Opinion ID: 2981772
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Request for medical recertification

Text: An employer may “require that [an] eligible employee obtain subsequent [medical] recertifications on a reasonable basis.” 29 U.S.C. § 2613(e) (emphasis added). That which constitutes a “reasonable basis” is undefined by the FMLA itself. It is expanded upon, however, in the relevant regulations. Generally, an employer cannot request recertification more often than every 30 days “and only in connection with an absence by the employee.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.308(a). However, recertification may be requested more frequently if “[c]ircumstances described by the previous certification have changed significantly (e.g., the duration or frequency of the absence, the nature or severity of the illness, complications).” 29 C.F.R. § 825.308(c)(2). The following example is provided: -7- [I]f a medical certification stated that an employee would need leave for one to two days when the employee suffered a migraine headache and the employee’s absences for his or her last two migraines lasted four days each, then the increased duration of absence might constitute a significant change in circumstances allowing the employer to request a recertification in less than 30 days. Id. If the employer requests recertification, the employee has 15 calendar days to obtain the appropriate documentation. See 29 C.F.R. § 825.305(b); see also 29 C.F.R. § 825.308(d).1 “At the time the employer requests certification [or recertification, it] must also advise an employee of the anticipated consequences of an employee’s failure to provide [it].” 29 C.F.R. § 825.305(d). The employer may deny the employee FMLA leave if the employee fails to submit medical certification (as long as the request complies with the FMLA). Id.; see also 29 C.F.R. § 825.313(c). While the original certification request must be in writing, “[a]n employer’s oral request to an employee to furnish any subsequent certification is sufficient.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.305(a). We agree with the district court’s ruling as to the reasonableness of BCBST’s request for recertification after Graham’s 28 consecutive absences, in that they constituted “significantly changed circumstances” under the applicable regulation. See 29 C.F.R. § 825.308(c)(2). As the district court observed, this period of absenteeism was twice as long as Graham’s longest previous episode in March 2007. Cf. Andrews v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. 3:06-cv-704-J-32HTS, 2009 WL 5176462, at  (M.D. Fla. Dec. 22, 2009) (finding the employer’s recertification request to be reasonable where the employee, who was approved for intermittent leave of an “unknown” duration, incurred 24 absences, which was “a significant up-tick in [her] use of FMLA leave time”). 1 Although it is not entirely clear from Graham’s deposition when in September she became aware of the need for recertification, she does not argue that she was given inadequate time to respond, only that she was not required to provide recertification. -8- Graham contends, however, that the district court’s grant of summary judgment was inappropriate because it overlooked the assertion in her affidavit (and referenced in her response to BCBST’s statement of undisputed facts) that she was not notified of the need to submit additional medical certification. The district court, however, based its decision on Graham’s deposition testimony that by September 2010, she was aware BCBST considered her initial medical certification inadequate to support the number of absences she had accrued. Graham’s argument appears to be based on a belief that BCBST was required to request recertification in written form. However, an oral request for subsequent certification is permissible under the applicable regulation. See 29 C.F.R. § 825.305(a). Therefore, even assuming that Graham did not receive written notice, she was sufficiently alerted to the need for recertification and to the fact that her employment was in jeopardy if it was not provided. As to the alleged factual discrepancy between whether Graham had several meetings with her supervisors, Graham admitted in her deposition to engaging in such meetings, although she contended that they occurred closer to the date on which she was terminated. Furthermore, she noted that during the time period leading up to her termination, her supervisors asked whether she was obtaining the necessary information from her doctors. To the extent that the statement in Graham’s affidavit contradicts BCBST’s assertions, we do not read it to create a genuine issue of material fact. The general rule is that “[a] party may not create a factual issue by filing an affidavit, after a motion for summary judgment has been made, which contradicts her earlier deposition testimony,” Reid v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 790 F.2d 453, 460 (6th Cir. 1986), and Graham provides no justification for any conflict between her two statements. Cf. Aerel, S.R.L. v. PCC Airfoils, L.L.C., 448 F.3d 899, 908 (6th Cir. 2006) (holding that an affidavit filed after a motion for summary judgment that directly -9- contradicts prior sworn testimony “should be stricken unless the party opposing summary judgment provides a persuasive justification for the contradiction”). Moreover, Graham was aware that her employer required additional medical certification before it would designate her absences as FMLA leave. The manner in which this information was imparted is not dispositive in this case. We pause to note, as did the district court, that the initial request for recertification occurred after only seven monthly absences, a request made pursuant to BCBST’s FMLA policy. Although it is possible that such a blanket policy may not comport with the FMLA, the district court found the 28-day stretch of absences to be operative in this case. Because we also base our decision on this consecutive period of absences, it is unnecessary to consider the propriety of BCBST’s policy. If an employee fails to provide the requested recertification, “the leave is not FMLA leave.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.313(c). Under these circumstances, BCBST was justified in concluding that the absences at issue were not FMLA leave based on Graham’s failure to provide the necessary recertification. BCBST could therefore properly count the days after which recertification was necessary in support of Graham’s termination.