Winning a United States Court of Appeals case is not an easy feat. Doing so against a regulatory government agency is even harder. And claiming victory by overcoming an inherent power imbalance is almost impossible. Yet, Michael Solondz did just that on June 27, 2025.
Background
Solondz’s case started in 2018. At the time Solondz was employed as an airline pilot with SkyWest Airlines. He began experiencing anxiety and sleep difficulties after his father passed. So, as any responsible professional airman would do, Solondz self-grounded pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 61.53 and sought treatment from medical professionals.
After exploring several medications, Solondz and his doctors settled on Remeron (mirtazapine). Remeron was the perfect medication for the airman as it effectively treated both his situational anxiety and his sleep disturbances. The only problem was that the FAA did not consider Remeron one of their “conditionally accepted” antidepressants. Thus, once Solondz was ready to return to flying and cleared by his medical team, he started the arduous process to obtain an Authorization for Special Issuance of a Medical Certificate (a “Special Issuance”).
Exhausting Administrative Remedies
For those unfamiliar with administrative law, a common misconception is that someone can appeal directly to a court of law after they receive an unfavorable outcome. This is not true as one must first “exhaust his or her administrative remedies” before pursuing judicial relief. Exhausting administrative remedies in airman medical certification cases means the pilot/applicant must first appeal their case through the FAA’s certification division (i.e., the Aerospace Medical Certification Division of the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute—CAMI). If they do not, the initiation of any judicial action will be deemed premature, and the case will be kicked out of court.
The Administrator of the FAA is entrusted with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce and the safety regulation duties are outlined in the United States Code (Title 49, Chapter 447). The United States Code contains provisions on the administration and issuance of airman medical certificates (see 49 U.S.C. 44703), including the FAA’s ultimate discretionary power, an appeal process, and the Administrator’s delegation powers. Specifics related to medical standards and certification procedures are further outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 14, Chapter 1, Subchapter D, Part 67).
In general, the basic process for medical certification involves the pilot completing an “Application For Airman Medical Certificate” (FAA Form 8500-8 or a MedXPress application) and seeing their Aviation Medical Examiner (AME) for a physical examination. If the AME cannot issue a medical certificate after the examination due to the presence of an ineligible medical condition, the case is deferred to the Manager of CAMI for further review. Authorized personnel at the Manager’s office will then consider the case and make a formal decision to either, 1) issue an unrestricted medical certificate, 2) grant a Special Issuance, or 3) deny the application. 14 C.F.R. § 67.409(b) expands on the “types” of denials implemented:[i]
- (b) The denial of a medical certificate—
- (1) By an aviation medical examiner is not a denial by the Administrator under 49 U.S.C. 44703.
- (2) By the Federal Air Surgeon is considered to be a denial by the Administrator under 49 U.S.C. 44703.
- (3) By the Manager, Aeromedical Certification Division, or a Regional Flight Surgeon is considered to be a denial by the Administrator under 49 U.S.C. 44703 except where the person does not meet the standards of §§ 67.107(b)(3) and (c), 67.109(b), or 67.113(b) and (c); 67.207(b)(3) and (c), 67.209(b), or 67.213(b) and (c); or 67.307(b)(3) and (c), 67.309(b), or 67.313(b) and (c).
If the denial is not considered an action of the Administrator (under 49 U.S.C. 44703) then it is subject to reconsideration by the Federal Air Surgeon (FAS). Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 67.409, the reconsideration request must be done within 30 days of the denial. If the FAS also denies the application, then there are several possibilities for the appeal depending on what the pilot/applicant is hoping to ultimately achieve, i.e., whether the pilot/applicant is requesting an unrestricted medical certificate or a Special Issuance.
Appeals from a FAS decision for an unrestricted medical certificate must initially go through the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and be made within 60 days after the FAS denial. The first stage of the NTSB process is an appeal to an administrative law judge. If the judge finds against the pilot, the next step is an appeal to NTSB’s full board. If unsuccessful with the full-board appeal, then the pilot/applicant may petition a U.S. District Court or U.S. Court of Appeals.[ii] On the other hand, if a pilot/applicant is requesting a Special Issuance after receiving a “final denial” from the FAS, the pilot/applicant may petition the U.S. District Court or U.S. Court of Appeals to review the action. This is because the NTSB “lacks the authority to review requests for special issuance (restricted) medical certificates, or to direct that they be issued.”[iii]
Since Remeron is categorically disallowed by the FAA, Solondz was forced to argue for an exception in the form of a Special Issuance. There was no option for an unrestricted medical certificate. The process to receive a Special Issuance is time sensitive, adheres to strict deadlines, and is difficult to navigate effectively. Even with the help of legal counsel, requests for medical certification can be negatively impacted by administrative shortcomings at CAMI and/or the FAS’ office. Thus, exhausting administrative remedies can be problematic and discourage many applicants long before they step foot in a court room. Solondz, however, dutifully pursued through the administrative process and eventually made his argument in front of the U.S. Court of Appeals.
United States Court of Appeals Decision
The decision to grant a Special Issuance lies solely with the FAA and FAS. The Court of Appeals’ review was therefore limited to whether the application denial was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Solondz’s argument was simple: he should be granted a Special Issuance for Remeron as it effectively treated his conditions with no negative side effects. The FAA countered that Remeron was not a “conditionally approved antidepressant” and therefore not eligible for Special Issuance consideration.
In its reasoning the Court expounded on the FAA’s history of medical certification and the use of antidepressant medications. It noted the 2010 policy change to allow specific selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), the required waiting period of six months on a stable dosage, and the 2024 expansion of medications. It continued with a review of Solondz’s favorable treatment history, including the positive opinions of the medical professionals familiar with the case, Solondz’s decision to take the medication at night to avoid daytime sedation or fatigue, and his compliance with the proper wait times before applying for certification. The Court also addressed the FAA’s illogical and haphazard discussion of other conditions during the process, some of which were already cleared by previous applications and review. In sum, the Court concluded:[iv]
Determinations regarding which medications categorically pose unacceptable risks and which pilots are medically fit to fly lie squarely within the sound discretion of the Federal Aviation Administration. But the agency must reasonably explain its actions. It has not done so here. The agency has failed to explain why it categorically disallows medical certification to all pilots who take the medication that Solondz was prescribed and finds beneficial, rather than permitting conditional approvals if merited under the agency’s robust medical clearance process. We accordingly remand to the Federal Aviation Administration to explain its decision.
The FAA’s final decision and letter to Solondz was thus arbitrary and capricious because it lacked any articulated rationale. In reaching this conclusion, the Court notes:[v]
But the agency has yet to explain why a pilot taking mirtazapine at night at a dosage that apparently does not produce in him the drowsiness clinically observed in other patients is barred from using the demanding Special Issuance process to seek to establish to the Federal Air Surgeon’s satisfaction that he suffers no aeromedically significant side effects
. . .
The key missing piece of information here is how the agency determined that those other medications, which apparently also carry some risk of drowsiness in some people, need not bar the pilots taking them from consideration for Special Issuance whereas mirtazapine does impose a categorical bar.
. . .
. . . the agency’s position implies that it believes the risk of somnolence from mirtazapine is so severe, persistent, or unpredictable that the guardrails within the Special Issuance process, as called for by the Antidepressant Protocol, are insufficient to protect aviation safety. If that is the case, the FAA must articulate and support its reasoning. We cannot fill in the blanks by supplying a reasoned basis for the FAA’s policy that the agency itself has not given. The agency’s discretion is not unbounded. If it fails to articulate a “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made,” we cannot sustain its action as a sound, non-arbitrary exercise of medical judgment.
To be clear, we do not question the FAA's authority to categorically deny medical certification to pilots who are using certain prescription medications. Yet, when an agency adopts a substantive policy without rulemaking or public comment and applies it in a particular case, it is especially important that it meet “its responsibility to present evidence and reasoning supporting” that policy.
Moving Forward
Solondz now awaits the FAS’s decision after the Court’s remand back to the FAA. Given the Court’s rebuke of the FAA’s previous actions, the hope is that a legitimate, thorough review of Solondz’s case results in a granted Special Issuance. Regardless, Solondz has already provided precedent for other applicants/airmen to rely upon in their own appeals moving forward. The hard work of the airman and his legal counsel is truly appreciated.
To further positive policy shifts, the pilot community can support ongoing projects and organizations such as Pilot Mental Health Campaign’s work with passing the Mental Health in Aviation Act and the Aviation Medication Transparency Act. These Acts would promote further transparency medical certification and medication usage. For more information on these Acts and how to get involved visit https://www.pmhc.org/.
[i] 14 C.F.R. § 67.409(b) (emphasis added).
[ii] See https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/Pages/ALJ%20Processes.aspx for more details.
[iii] 49 C.F.R. § 821.24(d).
[iv] Solondz v. FAA, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 15869, 2 (emphasis added).
[v] Id. at 19-20, 22-23 (emphasis added).
