "no-questions-asked" $1,500 reimbursement policy. We will also be rolling out a new app for our employees that will enable them to provide on-the-spot goodwill gestures in the form of miles, travel credit and other amenities when your experience with us misses the mark. You can learn more about these commitments and many other changes at hub.united.com.
While these actions are important, I have found myself reflecting more broadly on the role we play and the responsibilities we have to you and the communities we serve.
I believe we must go further in redefining what United's corporate citizenship looks like in our society. If our chief good as a company is only getting you to and from your destination, that would show a lack of moral imagination on our part. You can and ought to expect more from us, and we intend to live up to those higher expectations in the way we embody social responsibility and civic leadership everywhere we operate. I hope you will see that pledge express itself in our actions going forward, of which these initial, though important, changes are merely a first step.
Our goal should be nothing less than to make you truly proud to say, "I fly United."
Ultimately, the measure of our success is your satisfaction and the past several weeks have moved us to go further than ever before in elevating your experience with us. I know our 87,000 employees have taken this message to heart, and they are as energized as ever to fulfill our promise to serve you better with each flight and earn the trust you’ve given us.
We are working harder than ever for the privilege to serve you and I know we will be stronger, better and the customer-focused airline you expect and deserve.
With Great Gratitude,
Oscar Munoz
CEO
United Airlines
Earlier this month, we broke that trust when a passenger was forcibly removed from one of our planes. We can never say we are sorry enough for what occurred, but we also know meaningful actions will speak louder than words.
For the past several weeks, we have been urgently working to answer two questions: How did this happen, and how can we do our best to ensure this never happens again?
It happened because our corporate policies were placed ahead of our shared values. Our procedures got in the way of our employees doing what they know is right.
Fixing that problem starts now with changing how we fly, serve and respect our customers. This is a turning point for all of us here at United – and as CEO, it's my responsibility to make sure that we learn from this experience and redouble our efforts to put our customers at the center of everything we do.
That’s why we announced that we will no longer ask law enforcement to remove customers from a flight and customers will not be required to give up their seat once on board – except in matters of safety or security.
We also know that despite our best efforts, when things don’t go the way they should, we need to be there for you to make things right. There are several new ways we’re going to do just that.
We will increase incentives for voluntary rebooking up to $10,000 and will be eliminating the red tape on permanently lost bags with a new "no-questions-asked" $1,500 reimbursement policy. We will also be rolling out a new app for our employees that will enable them to provide on-the-spot goodwill gestures in the form of miles, travel credit and other amenities when your experience with us misses the mark. You can learn more about these commitments and many other changes at hub.united.com.
While these actions are important, I have found myself reflecting more broadly on the role we play and the responsibilities we have to you and the communities we serve.
I believe we must go further in redefining what United's corporate citizenship looks like in our society. If our chief good as a company is only getting you to and from your destination, that would show a lack of moral imagination on our part. You can and ought to expect more from us, and we intend to live up to those higher expectations in the way we embody social responsibility and civic leadership everywhere we operate. I hope you will see that pledge express itself in our actions going forward, of which these initial, though important, changes are merely a first step.
Our goal should be nothing less than to make you truly proud to say, "I fly United."
Ultimately, the measure of our success is your satisfaction and the past several weeks have moved us to go further than ever before in elevating your experience with us. I know our 87,000 employees have taken this message to heart, and they are as energized as ever to fulfill our promise to serve you better with each flight and earn the trust you’ve given us.
We are working harder than ever for the privilege to serve you and I know we will be stronger, better and the customer-focused airline you expect and deserve.
With Great Gratitude,
Oscar Munoz
CEO
United Airlines
- Chicago Aviation Department said on the Monday afternoon after the incident that the officer who had dragged the passenger off the plane had been placed on leave pending an investigation. Spokesperson Karen Pride said in an email that "The incident on United flight 3411 was not in accordance with our standard operating procedure and the actions of the aviation security officer are obviously not condoned by the Department."
- 4/12/17: Two more Chicago Aviation officers involved are suspended
- Muńoz does ABC interview, announcing United will no longer use law enforcement to remove passengers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90jSUe_vdhM
- United announces policy change that crews traveling on their aircraft must be booked at least 60 minutes prior to departure.
- United releases multiple changes in overbooking / denied boarding policies "We are making changes to ensure that we always put customers first" (http://newsroom.united.com/2017-04-2...mer-Experience) released 27 April 2017
- Statement from United Airlines Regarding Resolution with Dr. David Dao - released 27 April 2017
- Response to Senate Commerce Committee questions - 1 May 2017
- United Airlines PR Boss to Step Down
- James Long, one of several officers involved in removing David Dao from the April 9, 2017, flight to make room for airline employees, filed suit on Tuesday against United, Chicago’s Department of Aviation and its commissioner, Ginger Evans. The lawsuit, filed in the circuit court of Cook County, Illinois, alleges he was not properly trained on how to use force.
Poll: Your Opinion of United Airlines
Poll link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/KP68GYG
Results link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results...Q6B2B/instant/
Reference MaterialResults link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results...Q6B2B/instant/
UA's Customer Commitment says:
Occasionally we may not be able to provide you with a seat on a specific flight, even if you hold a ticket, have checked in, are present to board on time, and comply with other requirements. This is called an oversale, and occurs when restrictions apply to operating a particular flight safely (such as aircraft weight limits); when we have to substitute a smaller aircraft in place of a larger aircraft that was originally scheduled; or if more customers have checked in and are prepared to board than we have available seats.
If your flight is in an oversale situation, you will not be denied a seat until we first ask for volunteers willing to give up their confirmed seats. If there are not enough volunteers, we will deny boarding to passengers in accordance with our written policy on boarding priority. If you are involuntarily denied boarding and have complied with our check-in and other applicable rules, we will give you a written statement that describes your rights and explains how we determine boarding priority for an oversold flight. You will generally be entitled to compensation and transportation on an alternate flight.
We make complete rules for the payment of compensation, as well as our policy about boarding priorities, available at airports we serve. We will follow these rules to ensure you are treated fairly. Please be aware that you may be denied boarding without compensation if you do not check in on time or do not meet certain other requirements, or if we offer you alternative transportation that is planned to arrive at your destination or first stopover no later than one hour after the planned arrival time of your original flight.
CoC is here: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...-carriage.aspxIf your flight is in an oversale situation, you will not be denied a seat until we first ask for volunteers willing to give up their confirmed seats. If there are not enough volunteers, we will deny boarding to passengers in accordance with our written policy on boarding priority. If you are involuntarily denied boarding and have complied with our check-in and other applicable rules, we will give you a written statement that describes your rights and explains how we determine boarding priority for an oversold flight. You will generally be entitled to compensation and transportation on an alternate flight.
We make complete rules for the payment of compensation, as well as our policy about boarding priorities, available at airports we serve. We will follow these rules to ensure you are treated fairly. Please be aware that you may be denied boarding without compensation if you do not check in on time or do not meet certain other requirements, or if we offer you alternative transportation that is planned to arrive at your destination or first stopover no later than one hour after the planned arrival time of your original flight.
Man pulled off of overbooked flight UA3411 (ORD-SDF) 9 Apr 2017 {Settlement reached}
Apr 11, 2017, 12:44 am
#1996
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 146
The passengers in question (the doctor) was given a limited license to practice in 2015.
Quote:
No, check THIS out:
http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/kbml...ders/22439.pdf
To summarize:
The dude from the flight IS a doctor...who was indicted in 2003 by a grand jury for criminal acts of trafficking in a controlled substance, obtaining drugs by fraud and deceit, and unauthorized prescribing, dispensing, or administering of controlled substences.
During the investigation of all of this, it was discovered that he had become s-xually interested in a patient who was referred to him. During the initial evaluation, he performed a complete physical examination, including a genital examination, for the patient who had been referred for collapsed lungs and chest pain.
He then made the patient his office manager. Then he quit his job, and they ended up in some weird situation where prescriptions were exchanged for s-xual acts.
In 2005 he lost his medical license.
In 2007 he completed a clinical skills assessment, which demonstrated that his knowledge was "outdated and also contained gaps that would not likely be fully explained by his time away from the practice."
He showed that he "lacked competence with acid-based disorders, ventilator management, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and current evaluation and treatment of shock," which is hysterically ironic considering his current predicament.
"It was not clear whether Dr. Dao has a health condition that could impact the practice of medicine." That inspires confidence ��
He had to complete a "Maintaining Proper Boundaries" program.
He was evaluated in 2009, which concluded, "It is the opinion of the assessment team that Dr Dao is not safe to practice medicine at this time."
He also was diagnosed with a mood disorder.
In 2011 he was evaluated again, with the following recommendations:
1) He attend a residential program to address his character deficits.
2) He completes a polygraph without evidence of deception.
3) He completes a professional boundaries course.
4) He submits to random urine and polygraph examinations.
5) A highly structured practice plan with a restricted DEA license is set up if/when he is able to return to medical practice.
He did go to a program, where his treatment focused on "his vocational s-xual misconduct, personality traits, depression and anxiety, trauma, and relational issues with his spouse and family."
The assessment he completed in 2014 noted that he demonstrated "significant and broad deficiencies in areas common to primary care," his knowledge of health maintenance was "globally inadequate," and he demonstrated unacceptable knowledge of basic physical examinations and medications.
Despite this, he was finally given a limited license to practice in 2015.
Honestly, if he was supposed to see any patients this morning, they're lucky that the crazy guy couldn't come into work.
1 hour ago by Mikey G. | Post ID: @mk1fXsP-fgh
Now, this is interesting as it's indicating "Drug Related Offenses" on the behalf of the licensee (David Dao) - this may not be the guy, but how many David Dao doctor do they have in Kentucky?
http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/kbml...ders/22439.pdf
In October 2003, the licensee was indicated by the Jfferson County Grand Jury for criminal acts of Trafficking in a Controlled Substance, Obtaining Drugs by Fraud and Deceit, and Unauthorized Prescribing, Dispensing or Administering of Controlled substances. (Page1, bullet 5, stipulation of facts) - It gets more interesting, "During the Board's investigation into the criminal charges against the licensee, the Board learned that the licensee had become s-xually interested ina patient who had been referred to his practice, Patient A; during the initial evaluation, the licensee performed a complete physical examination, including genital examination for patient A who had been referred for collapsed lung and chest pain... Shortly after, the licensee made him his office manager." It gets even more juicy... Offered prescriptions, etc. etc...
Apr 11, 2017, 12:45 am
#1997
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: DEN
Programs: UA Lifetime Plat, AA EXP, SPG platinum, Hyatt Diamond, Marriott Gold, IHG Platinum, Hilton Gold
Posts: 145
That is possible, but at the same time, we all know how eye witness accounts can go. UA clearly it seems informed the pax of the need to IDB him and their right to do so. Perhaps they forgot to give him a written copy, but regardless the crew I am sure notified him of why they were doing so. Reading it on some paper they gave him wouldn't do much I am sure to change his mind.
I do not possess skills as a mindreader, thus can't possibly divine what was in the mind of the crew or the passenger, or what would or would not have changed his mind. What I am saying is that the UA staff did NOT approach the situation "by the book" per their own and DOT guidelines as the CEO and spokespersons repeatedly insisted.
Apr 11, 2017, 12:47 am
#1998
Join Date: Apr 2011
Programs: WN, AA, UA, DL
Posts: 1,313
If a retraction is required, it will be posted on page 73 in a week. no one will read it.
In all seriousness though, even if it does turn out that the guy is really a nut job and it was all the passengers fault, United still has the problem of their poor PR response after the fact.
In all seriousness though, even if it does turn out that the guy is really a nut job and it was all the passengers fault, United still has the problem of their poor PR response after the fact.
Apr 11, 2017, 12:48 am
#1999
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 47
As many many people have said in the thread, most of the proposed alternatives would have actually not been feasible, if you accept as an underlying assumption that the on time arrival of the 70+ passengers departing louisville on the morning flight was more important than that of the one passenger left to be bumped on the evening flight.
Apr 11, 2017, 12:48 am
#2000
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 812
[B][I]No, check THIS out:
http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/kbml...ders/22439.pdf
To summarize:
The dude from the flight IS a doctor...who was indicted in 2003 by a grand jury for criminal acts of trafficking in a controlled substance, obtaining drugs by fraud and deceit, and unauthorized prescribing, dispensing, or administering of controlled substences.
http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/kbml...ders/22439.pdf
To summarize:
The dude from the flight IS a doctor...who was indicted in 2003 by a grand jury for criminal acts of trafficking in a controlled substance, obtaining drugs by fraud and deceit, and unauthorized prescribing, dispensing, or administering of controlled substences.
Apr 11, 2017, 12:50 am
#2002
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 401
Because it wasn't UA staff that physically removed him? Do you think he would have a bloody lip if he followed the officers' orders for him to leave the airplane peacefully? Do you get mad at police officers for tackling a suspect into the pavement that is trying to run away?
Apr 11, 2017, 12:50 am
#2003
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2003
Programs: UA 1K 1MM (finally!), IHG AMB-Spire, HH Diamond
Posts: 60,155
Apr 11, 2017, 12:50 am
#2004
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 146
it goes to offer an alternative explanation as to the doctor's odd behavior on the aircraft...
Apr 11, 2017, 12:51 am
#2005
Join Date: Apr 2015
Programs: AA Gold, Enterprise PLT, Marriott Gold
Posts: 604
Believe it or not, LEO's are not called as a muscle squad. They are called for the safety of the workers and surrounding passengers, as well as someone who can talk with the passenger as an officer of the law and convince him to comply with orders.
Once again, something you would not know since you haven't been a gate agent and dealt with irate passengers.
Apr 11, 2017, 12:51 am
#2006
Join Date: Apr 2011
Programs: WN, AA, UA, DL
Posts: 1,313
===============
I do not possess skills as a mindreader, thus can't possibly divine what was in the mind of the crew or the passenger, or what would or would not have changed his mind. What I am saying is that the UA staff did NOT approach the situation "by the book" per their own and DOT guidelines as the CEO and spokespersons repeatedly insisted.
I do not possess skills as a mindreader, thus can't possibly divine what was in the mind of the crew or the passenger, or what would or would not have changed his mind. What I am saying is that the UA staff did NOT approach the situation "by the book" per their own and DOT guidelines as the CEO and spokespersons repeatedly insisted.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/250.9
Either way we are not in position to knowledgeably say the requirements weren't followed. We're not agents. We weren't there.
Apr 11, 2017, 12:51 am
#2007
Join Date: Oct 2009
Programs: UA 1K, Hilton ♦ , Hyatt Carbonado, Wyndham ♦, Marriott PE, "Stinking Bum" elsewhere.
Posts: 4,990
The passengers in question (the doctor) was given a limited license to practice in 2015.
Quote:
No, check THIS out:
http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/kbml...ders/22439.pdf
To summarize:
The dude from the flight IS a doctor...who was indicted in 2003 by a grand jury for criminal acts of trafficking in a controlled substance, obtaining drugs by fraud and deceit, and unauthorized prescribing, dispensing, or administering of controlled substences.
During the investigation of all of this, it was discovered that he had become s-xually interested in a patient who was referred to him. During the initial evaluation, he performed a complete physical examination, including a genital examination, for the patient who had been referred for collapsed lungs and chest pain.
He then made the patient his office manager. Then he quit his job, and they ended up in some weird situation where prescriptions were exchanged for s-xual acts.
In 2005 he lost his medical license.
In 2007 he completed a clinical skills assessment, which demonstrated that his knowledge was "outdated and also contained gaps that would not likely be fully explained by his time away from the practice."
He showed that he "lacked competence with acid-based disorders, ventilator management, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and current evaluation and treatment of shock," which is hysterically ironic considering his current predicament.
"It was not clear whether Dr. Dao has a health condition that could impact the practice of medicine." That inspires confidence ��
He had to complete a "Maintaining Proper Boundaries" program.
He was evaluated in 2009, which concluded, "It is the opinion of the assessment team that Dr Dao is not safe to practice medicine at this time."
He also was diagnosed with a mood disorder.
In 2011 he was evaluated again, with the following recommendations:
1) He attend a residential program to address his character deficits.
2) He completes a polygraph without evidence of deception.
3) He completes a professional boundaries course.
4) He submits to random urine and polygraph examinations.
5) A highly structured practice plan with a restricted DEA license is set up if/when he is able to return to medical practice.
He did go to a program, where his treatment focused on "his vocational s-xual misconduct, personality traits, depression and anxiety, trauma, and relational issues with his spouse and family."
The assessment he completed in 2014 noted that he demonstrated "significant and broad deficiencies in areas common to primary care," his knowledge of health maintenance was "globally inadequate," and he demonstrated unacceptable knowledge of basic physical examinations and medications.
Despite this, he was finally given a limited license to practice in 2015.
Honestly, if he was supposed to see any patients this morning, they're lucky that the crazy guy couldn't come into work.
1 hour ago by Mikey G. | Post ID: @mk1fXsP-fgh
Now, this is interesting as it's indicating "Drug Related Offenses" on the behalf of the licensee (David Dao) - this may not be the guy, but how many David Dao doctor do they have in Kentucky?
http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/kbml...ders/22439.pdf
In October 2003, the licensee was indicated by the Jfferson County Grand Jury for criminal acts of Trafficking in a Controlled Substance, Obtaining Drugs by Fraud and Deceit, and Unauthorized Prescribing, Dispensing or Administering of Controlled substances. (Page1, bullet 5, stipulation of facts) - It gets more interesting, "During the Board's investigation into the criminal charges against the licensee, the Board learned that the licensee had become s-xually interested ina patient who had been referred to his practice, Patient A; during the initial evaluation, the licensee performed a complete physical examination, including genital examination for patient A who had been referred for collapsed lung and chest pain... Shortly after, the licensee made him his office manager." It gets even more juicy... Offered prescriptions, etc. etc...
Quote:
No, check THIS out:
http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/kbml...ders/22439.pdf
To summarize:
The dude from the flight IS a doctor...who was indicted in 2003 by a grand jury for criminal acts of trafficking in a controlled substance, obtaining drugs by fraud and deceit, and unauthorized prescribing, dispensing, or administering of controlled substences.
During the investigation of all of this, it was discovered that he had become s-xually interested in a patient who was referred to him. During the initial evaluation, he performed a complete physical examination, including a genital examination, for the patient who had been referred for collapsed lungs and chest pain.
He then made the patient his office manager. Then he quit his job, and they ended up in some weird situation where prescriptions were exchanged for s-xual acts.
In 2005 he lost his medical license.
In 2007 he completed a clinical skills assessment, which demonstrated that his knowledge was "outdated and also contained gaps that would not likely be fully explained by his time away from the practice."
He showed that he "lacked competence with acid-based disorders, ventilator management, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and current evaluation and treatment of shock," which is hysterically ironic considering his current predicament.
"It was not clear whether Dr. Dao has a health condition that could impact the practice of medicine." That inspires confidence ��
He had to complete a "Maintaining Proper Boundaries" program.
He was evaluated in 2009, which concluded, "It is the opinion of the assessment team that Dr Dao is not safe to practice medicine at this time."
He also was diagnosed with a mood disorder.
In 2011 he was evaluated again, with the following recommendations:
1) He attend a residential program to address his character deficits.
2) He completes a polygraph without evidence of deception.
3) He completes a professional boundaries course.
4) He submits to random urine and polygraph examinations.
5) A highly structured practice plan with a restricted DEA license is set up if/when he is able to return to medical practice.
He did go to a program, where his treatment focused on "his vocational s-xual misconduct, personality traits, depression and anxiety, trauma, and relational issues with his spouse and family."
The assessment he completed in 2014 noted that he demonstrated "significant and broad deficiencies in areas common to primary care," his knowledge of health maintenance was "globally inadequate," and he demonstrated unacceptable knowledge of basic physical examinations and medications.
Despite this, he was finally given a limited license to practice in 2015.
Honestly, if he was supposed to see any patients this morning, they're lucky that the crazy guy couldn't come into work.
1 hour ago by Mikey G. | Post ID: @mk1fXsP-fgh
Now, this is interesting as it's indicating "Drug Related Offenses" on the behalf of the licensee (David Dao) - this may not be the guy, but how many David Dao doctor do they have in Kentucky?
http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/kbml...ders/22439.pdf
In October 2003, the licensee was indicated by the Jfferson County Grand Jury for criminal acts of Trafficking in a Controlled Substance, Obtaining Drugs by Fraud and Deceit, and Unauthorized Prescribing, Dispensing or Administering of Controlled substances. (Page1, bullet 5, stipulation of facts) - It gets more interesting, "During the Board's investigation into the criminal charges against the licensee, the Board learned that the licensee had become s-xually interested ina patient who had been referred to his practice, Patient A; during the initial evaluation, the licensee performed a complete physical examination, including genital examination for patient A who had been referred for collapsed lung and chest pain... Shortly after, the licensee made him his office manager." It gets even more juicy... Offered prescriptions, etc. etc...
Something definitely wasn't right about this guy in the videos.
Apr 11, 2017, 12:51 am
#2008
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Nawthun Virginia
Programs: Air: UA (Gold), AA, WN, DL; Hotel: Hilton (Diamond), plus all the rest
Posts: 135
I would say that the crewmember instructed him to exit the aircraft, and he declined, which puts him in defiance of the CoC. He also defied a police order, and ended up getting roughed for it. The injury was likely unintentional.
Bottom line is this: If a police officer demands that I disembark from the plane, I am going to obey immediately.
Bottom line is this: If a police officer demands that I disembark from the plane, I am going to obey immediately.
Just where does the CofC state that the cremember has the authority to instruct me to exit the aircraft on which I am properly boarded for a purely commercial, non-safety-related reason that is not part of their official duty anyway? I've read it, and I can't find it. There is a long list of reasons why a person can be removed, but that isn't one of them. They can be denied boarding for overbooking, but when that happens, there is a procedure defined by law that includes providing the person a written summary of their legal rights, etc., and I can find no witness reports that any such occurred.
If a cop demands that I disembark the airplane, and I believe my civil rights are being violated, I will probably do so...loudly. That may not be the smartest response, but in a situation like that, one can hardly be expected to have worked out all the consequences beforehand. The pax, who is probably not a frequent flyer, had absolutely no expectation that he didn't have a right to be there.
Furthermore, where were the cops? All I saw were guys wearing jeans and ball caps. Anyone can buy a vest with a cloth badge on it. Don't they require airport cops in Chicago to wear actual uniforms? I'll have to pay more attention during my next dash between the B and E-F gates. Cops in plain clothes taking part in such activities should be against policy.
And where was the probable cause that a crime had been committed? When an officer arrests someone, they have to have probable cause that a crime has been committed or is beign committed. Talking back to a cop is not probable cause, neither is arguing with a gate agent. Stupid, maybe, but not PC. But that's the part of the exchange that is not in the videos, though there are NO eyewitness reports of how the cops had gently explained to the gentleman the situation. The eyewitness reports describe a quickly escalating situation in a manner intended to defuse the stiuation. (I have read all the media reports that quote eyewitnesses--so far.) If I show a cop my boarding pass, I would rather expect him to come to my aid with what would seem to me a hostile airline employee who is trying, for reasons that sound implausible to an inexperience passenger, to take my booked-paid-occupied seat from me.
But the simple fact is that United just hasn't built up any postive goodwill in, like, forever. So, when they need to make a withdrawal in their goodwill account to cover for a screw-up, they find it in the red. I'm a lowly Gold who is a bit short of a million miles, and I fly them because they are the dominant airline at my local hub airport. I grumble about the decline in service and even common politeness I've witnessed over the year, but I still use them because I would be unable to earn any privileges at all on the variety of other airlines I'd have to use. But I struggle to find sympathy when they step into the hot tar-bucket like they did this time, eyes wide shut.
That the passenger was a jerk doesn't mean a thing. The GA's and cops didn't know his medical license had been revoked, or whatever. Again, there were no witness reports in the media that the guy had behaved insanely until after his head came into contact with the armrest. The media reports I read stated that witness just said that he refused to leave the plane after the GA asked him to, but that the GA had been "brusque" in the situation until that time. All of the reports of loony behavior came after he was injured. Again, being a jerk is not probable cause that a crime has been committed that would subject someone to arrest.
Last edited by Rdenney; Apr 11, 2017 at 1:00 am
Apr 11, 2017, 12:53 am
#2009
Join Date: Jan 2014
Programs: Amtrak Guest Rewards (SE), Virgin America Elevate, Hyatt Gold Passport (Platinum), VIA Preference
Posts: 3,134
What a misinformed view of the world. Police are called on by the public (including corporations) to keep order. Without them, the world would be chaotic indeed.
Once police are called to lawfully enforce laws/the peace, they will attempt to achieve compliance with their verbal directives. After a subject repeatedly refuses verbal commands, there is NO alternative but to force compliance by physical means. Once force is used, bodily injury may occur, both to the subject as well as the police.
Let us use an analogy: Someone is trespassing on your front lawn. You ask him to leave and he refuses. You call the police and they ask the subject to leave, and he still refuses. Do you really want the police to say "Sorry, Sir, I asked the trespasser to leave but he refused. We have to leave him on your front lawn because there is a danger that he might be injured if we employ physical means to ensure compliance. Have a good night. Bye."
Once police are called to lawfully enforce laws/the peace, they will attempt to achieve compliance with their verbal directives. After a subject repeatedly refuses verbal commands, there is NO alternative but to force compliance by physical means. Once force is used, bodily injury may occur, both to the subject as well as the police.
Let us use an analogy: Someone is trespassing on your front lawn. You ask him to leave and he refuses. You call the police and they ask the subject to leave, and he still refuses. Do you really want the police to say "Sorry, Sir, I asked the trespasser to leave but he refused. We have to leave him on your front lawn because there is a danger that he might be injured if we employ physical means to ensure compliance. Have a good night. Bye."
(Actually, I have a friend who was an LA cop back in the 60s who told me the story of a traffic stop for a minor moving violation. He pulls over a little old lady, I think for speeding, and goes to her window. She doesn't roll it down. He taps on the window and gestures for her to roll it down. She doesn't, and she looks scared as anything. He ended up just letting her go. As he said, "What was I supposed to do, smash in her window?")
In this case, it probably would have been less trouble for the cops to say "Nope, not going to help you on this one."
Apr 11, 2017, 12:53 am
#2010
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 812
What odd behavior on the aircraft? Every interview with other passengers on the flight have stated that the customer in question was quiet and calm until airport police gave him a concussion.