Seventh Circuit Gives Expansive Reading To FMLA

According to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Chicago), an employee with multiple diagnoses -including high blood pressure, hyperthyroidism, back pain, severe headaches, and a sore throat – may proceed with her suit under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") even if none of her many conditions alone rises to the level of a "serious health condition" as defined by the FMLA. The court vacated summary judgment in favor of the employer, holding that the question whether the employee's assemblage of illnesses, taken together, created a serious health condition is a question for the trier of fact. Price v. City of Fort Wayne.

Price's treating physician had advised her to take off work immediately because, in his opinion, Price was on the edge of a physical and mental breakdown. Price's employer, the City of Fort Wayne, Indiana, had a city doctor examine Price. The city's doctor concluded that Price did not need to take an immediate leave. The city denied Price's leave request, and thereafter fired her for excessive absenteeism.

The court's decision hinged upon the Department of Labor's regulations defining a 11 serious health condition." Because Price did not have inpatient care or a chronic serious health condition under the FMLA, the dispute focused entirely upon the proper construction of the regulations defining serious health conditions to include continuing treatment by a health care provider which involves a period of incapacity of more than three consecutive calendar days, and any subsequent treatment or period of incapacity relating to the same condition. The Seventh Circuit concluded that Price had submitted enough evidence, in the form of an affidavit from her treating physician, of her treatment and incapacity stemming from her multiple diagnoses to render summary judgment improper. According to the court, a trier of fact must determine after trial whether Price's conditions taken together created a serious health condition.

In its opinion, the court firmly rejected the city's reliance on its own doctor's opinion, which contradicted the opinion of the employee's physician. Although the FMLA allows an employer to require an employee to obtain a second opinion, it may not be from a doctor the employer employs on a regular basis. Consequently, the city's doctor's opinion could not even be considered for purposes of evaluating whether the employee in fact had a serious health condition. For the same reason, the court rejected the city's objection to the employee's failure to provide 30 days advance notice for the leave, since the city's argument that the plaintiff could have delayed taking off work for 30 days was supported only by its own doctor's assessment.