If You’ve Been Through HIMS, This Is the Time to Speak
Attorney Michael C. Lueder, who represents Captain Michael Tallon, a current United Airlines captain, is asking Pilots for HIMS Reform to help locate pilots who can describe what HIMS actually looks like in practice—how they entered it, what happened when medical evidence conflicted with the program’s conclusions, and whether there was ever a meaningful way out.
Pilots for HIMS Reform has been asked to help with a live federal case involving the HIMS program. According to correspondence provided to P4HR, Attorney Michael C. Lueder of Hansen Reynolds represents Captain Michael Tallon, a current United Airlines captain, in Michael Tallon v. United Airlines, Inc., Air Line Pilots Association, Dr. Robert Noven, and Dr. Stafford Henry, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The request is unusually specific—and that is why our community may be able to help. Counsel is not simply looking for people who agree with his client. He wants to know “what actually happened” to other pilots who have encountered HIMS, including experiences that were favorable, unfavorable, or somewhere in between.
Why Other Pilots’ Experiences Matter
On August 10, 2026, the federal court dismissed the then-operative complaint without prejudice and allowed Tallon an opportunity to amend. The court’s order described Tallon at that time as a former United pilot following his termination and explained that he alleged he had been needlessly placed into a substance-abuse treatment process and later terminated after disputes over HIMS requirements. Tallon has since been reinstated and is currently a United Airlines captain. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court was evaluating the legal sufficiency of the pleaded claims, not conducting a trial on the truth of every disputed fact.
Lueder told P4HR that one problem identified in the litigation is that, although the complaint alleged other pilots had experienced similar problems with HIMS, it did not contain enough specific factual detail about those other pilots’ experiences. That is the gap he is trying to address.
United Pilots: These Are the Questions Counsel Is Asking
How did you get placed into HIMS?
What event triggered the process? Who made the decision? Was it United, ALPA, an AME, the FAA, a HIMS committee, or someone else?
Was there a clinical diagnosis first?
Before you entered HIMS, had a qualified clinician actually diagnosed alcohol dependence, substance dependence, or an alcohol/substance use disorder? If so, who made that diagnosis?
Did professionals disagree?
Did doctors, treatment providers, psychologists, psychiatrists, AMEs, or other professionals later disagree with the diagnosis or conclude there was insufficient evidence of dependence?
What happened to contrary evidence?
If favorable or contrary medical evidence emerged, did HIMS requirements decrease or end—or did treatment, testing, monitoring, or other requirements continue?
What requirements were imposed?
Repeated medical, psychiatric, psychological, or neuropsychological evaluations? Treatment? Alcohol or drug testing? AA or recovery activities? Monitoring? Who imposed each requirement?
Could you meaningfully challenge it?
Did you believe there was a realistic process by which favorable medical evidence could result in release from HIMS?
The “Denial” and “Noncompliance” Question
One area of particular interest is what happened when a pilot disagreed with an alcohol or substance diagnosis. Counsel wants to hear from pilots who were told—or felt—that questioning a diagnosis would itself be treated as evidence of denial, lack of insight, failure to accept a condition, or noncompliance, and whether that characterization was then used to justify additional treatment or monitoring.
Pilots From Any Airline: Dr. Stafford Henry and Dr. Robert Noven
Lueder is also asking to speak with pilots from any airline—not only United—who have had significant experience with Dr. Stafford Henry or Dr. Robert Noven.
Again, he has expressly asked for both favorable and unfavorable experiences. He wants to understand what each doctor was asked to evaluate, what information was provided, what diagnosis or conclusion resulted, and what consequences followed.
Current Pilots, Former Pilots, and Retirees
P4HR understands why currently employed pilots may hesitate to attach their names to a dispute involving an airline, union, HIMS professional, or FAA process. Career concerns are real. That makes former pilots and retirees especially important—but current pilots who are willing to have an initial conversation are also encouraged to come forward.
Documents Can Matter Too
If you have records that help explain your experience—medical reports, treatment records, HIMS correspondence, AME letters, testing requirements, monitoring agreements, communications with United or ALPA, or documents showing contrary medical opinions—tell us that when you reach out. Do not send sensitive medical records publicly or through social media.
This Is What a Coalition Is For
For years, pilots have told us that the hardest part of challenging HIMS is proving that an experience was not isolated. A court cannot build a factual record from generalities. It takes people willing to describe specific events, specific decisions, specific medical evidence, and specific consequences.
If your experience fits any part of this request, please contact P4HR and put “Tallon / HIMS Witness” in the subject line. We will connect appropriate respondents with Attorney Michael C. Lueder.
Please share this article. The pilot who has the missing piece may not be on our mailing list—but may be one forwarded message away.