Sixth Circuit: FMLA Does Not Cover Care For Adult Child With Temporary Impairment and Does Not Require Employers to Obtain Second Medical Opinion

On September 28, 2007, the federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of an employer and dismissal of the FMLA claims of a former employee. Novak v. MetroHealth Medical Center, No. 06-3036 (6th Cir. 9/28/07). First, the Court noted that the employee could not prove that she suffered from a “serious health condition” covered by the FMLA because the medical certifications she had submitted to her employer were insufficient. Among other things, the physician who purportedly provided the incomplete certifications of the chronic back condition admitted that she had not seen or treated the plaintiff in over four months before the plaintiff sought FMLA leave. The employer gave the plaintiff a week to cure the deficiency, and she submitted three additional (but deficient) certification forms, but she never sought a certification from her actual treating physician. The court also held that the employer was not required to obtain a second medical opinion before rejecting the plaintiff’s deficient certification forms. While the FMLA permits employers to obtain second medical opinions, it does not require them to do so.

The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that she was entitled to FMLA leave to care for her 18-year daughter while she suffered from temporary post-partum depression. First, the court noted that the plaintiff had failed to provide any medical certification that her daughter was even temporarily disabled from taking care of herself:

“The FMLA authorizes leave to care for a child 18 years of age or older only if the child is suffering from a serious health condition and “incapable of self-care because of a mental or physical disability.” 29 U.S.C. § 2611(12)(B). Notably, [Plaintiff] did not provide any evidence or medical certification that [her daughter] was in fact unable to care for herself; rather, the certification and [her daughter’s] testimony all related to [her daughter’s] difficulty in caring for her newborn child (i.e., [Plaintiff’s] grandchild). But the FMLA does not entitle an employee to leave in order to care for a grandchild.”

Second, the Court found that the FMLA only permitted leave when the adult child was “disabled” as governed by the ADA. However, the evidence showed that the daughter’s post-partum depression was neither severe nor long term, as required by the ADA to qualify as a covered disability:

“We conclude, based on our evaluation of all the relevant factors, that [Plaintiff’s] daughter, . . . was not substantially limited in any major life activities — such as the activity of caring for oneself — and therefore was not disabled for purposes of the FMLA. First, [Plaintiff] has not presented sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that [her daughter’s] impairment was severe. . . . Second, the undisputed facts clearly show that [her daughter’s] condition lasted only a week or two. . . . Such a short-term restriction on a major life activity generally does not constitute a disability. See Hein, 232 F.3d at 487. Third, [Plaintiff] has not produced any evidence indicating that [her daughter’s] postpartum depression inflicted any permanent or long-term impact on her health. In fact, the record evidence is to the contrary, demonstrating that [her daughter] recovered in a short period of time, and giving no indication that she endured any long-term adverse effects. Because [Plaintiff] has not established that her adult daughter suffered from a disability, the FMLA does not authorize [Plaintiff’s] leave to care for her.”

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with an attorney. Insomiacs can read the full decision at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0398p-06.pdf.