Perhaps one of the most important FMLA cases tackled by the courts in recent years is Thorson v. Gemini Inc. Resolved in 2000, it dealt head-on with an issue that has perplexed many employers: What do you do with an employee whose doctor certifies leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act but whose condition ultimately proves to be minor?
The courts gave this answer: If the certification meets the U.S. Department of Labor''s criteria of continuing treatment coupled with incapacitation for more than three days, the final diagnosis is irrelevant.
Katherine Thorson left work to seek medical care on a number of occasions. Each time, she returned with a doctor''s note indicating that the time she had taken off was medically necessary. Thorson was undergoing various medical tests because of her doctor''s concern that she might have a peptic ulcer or gallbladder disease. Ultimately, it was determined that Thorson had stress-related gastritis and a small hiatal hernia, neither of which is generally considered to be a serious medical condition.
After Thorson returned to work and completed a full week, she was terminated. Her employer said her absences, including those related to her health condition and authorized by her doctor, exceeded the allowable limit for the quarter. Thorson sued for violations of the FMLA. Her employer argued that she was not entitled to FMLA leave for her medical condition, which was ultimately found not to be serious.
Court decision reversed on appeal. Although the trial court agreed with the employer, the court of appeals reversed. The appellate court found that DOL''s regulations set out an objective test for determining whether an illness which might subjectively be viewed as minor will sustain a claim for FMLA leave. In this case, Thorson was undergoing continuing care in the form of repeated doctor visits and diagnostic tests, all of which required her absence from work for more than three days. The fact she was ultimately diagnosed with a minor ailment does not invalidate her satisfaction of the DOL''s criteria.
Therefore, her employer should have allowed the FMLA leave. The court noted that if the employer disagreed with Thorson''s doctor regarding whether she needed the treatment and tests he was ordering, the employer should have sought a second opinion, not denied the leave.
The Thorson case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the high court declined to review the case, thereby tacitly approving the circuit court ruling.
The bottom line: Don''t play doctor. If an employee presents a valid certification for time taken off during medical testing or treatment, HR should not concern itself with the diagnosis. If the employee''s doctor believed the employee needed the medical treatment and time off work, an end-diagnosis of an ailment that would normally be regarded as minor does invalidate the entitlement to FMLA leave.
The HR industry´s premier online community and resource for Human Resource professionals: HR, human resources, HR community, human resources community, HR best practices, best practices in human resources, online communities for HR, HR articles, HR news, human resources articles, human resources news, HR events, leadership, performance management, staffing and recruitment, benefits, compensation, staffing, recruitment, workforce acquisition, human capital management, HR management, human resources management, HR metrics and measurement, organizational development, executive coaching, HR law, employment law, labor relations, hiring employees, HR outsourcing, human resources outsourcing, training and development
hr.com.
human resources management resources for hr professionals. |
HR menus
|
HR events
|
HR Sitemap