Editorial: National Maritime Center Program Needs Tweaking

We’ve been told that the U.S. Coast Guard’s National Maritime Center has improved its performance in recent years, but there is one program area that needs attention. Specifically it is that part of the program where NMC staff doctors can destroy a mariner’s career by rejecting the opinions of the applicant’s doctors. Needless to say, it is serious business, and from what we’ve read and been told, there is a major flaw in the center’s program. Like the proverbial burr under the saddle, it is a continuing cause of agitation to mariners.

We have a specific case, now successfully settled, to which we will refer; but it is important to know that the case is not a stand-alone issue. Evaluation of the documentation leads us to believe that mariners have good reason to complain. As for medical issues, the WJ reported on these pages on August 21, 2006, the case of Capt. Joseph J. Kinneary, Ph.D. His case was fully documented in his book, The Good Lord Hates A Coward.

We mention Capt. Kinneary because his case and the case of Capt. Harley Hall Jr. (the settled case), have important elements in common. In both cases, Coast Guard doctors rejected the findings of medical reports provided by physicians hired by the applicants. We understand that Capt. Kinneary’s case has reached one plateau and may be pending final action. Fortunately for Capt. Hall, his appeal letter was so impressive that Coast Guard officials didn’t make him go through the entire appeal process. The NMC physicians had rejected his license renewal on the grounds that he was not fit medically to serve in the marine business.

We are not privy to every detail in either case. But the objections we have with NMC are more general in nature. Specifically—and this has been admitted to in writing—NMC physicians sometimes render decisions on medical issues but haven’t the medical qualifications to make those decisions or to reject the decisions of established medical specialists whose specialty is in question. Having properly trained physicians to render decisions in every instance should be a slam-dunk for the Coast Guard. There is no justice in having a bricklayer pass judgment on the quality of work of an electrician. There is no justice in having a general practitioner pass judgment on the work of an experienced cardiologist or neurologist of long standing. It certainly is not justice for the mariner who is fighting for his career and is required to spend thousands of dollars for medical examinations to prove his case, only to have the results rejected. That is an issue Congress can and should solve.

Capt. Hall had suffered at one time physical ailments that were successfully treated medically. Subsequent tests showed that the previous condition no longer existed and that he should have been qualified to serve in a maritime post. The medical reports of the cardiologist that he had hired were rejected, however. On September 28, 2009, he asked the commander of the National Maritime Center, Capt. David C. Stalfort, via e-mail, if either of the doctors who rejected his diagnosis were cardiologists, and was told, “No, sir.”

Capt. Hall, in his appeal to Capt. Stalfort and to Rear Adm. Kevin Cook, Prevention Policy Directorate, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, wrote: “If the word ‘cardiologist’ cannot be found in the curriculum vitae of either of these ‘two physicians board certified in occupational medicine,’ then it is ludicrous for them to refute a cardiologist on a cardiac issue.” He believes it is clear (not just apparent) that neither of the two physicians at issue ever consulted with his cardiologist. He wanted to know how the NMC could maintain that the two physicians in question are qualified to dismiss the diagnosis of a specialist in his field.

Even though Capt. Hall ultimately won his appeal, it is unfortunate that he and others have to go through such gyrations to hold onto their jobs. Capt. Hall said it took him nine months. Had he been working out on the river instead of working shoreside as a vice president of boat operations, it would have taken much, much longer, he said.

It is only fair to say that the system worked in this case, slow as it was, but it seems that similar issues could be avoided by making certain NMC staff doctors are qualified to bring judgment to issues at hand.

Sometimes one is led to believe that the Coast Guard, instead of being an ally to the marine industry, is working to drum qualified mariners out of the corps. We doubt that is the case. America needs good water transportation. Industry needs qualified people, and at this point in time industry is hard put to find and train all that it needs.

No one is asking the Coast Guard to allow entry of a crippled horse in a steeplechase. We, and mariners, ask only that the Coast Guard be helpful in keeping healthy, qualified men working. As it is, some of them not only lose careers, but they must squander their cash reserves in the process.

The Waterways Journal encourages letters to the editor.
Have something on your mind?
Send letters to: jshoulberg@waterwaysjournal.net.
(Please indicate whether or not your letter is intended for publication.)