## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 3400 R OBERT J ONES, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. C &D T ECHNOLO GIES, I NC ., D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 1:10- cv-696

—WilliamT. Lawrence , Judge .
A RGUED M AR CH 29, 2012

— D ECI DE D J UNE 28, 2012

Befo re K ANN E , R OV NER, a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudg e . Rob er t J ones br ought thi s a ctio n alleg in g t h at h i s e m p loy er , C & D T ec h n olo gie s, In c ., in te rfe re d w ith h is rig h t t o t ak e le av e u n d er th e F am ily and M ed i calLeave A ct ( FM LA ) , 29 U
. S. C. § 2 601 et seq
. T h e d i s t r i c t co u r tg r a n t e d s u mma r y j u d g me n tf o rC &D Technol ogi es, r eas oni ng tha t J ones was not en titl ed to F M LA l eave bec au se he di d no t r ec ei ve t r ea tment d u r i n gh i s ab s e n c e . We a ffi r m.2 N o. 11

- 3400 I. B ACK GR OUN D I n J une 200 0, C& D Technolo gi es hi re d Rober t J on es as a m achi ne o p er ator f ori ts pla nt i n A tti ca, Ind i ana. Both bef or e a nd duri ng hi s t i m e a t C& D, J ones exp er ien ced p eriodic leg and back p ain an d bou ts of an x ie t y . Jones’s condi ti on re q uir ed hi m to se e a tr eat i ng physi ci an o nce eve rytwo orthr ee m onths and to und er go a s er i es of t e s t s t wo o r thr e e t i mes pe r y e a r . J o ne s a l s o t o o kp r e s c r i pti o n medi ca ti o n. Effecti ve M ay 1, 20 03, C& D im ple m ented a com prehensi ve att endance pol i cy that ass ess es em plo yee s a v a r y i n g n u mb e ro fp o i n t s f o rp o l i c y v i o l a t i o n s . F o re x a mp le, em p loyees are assess ed o n e po int ifthey m iss m ore th anf o urho ur s o fa s ch edu l ed sh i ft an d o ne - ha lfpo i nt f orabs ence s lasti ng l ess than f our hours but m or e than thi rty m i nutes. The com pany al so re quir es em plo yee s to rep ort allabsen ces ex ceed ing thirty m inu tes to a sh ift s up e r v i s o rp r i o rt o the ab s e nc e . F a i l ur e t o do s o r e s ul ts i n the a sses smento fa n a ddi ti o na lo ne - ha l fpo i nt aga i nst the em plo yee . Points a re notas se ss ed f orpre appr o ve d F M L A ab se nc es . Co ns eque nc es f o rv i o l at i ng the pol i cy depend o n the n u m b er ofacc um ula ted poi nts. I n any f our- m onth p er i od, an e m plo yee wh o re cei ves one poi nt i s give n a w ri tte n w ar ni ng; a seco nd wri tte n wa r n i n gi s g i v e n t o th o s e e mpl o y e e s wh o a c c r u e t wo p oin t s ; a n d a th ird p oin t re su lts in t er m in at ion . I m m ed iate l y pr ecedi ng his O cto ber1, 20 09, abs ence, J ones had ac c ru ed tw o a n d on e-h alf p oin ts
. Du ring the l as t w eeko fS eptem ber20 09, J ones spok e w ith C at h y M or ga n, C & D ’s FM L A C oo rd in at or, ab ou t h isN o. 11

- 3400 3

m edi calco nd i ti on. On Septe m ber25 , and aga i n on Octo

ber 2, J ones ’ s tr eat i ng physi ci an, Dr. K athr yn Lubak, f axed M or gan F M LA cer ti fi cati ons i nd i cating tha t J ones re quir ed peri odi c tr eat m ent for hi s l eg pai n and anxie ty. O n Sep te m b er 30 , Jon es ag ain sp ok e w ith M or ga n, th is ti m e to r eque stF M LA l eav e f o ra 1 : 00 p. m . a ppo i nt m en t the ne xt day in Crawfor dsvi l l e, Ind i ana. Duri ng tha t con versat io n , M organ m ad e clear that Jone s m us t notify hi s s up er vi soro fthe abse nce. The part i es dispute w hetherJ ones r equeste d FM LA l eave f orthe enti re day orwh etherhe s i m ply r eq ueste d l eave f orhi s a fternoon appoint m ent. J o n e s mi s s e d h i s e n t i r e s c h e d u l e d s h i fto n O c t o b e r1
. He cl ai m s t o have l eft a vo i c em ail f orhi s s up er vi sorpri or to hi s ab se nc e, b utthe c o m pan y di spu te s th i s. In a ny eve nt, o n the m or ni ng o fOctobe r 1, J ones fi rs t r etr i eve d hi s pa y c he c k fr o m C &D a nd the n v i s i t e d Dr
. Lu b a k a t h er clin ic in V ee d er sb u rg, In d i a n a . A t a p p ro x im at ely 10: 00 a. m . , J ones s i gned i n at Dr. Lubak’ s o ffi ce, al though h e d i d n o th a v e a s c h e d u l e d appo i n t me n t
. He d i d t wo th ings w hile there. First, he con fi r m e d that Dr. Lu bak’s offi ce had t ra nsfer re d al ln eces sar y r efer ra lpaperworkto th e C ra w for d sv ille clin ic

— the s i t e o fh i s a ft e r no o n a ppoi ntm ent. J ones m ain ta i ns thatthi s co nfi rm ati on was necess ar y b ecause Dr. Lu bak’ s cl i ni c w as unaffi l i ate d w i th th e Crawf o r dsv i l l e cl i ni c, a nd he want ed to e ns ur e th e paperw or k was i n or der b ef or e m akin g the twenty- fi vem i l e dr i ve . Se co nd, J o ne s o bt aine d a pr es cr i pti o nre fill no te for X a n a x an d h yd ro c od on e. T h ro u gh ou t t h is unschedu l ed vi si t, J ones w as neverexam i ned orev al uated by Dr. Lubak. Rather, the entire ty ofJ ones ’ s co ntact w i th4 N o. 11

- 3400 D r. Lu bak took p lace in t h e offi ce lobby. J one s left Dr
. Luba k ’ s o ffi ce afte r appr o xi m at ely twe nty - five m i nu t e s . H e th e n t r a v e l e d t o Cr a wfo r d s v i l l e f o rh i s 1 : 0 0 p . m. appoint m ent. Because of hi s October1 abse nce, C& D suspend ed J ones fro m w or k beg in n in g Oc to b er 2, p en d in g a fu rt h er inv es tigat i on. J ones and a uni on r epres entat i ve t h en m et w i th c o mpa n y o ffi c i a l s o n O c t o b e r6
. Atth a tme e t i n g, C &D cl ai m s that J ones was unable to pro vi de any docum entatio n sugg est i ng tha t he re cei ved tr eat m ent forhi s hea l th co ndi ti o n onthe mor ni ngo fOc tobe r1
. F o l l o wi ngthe m eet i ng, co m p an y o ffi ci al s co ntem pla ted as ses si ng J ones one an d o ne- hal fpoi nts forhi s absence and f ai l ure to p ro vid e p rior n ot ifica tio n to h is s u p er vis or . C & D offic ials ul ti m at ely a ss es sed J o ne s o nl y o ne - ha l fpo i nt, c o nc l udi ng that J ones ’ s absence i n the m or ni ng was f or“per sonal b u s i n e s s , ” wh i l e hi s a ft e r n o o n wa s s p e n tr e c e i v i n gF MLAqua l i fy i ngt r ea tment
. The co m pan y a l so g av e hi m the benefi t o fthe doubt as to wh etherh e ga ve pri ornot i ce to hi s su per vi so r . The o ne - ha l fpo i nta ss essed forthe m or n i n g a b se n c e g av e Jo n es a to ta l of th re e p oin ts in the pr ecedi ng f our- m onth per i od

. In acco rdance w i th i ts att endance pol i cy, C& D ter m i nated J ones ’ s e m p loy

m ent o n Octobe r 7. J o n e s fi l e d s u i to n J u n e 7, 2 0 1 0 , a l l e g i n gth a tC &D i nt er fer ed wi thhi s r i g htto ta k e F M LA l ea ve . On M ay6 , the com p an y an d J one s fi led cross -m otions for sum m ary j ud gm en t. T he district cou rt sub seq ue nt ly gran ted C& D ’s m oti on a nd d en ied J ones ’ s m oti on, r eas oni ng tha t J ones w as no t ent itl ed to l eave on th e m orning of O ctob er 1N o. 11

- 3400 5 b ec au se h e d id n otrec e i v e m ed ica l tre at m en t fo r h is c on d itio n . Jon es filed th is t im ely ap p ea l.

II. A NA LYSIS On cros s m oti ons f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent, w e r evi ew th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s r es o l ut i o n d eno vo , view ing the record inth e ligh t m o st fav or ab le t o Jon es an d d ra w in g a ll re as on ab le in fer en c es in h is fa vo r. SeeC la re ndon Nat’l In s . C o . v . Medi na , 6 4 5 F
. 3 d 9 2 8 , 9 3 3 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 1 1 )
. S u mm ary j udg m en t i s appr o pr i at e when “the mova nt shows th at t h ere i s no ge nuine dispute as to any m ate ri al f act and th e m ova nt i s e nti tl ed to j ud gm ent a s a m att er ofl aw . ” F ed. R. Ci v. P. 56 ( a)
. W e m u st a ffi rm a gr ant o f su m m ary j udg m en t i fJ o ne s ca nno t es tabl i sha n e l ement ofhi s cl aim o n w h i ch he would be arthe burden ofpro of at tria l. Har ney v . Sp e e dway S upe rAm e r i ca, LL C, 52 6 F
. 3d 1099 , 1104 (7th Cir. 2008). The FM LA ge nera l l y pr ovi des eligibl e e m plo yee s with as many as t w elv e wee k s o funpa i d l ea ve dur i nga ny tw elve-m ont h p eriod. 29 U

. S. C
. § 2612( a)(1)
. Em p loyers ar e pr ohibi ted fro m i nter fer i ng with an em plo yee ’ s use or at te m p te d u se of FM L A lea ve . Id. § 2 61 5(a )(1) . To p re va il on a n FM LA

- i nter fer ence theo ry, the pla i nti ffem plo yee m us t prov e tha t: “(1 ) s h e w as eli gible for th e FM L A ’s p r o t e c t i o n s ; ( 2 ) h e re mpl o y e rwa s c o ve r e d b y th e F MLA; ( 3) s he was e nt i tl ed to t ak e l ea ve unde rthe F M LA ; ( 4) s he pr o vi ded su ffi ci en t no ti ce o fheri nt en t to t ak e l ea ve ; a nd ( 5) he re m pl o y erde ni ed he rF M LA b en efi ts t o w hich s he w as enti tl ed. ” M akows kiv. SmithAm und s e n L LC, 66 2 F
. 3d6 N o. 11

- 3400

The par t ies al s o di s put e the f our th a nd fi fth e l em en t s of 1 J one s ’ s i nt er fer en ce clai m , butour c onc l us i on as t o the thi rd ele m ent is disposi ti ve. 818, 825 (7th C ir. 2011) ( quo ting G o elz er v. Sh ebo yg a n C nty ., Wis. , 604 F.3d 987, 993 (7th C ir. 2010)). T he disp ut e in t h is case focu ses sq ua rely on th e third el ement

— w hetherJ ones was enti tl ed to ta ke FM LA l eave on the m orn in g of October1. A m ong othe r re aso ns, an 1 em plo yee i s e nti tl ed to F M L A lea ve i fshe suffer s fro m “a ser i ous he al th co nd i ti on that m akes th e em plo yee unabl e t o pe r f o r m the fun c t i o ns o f the po s i t i o n o fsuch em p loy ee .” 29 U .S.C . § 26 12 (a)( 1)(D ); see a lso Kauf f m an v. Fe d. Expre s s Corp. , 42 6 F
. 3d 880, 88 4 (7 th C ir. 20 05)
. Thus, f orJ ones to be enti tl ed to FM LA l eave , he m ust s uffer f r o m a “s er iou s h ea lth co n d itio n,” an d h e m u st be u n ab le to perf or m the du ti es ofa m achi ne o perat or . Se eSt oops v. O ne C a ll C o m m c’ns, Inc. , 141 F.3d 309 , 312 (7th C ir. 19 98 )
. The Acti ts el fa nd the a cc o m p an yi ngDe par tment ofLabor( DO L) reg u lati ons provi de furthercl ar i fi cati on as t o e ac h compone nt
. F i r st, the Actde fi ne s a “s er i o us heal th co nd i ti on” as “an i l l ness, i nj ury, i m pai rm en t, or physi calo r m en talco nd i ti on that invol ves

— ( A) i npa ti en t care in a hos p ital, hosp ice, o r r esid en tial m ed ical care facil ity; or (B) con t inu ing treatm en t by a hea lth care p r o v i d e r . ” 2 9 U. S
. C
. § 2 6 1 1 ( 1 1 )
. J o n e s ma i n t a i n s , a n d C &D does not d isp u te , that hi s l eg and back pai n and bouts o fa nxi ety qua l i fy a s a “s er i o us he al thc o ndi ti o n” i nv o l ving continuing tr eat m ent. J ones m ust s atisfy a se cond re quir em ent t o be e nti tl ed to FM LA l eave under the se ri ous- heal th- conditio n sub-N o. 11

- 3400 7 sect i on. N am el y, he m ust a l so show that hi s hea l th pre

ve nt ed him from pe r f o r m i ngthe dut i es o fa machine op er at or . S e eid
. § 2 61 2( a) ( 1) ( D)
. The DOL r egul at i o ns define an em plo yee u n able to perf or m hi s duti es as one “w ho m ustb e absentfr o m wo r kt o r e c e i v e me di ca lt r eatmentf o ra s er i o us he al thc o ndi ti o n. ” 29 C. F
. R. § 8 2 5
. 1 2 3 ( a ) ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d )
. In o th e rw o r d s , a n e mp lo y ee who r ec ei ve s tr ea tmentf o ra s er i o us he al thc o ndit i on i s a utom at ical l y c onsi dered to be unabl e t o perf or m the funct ion s ofherposi ti on. I m port antl y, § 8 2 5
. 1 2 3 u s e s the w o r d “ mu s t ” t o i mp l y th a tth e e mplo yee ’ s absence i s nec ess ar y forthatem plo yee ’ s t re atm ent. A l tern at i vel y, an absence f orunnecess ar y t re atm en t o r n o t re at m en t a t a ll m ea n s t h at th e e m p loy ee is n otsu fficie n tly inc ap ac ita te d s o a s t o re n d er h er u n ab le to p er for m h er d u tie s. Se eRi di ngs v. Riv ersideM e d. C tr. , 53 7 F. 3d 755, 77 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( “[ B] ec au se the empl o y ee ha d no t demons tr at ed th at he was r ec ei ving tr eat m ent th at r endered hi m unabl e t o w or k o n thos e th re e d ay s, h e d id n otd em on st ra te FM L A en ti t lem en t.” (d iscussing D ars tv. Int e rs t at eBr ands Corp. , 51 2 F
. 3d 903, 911-12 (7th Cir. 2008))). T h e r efore, the critical inq uiry to thi s d i spute tur ns o n the defini ti on o ftr eat m ent. The di st r i ctc o ur t an d C&D a g r ee th atJ o ne s’ s m o r ni ng er r an d s d o n o tc o n s t i t u t e t r e a t me n ta s a ma t t e ro fl a w, whi l e J o ne s ar g ue s th at r ec ei pt o f th e pr es cr i pti o nre fi l lnot e qual i fi es. The FM L A doe s no t ex pl i ci tly de fi ne t r ea tment, b utthe DO L r e g u l a t i o n s s e e mi n g l y a t t e mpt to do s o i n t wo differ ent pr ovi si ons. S ecti on 8 25. 115 defines “ tr eat m ent” and § 82 5. 113( c) defi nes b oth “tr eat m ent” and “a re gi m en8 N o. 11

- 3400 ofco nti nuing tr eat m ent. ” The question fo r us i s whether these treatm ent defi ni ti ons can be appli ed to § 825. 123 to deter m i ne wh ether“t re atm ent” preve nt ed J ones fro m per f o r m i ngthe func ti o ns o fhi s po si ti o n. W e be g i n b y no ting th atthe DOL, i n 2 9 C. F
. R. § 82 5. 11 3( a) , pa r r o ts the Act ’ s defi ni ti o n o fa “ se r i o us heal th co nd i ti on, ” e x cept t o note that§ 825. 114 further defines “ i npati ent c ar e” w hi l e § 82 5.1 15 furtherdefi nes “c o nt i nui ngt r ea tment
. ” S ecti o n 8 25
. 11 5 th enl i st s th e w ays in w hich an em p loyee can prov e th a t she su ffers fr o m a s er ious he al thc o ndi ti o n r equi r i ngc o nt i nui ng tr eat m ent. Bu t i m port antl y f or thi s case , § 825. 11 5 d oes not defin e w h at const i tutes such t re atm ent. In other w or d s, Jon es ’s p ain an d an x i e t y m ay co n st itu te a c h ro n ic c on d itio n req u iri n g c on tin u in g t re at m en t, see2 9 C. F
. R. § 825.115( c), bu t tha t sub sect ion i s not h elpfu l in d eterm i ni ngwhethe rJ o ne s ac tu al l y re ce i ve d m edi ca lt r ea tment tha tp r e v e nt e d h i m f ro m pe r f o r mi ngh i s j o b du t i e s . And , th e c as es Jon es at te m p ts to rely u p on ge n er ally on ly di sc us s whethe rthe e m pl o y ee ha s a se r i o us health c o ndi ti o n r equi r i ngc o nti nui ngt r ea tment

— an el em ent no t a t iss u e h er e. Se e, e . g. , S t e ve ns on v. HyreEle c. Co. , 50 5 F
. 3d 72 0, 72 7- 2 8 ( 7 th C ir. 20 07 ); Ha rrell v. Jaco bs Field Servs. N
. Am
. , Inc. , N o . 0 9

- CV

- 0 2 3 2 0 , 2 0 1 1 WL 3 0 4 4 8 6 3 , a t* 5 ( C. D. Ill. Ju ly 2 5, 20 11 ); Bard wel l v. Glob al San t aFe D r i l l i ng C o. , N o. H

- 06- 0171 , 2007 W L 24468 01, at* 13 ( S. D. Tex. A ug. 23 , 20 07 ); Whee le r v. P ionee r D eve lopm ent al S ervs. , Inc. , 34 9 F. S up p. 2d 15 8, 1 65 (D
. M ass . 20 04)
. S ecti on 8 25. 115 brings us no cl ose r to und er sta nd i ng the te rm “t re atm ent” as used i n § 8 25. 123.N o. 11

- 3400 9 A t firs t b lu sh , th e d efin itio n of “t re at m en t” in § 8 25. 113(c ) appears m or e pr om i si ng ( the pr ovi si on begins by stating, “Th e term ‘treatm e nt ’ inc lud es . . . . ”). J o ne s as k s us t o a ppl y a po r ti on of § 8 25
. 11 3( c) t o o ur deter m i nati on o fwh etherhe r ece i ved tr eat m ent that preve nted hi m fro m perf or m i ng hi s j ob. S peci fi cal l y, J ones poi nts t o the l anguage i n thi s pro vi si on th at sugge sts that “a cour se ofpre scr i pti on m edi cati on” const i tutes tr eat m ent. B u t, J ones o ver l oo ks a m or e nuanced

— an d accura te

— r ea di ngo fthi s pr o vi si o n. The DO L defi nes b oth “ tr eat m ent” and “a r egi m en o f continuing tr ea tm en t” i n 29 C.F
. R. § 825. 113( c)
. The fi rs t tw o sente nces ofthat subse cti on s ugges t that “ tr eat m ent” i nc l ude s ex ami na ti o ns a nd e va l ua ti o ns o fa “ se r i o us h e a l th c o n d i t i o n, ” b u te x c l u d e s r o u t i n e p h y s i c a le x a mi na ti o ns . The l as t two s en te nc es of§ 8 25
. 11 3( c) de fi ne “a regim en o fco nti nuing tr eat m ent, ” a s incl ud i ng “a c ou rs e o f p re sc ri p t ion m ed ica tio n,” b u t n otn ec es sa rily tho s e a c t i v i t i e s tha t c a n b e “ i ni t i a t e d wi tho ut a vi si t t o a he al thc ar e pr o vide r. ” J o ne s po i nt s to the pr es cr i pti o nm edi cati on r efer ence as ev i dence thathe r ecei ved F M LA t r ea tment, b uta s al r ea dy i ndi ca ted, the “ r eg i m en of

- continuing- tr eat m ent, ” l i ke the “ continuing- tr eat m ent” d efi nition, i s only use fu l for d eterm ining w he th er a
“ s e r i o u s h e a l th c o n d i t i o n ” e x i s t s . A n d th e r e i s s o me l o g i c t o thi s di s t i nc t i o n. Intui t i v e l y, a c o ur s e o fp r e s c r i pti on m edi ci ne i s e vi den c e th at an em plo yee suffer s fro m a se r i o us medi ca lc o ndi tion r equi r i ngc o nt i nuo us tr ea tment

— th ati s, the medi cine i s des i g ne d t o t r ea t th e co ndi ti o n. But, t ak i ngprescri pti o n medi cine i s no t i ndi ca t i v e o fwh e th e ra n e mpl o y e e r e c e i v e s t r e a t me nt10 N o. 11

- 3400 th at p re ve n ts h er from p er for m i n g h er j ob . M an y c h ro n ic co ndi ti o ns r equi r e a co ur se o fpr es cr i pti o n medicatio n, but the FM LA r equi re s so m ething m or e foran e m plo yee to beco m e e nti tl ed to l eave

— i nabi l i ty to perf orm her j ob func ti o ns . A co ur se o fpr es cr i pti o n medi ca ti o n a nd an i nabi l i ty to perf or m a j ob ar e no t m utual l y e xcl usi ve. Thi s di st i nc ti o n squa r es wi tho ure ar l i eri nt er pr et at i o ns o f“ tr ea tment
. ” I n D ars tv. Int e rs t at eBr ands Corp. , we f o und th at“ tr ea tment ” do es no t i nc l ude a ct i o ns s uch a s ca l l i ng to m ake an a pp oi ntm ent o r scheduling subs tanc eab us e r eh ab i l i ta ti o n. 5 12 F
. 3d at9 11
. Ins te ad, t r ea tment “i ncl ud e[ s] exam i nati ons to deter m ine i fa ser i ous he al th c on d itio n ex ist s a n d ev alu at i on of th e c on d itio n .” Id. D arst ’ s inter preta ti on i s in l i ne with the defi ni ti on of“t re atm en t” a s used i n the fi rs t tw o sente nces of § 8 25 .11 3(c ). See a lso Ridi ngs , 537 F. 3d at 770. That br i ngs us backto J ones ’ s Octo ber1 abse nce. T h a tmo r n i n g, J o n e s r e t r i e v e d h i s p a y c h e c kfr o m C &D and vi si ted D r. Lubak’ s cl i ni c to ensur e hi s r efer ra l t o a no the rl ab wa s i n o r der. H e a l s o o b t a i ne d a presc ri pti on - re fi l lnot e. J ones ’ s fi rs t tw o acti vi ti es pla i nl y do not const i tute tr eat m ent tha t o ther w i se preve n te d h im from w or kin g t h at m or n in g. See D a rst, 51 2 F
. 3d at9 11
. Nordo es me rely pi ck i ngup a pr es cr i pti o nrefi llnote. A lthou gh w e can env isi on a sc e n ario w he re ob ta in in g a p r e s c rip tio n n ot e in co n n ec tio n w ith a p h ys ici an’ s e xam i nati on m i ght c on sti tute tr eat m ent, thi s ca se does not approach that hyp ot h eti cal

. H er e, Dr. Lubak ne ve re va l ua te d o rexa m i ne d J o ne s, a nd J o ne s ev enc o nc ed ed i n a deposi ti on that he w as never“physi callyN o. 11

- 3400 11

ex am ined ” tha t m orning . J one s arrived at D r. Lu bak’s cl i ni c unannounced and app ear ed onl y t o bri efly speak w i th hi s physi ci an i n the offi ce l obby

. The enti re ty o fJ o ne s’ s i nt er ac ti o n wi thDr
. Lubakc o ns i st ed o fthe p hy sician’s acq uiesc en ce to refi lla presc riptio n. Th ere i s si m pl y no e vi den ce tha t Jon es was e xa m i ne d, a nd th er efo re tre at e d , th at m or n in g. See29 C
. F.R. § 825.113(c). U l ti m ate l y, J ones ’ s pre scr i pti on- re fi l lnot e m i ght b e ev i den ce o fhi s ne ed f o rc o nt i nui ngt r eatm ent

— w hi ch on ly su gg es ts th at Jon es h as a ser iou s he a l t h c on d iti on

— but, i t i s no t ev i den ce tha t he r ec ei ve d t r ea tment that re quir ed hi m to be abse nt fro m work th at m or ni ng. Se ei d. § 825. 123( a)
. A ccor dingl y, we fi nd thatJ ones did notr ecei ve tr eat m ent o n the m or ni ng o fOctobe r 1, and ther ef or e, he was notenti tl ed to ta ke FM LA l eave a s a ma t t e ro fl a w.
III. C ON CLU SI ON Forthe f or eg oing re aso ns, we A FFIRM the dist ri ct c o u r t ’ s g r a n to fs u mma r y j u d g me n ti n f a v o ro fC &D Technol ogi es.

6- 28- 12