Opinion ID: 3004568
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Proving Incapacity

Text: Hansen argues that the district court erred in deciding that a plaintiff needs expert testimony to prove that he was incapacitated each day for which he requested FMLA leave due to his serious health condition. Hansen did not identify No. 13-3391 11 Dr. Post as an expert witness; he is a fact witness only. Hansen has no expert witness for trial. FMG relies on Caskey v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 535 F.3d 585, 591 (7th Cir. 2008), and Haefling v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 169 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 1999), to support its argument that Hansen needed expert testimony to establish entitlement to FMLA leave, specifically to prove incapacity on the days at issue. But neither case provides such support. Instead, they stand for the unsurprising proposition that a plaintiff needs some medical evidence to establish a serious health condition. See Caskey, 535 F.3d at 591 (concluding that plaintiff’s “general testimony that her condition was serious is insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact” as to whether she had a serious health condition entitling her to FMLA leave); Haefling, 169 F.3d at 500–01 (concluding the evidence was insufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether plaintiff suffered from a serious health condition where plaintiff had no affidavit from his doctor or any other medical personnel demonstrating the necessity of the treatments he allegedly received; plaintiff’s own testimony regarding the severity of his condition and the treatment it required were insufficient to raise an issue of fact). FMG cites no controlling authority directly on the issue of whether an employee’s initial medical certification is sufficient to make out a prima face case for FMLA leave, or whether expert testimony is required to establish incapacity where the employee suffers from a chronic condition like depression. Indeed, in Haefling, we looked to the plaintiff’s own diary and his deposition testimony in addressing whether he could establish a genuine issue of fact as to his incapacity. 169 F.3d at 499–500. Thus, Haefling actually supports Hansen’s view that he does not need expert testimony to establish incapacity. 12 No. 13-3391 Other circuits have held that lay testimony combined with medical testimony raises a genuine issue of material fact as to incapacity. See Schaar v. Lehigh Valley Health Servs., Inc., 598 F.3d 156, 161 (3d Cir. 2010) (holding that “[s]ome medical evidence is still necessary” and that an employee can create a genuine issue of material fact as to incapacity “through a combination of expert medical and lay testimony”); Rankin v. Seagate Techs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1145, 1148–49 (8th Cir. 2001) (holding that plaintiff’s own affidavit testimony that she was “too sick to work” and her testimony concerning her conversation with nurses about her condition combined with her medical records created a genuine issue of material fact regarding her incapacity). Two other circuits have gone further and have held that lay testimony alone is sufficient to create a genuine issue as to incapacity; expert testimony is not required. Lubke v. City of Arlington, 455 F.3d 489, 495–96 (5th Cir. 2006) (holding expert testimony was not necessary to demonstrate plaintiff’s incapacity); Marchisheck v. San Mateo Cnty., 199 F.3d 1068, 1074 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding plaintiff’s declaration that “I just did not and could not do anything for four or five days” creates “a disputed issue of fact and precludes summary judgment on the issue of ‘incapacity’” notwithstanding medical evidence to the contrary). But see Culpepper v. BlueCross BlueShield of Tenn., 321 F. App’x 491, 496–97 (6th Cir. 2009) (holding that the plaintiff’s “own subjective testimony that she was too sore from surgery to work” was insufficient to establish that her absences were covered by the FMLA where her medical certification stated that she would need to be absent from work for two episodes of incapacity lasting three days each). The district court relied on Price v. City of Fort Wayne, 117 F.3d 1022 (7th Cir. 1997), to support its conclusion that HanNo. 13-3391 13 sen needed medical testimony to establish incapacity on the specific days in question. But Price does not require medical testimony to prove incapacity; the issue there was whether the plaintiff’s multiple diagnoses gave rise to a serious health condition. Id. at 1025. It was undisputed that the plaintiff was incapacitated by her multiple illnesses. See id. Dr. Post’s medical certification establishes that Hansen has a serious health condition, and FMG has not contested that certification. Moreover, the regulations addressing “continuing treatment” and “intermittent leave or reduced leave schedules” anticipate that the determination whether an employee is unable to work due to a serious health condition would not necessarily be made by a medical professional. The “continuing treatment” regulation provides that “[a]bsences attributable to incapacity … [due to a chronic serious health condition] qualify for FMLA leave even though the employee … does not receive treatment from a health care provider during the absence.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.115(f). As an example, “an employee with asthma may be unable to report for work due to the onset of an asthma attack.” Id. Another example: “An employee who is pregnant may be unable to report to work because of severe morning sickness.” Id. In neither example would the employee necessarily seek treatment from a health care provider. The “intermittent leave” regulation similarly provides that “[i]ntermittent … leave may be taken for absences where the employee … is incapacitated or unable to perform the essential functions of the position because of a chronic serious health condition …, even if he or she does not receive treatment by a health care provider.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.202(b)(2). If the employee does not visit a health care provider during the flare-up of the chronic condition 14 No. 13-3391 such as depression, the health care provider would not have any personal knowledge about the employee’s claimed incapacity that day. There would be no medical testimony about the incapacity on that particular day and the only available evidence to prove incapacity would be lay testimony. Thus, the regulations support the conclusion that incapacity can be established by lay testimony and expert medical testimony is not required to prove the incapacity. The district court erred in determining that Hansen was required to present expert testimony to prove that his chronic serious health condition rendered him unable to work on the days in question. And Hansen has presented medical documentation—his certification from Dr. Post—on the question of incapacity. Even FMG acknowledges that the medical certification can constitute evidence that the employee’s absences are FMLA qualifying. See Appellee’s Br. 32–33.