Opinion ID: 776851
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: To Care For

Text: 34 Although the FMLA does not define the phrase to care for, the interim regulations discuss what it means that an employee is needed to care for a family member: 35 The medical certification provision that an employee is needed to care for a family member encompasses both physical and psychological care. It includes situations where, for example, because of a serious health condition, the family member is unable to care for his or her own basic medical, hygienic, or nutritional needs or safety, or is unable to transport himself or herself to the doctor, etc. The term also includes providing psychological comfort and reassurance which would be beneficial to a seriously ill child or parent receiving inpatient care. 36 29 C.F.R. § 825.116(a) (1993). The final regulations clarify that the concept of care includes providing psychological comfort to those receiving inpatient or home care. See 29 C.F.R. § 825.116(a) (1995) (emphasis added). The legislative history of the FMLA underscores the significance of this type of care: 37 The phrase to care for ... is intended to be read broadly to include both physical and psychological care. Parents provide far greater psychological comfort and reassurance to a seriously ill child than others not so closely tied to the child. In some cases there is no one other than the child's parents to care for the child. The same is often true for adults caring for a seriously ill parent or spouse. 38 S.Rep. No. 103-3, at 24 (1993) reprinted in 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 26. 8 The regulations specifically contemplate situations that encompass both physical and psychological care for a family member. The interim regulations list examples of situations in which an employee may care for a family member, but the list by its terms is not all-inclusive. In addition to introducing the situations by the phrase for example, the listing ends with etc., signifying that other types of activities are contemplated. 39 While residing in Reno, Scamihorn daily talked with his father about Misty's death and he performed various chores around the house, including shoveling snow, chopping the firewood used to heat the house, clearing the backyard and cleaning the garage. Additionally, Scamihorn drove his father to counseling sessions on four or five occasions. Although Joseph Sr. stated in his deposition that during his depression he still was able to shower, dress, eat, drive, take care of medical and safety needs and engage in various daily activities without assistance from others, he later declared, I felt I needed him [Scamihorn] by me full time. 40 Albertson's argues that under the regulations, `caring for' a [family member] with a `serious health condition' involves some level of participation in ongoing treatment of that condition. Marchisheck v. San Mateo County, 199 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir.1999). In Marchisheck, we held that an employee who took a leave to help her son with alleged psychological problems could not have participated in the son's treatment because she moved him to a place where no treatment was available. Id. That is not the case here. Unlike the situation in Marchisheck, Scamihorn did not withdraw his father from treatment; Scamihorn moved to Reno precisely to be a part of that treatment. Scamihorn does not claim to have personally attended any of Joseph Sr.'s counseling sessions with Dr. Brannon or Dr. Fox, but he participated in the treatment through both his daily conversations with his father about Misty and the grief associated with her death and his constant presence in his father's life. Both Dr. Brannon and Dr. Fox emphasized this fact. 41 The regulations clearly contemplate not only the physical but, just as important, also the psychological care that seriously ill parents often require from their care-giving children. There is evidence in the record that Joseph Sr. at times was unable to complete daily tasks and it was necessary for his son to assist and comfort him. Dr. Brannon attested that: [H]is son's presence helped. As I recall it[he] helped bring wood in. I mean, there were chores around the house as well as there were other emotional things, that just having his son there seemed to help. Joseph Sr. acknowledged that [his son's] being there was invaluable to my emotional recovery. 42 The district court concluded Joseph Sr. was able to care for his own basic needs and although Scamihorn's actions were admirable, Joseph Sr. did not need his son to care for him. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Scamihorn, we believe Scamihorn raises a genuine issue regarding whether his activities were necessary because his father was at times unable to care for some of his own basic needs.