Opinion ID: 2975824
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Back Injury as an FMLA-qualifying Condition

Text: The FMLA permits qualifying employees to take twelve weeks of unpaid leave each year if, among other things, the employee suffers from a “serious health condition that makes [her] unable to perform the functions of [her] position[.]” 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(D). A “serious health condition” is defined as “an illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition that involves (A) inpatient care in a hospital, hospice, or residential medical care facility or (B) continuing treatment by a health care provider.” 29 U.S.C. § 2611(11). The employer may require an employee 2 Novak does not raise the FMLA retaliation claim on appeal, nor does she raise the merits of her state law claims. No. 06-3036 Novak v. MetroHealth Medical Center Page 5 to provide a doctor’s certification confirming the existence of a serious health condition. 29 U.S.C. § 2613(a). A doctor’s certification of a serious health condition is sufficient if it states (1) the date on which the serious health condition began, (2) the probable duration of the condition, (3) the appropriate medical facts within the health care provider’s knowledge, and (4) a statement that the employee is unable to perform her job duties. Brenneman, 366 F.3d at 422 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 2613(b)). While “the medical certification provided by the employee is presumptively valid if it contains the required information and is signed by the health care provider,” the employer may overcome this presumption by showing that “the certification is invalid or inauthentic.” Harcourt v. Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co., 383 F. Supp. 2d 944, 955-56 (S.D. Ohio 2005) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 825.307(a)). The district court found that the “suspicious and contradictory nature” of Novak’s certification forms belied her contention that she suffered from a serious health condition. We agree that Novak’s certification forms were insufficient to establish the existence of a serious health condition for purposes of FMLA. Dr. Wloszek’s first certification form did not contain the date on which the serious health condition began, the probable duration of the condition, or the appropriate medical facts within the health care provider’s knowledge; as a result, this certification was not sufficient under 29 U.S.C. § 2613(b), and MetroHealth was not required to credit it. Dr. Wloszek’s second certification form was completed by her assistant at the insistence of Novak and was not authorized by Dr. Wloszek; because its contents were not authorized by a physician, MetroHealth satisfied its burden in demonstrating that the certification was not authentic. Finally, Dr. Wloszek’s third certification form acknowledged that Dr. Patil, not Dr. Wloszek, had treated Novak in March 2004. Moreover, Dr. Wloszek informed MetroHealth that she had not examined Novak since October 2003, had no personal knowledge of Novak’s current condition, and relied solely on what Novak relayed about Dr. Patil’s assessment of her condition. Because MetroHealth knew Dr. Wloszek lacked personal knowledge of Novak’s current condition, MetroHealth satisfied its burden of showing that the certification was unreliable, and it acted reasonably in refusing to grant FMLA leave on that basis. Novak argues that MetroHealth should have advised her of the deficiencies in Dr. Wloszek’s certification and allowed her a reasonable opportunity to correct them. We have indeed recognized that an employer who finds an employee’s certification to be “incomplete” has a duty to inform the employee of the deficiency and provide the employee a “reasonable opportunity” to cure it. Sorrell v. Rinker Materials Corp., 395 F.3d 332, 337 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 825.305(d)); Hoffman v. Professional Med Team, 394 F.3d 414, 418 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 825.305(d)). Moreover, we have previously recognized that other courts will impose this duty on employers when the FMLA certification is merely “inadequate,” rather than “incomplete.” See Sorrell, 395 F.3d at 338 (citing Strickland v. Water Works & Sewer Bd., 239 F.3d 1199, 1209 n.12 (11th Cir. 2001); Baldwin-Love v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 307 F. Supp. 2d 1222, 1234 (M.D. Ala. 2004)). Assuming without deciding that this “duty” was triggered here, we find that MetroHealth clearly satisfied its duty to inform Novak that her certification was deficient and to provide her with a reasonable opportunity to cure the deficiency. At the first “pre-discharge” meeting, MetroHealth told Novak that Dr. Wloszek’s certification was “insufficient” and obtained Novak’s permission to contact Dr. Wloszek in order to authenticate it. See 29 C.F.R. § 825.307(a) (“[A] health care provider representing the employer may contact the employee’s health care provider, with the employee’s permission, for purposes of clarification and authenticity of the medical certification.”). MetroHealth also granted Novak an extra week to obtain additional certifications. During the oneweek extension, Novak submitted three more certifications — one from Dr. Schubeck regarding her daughter’s postpartum depression, one from Dr. Massie-Story regarding her grandson’s illness, and another from Dr. Wloszek regarding her back injury. Although the regulations do not define what constitutes a “reasonable opportunity” to cure certification deficiencies, we do not hesitate to hold No. 06-3036 Novak v. MetroHealth Medical Center Page 6 that MetroHealth satisfied its duty by seeking to authenticate Novak’s previously submitted certification forms and by permitting Novak to submit three additional forms. Novak next argues that if MetroHealth was not satisfied with the certification provided by Dr. Wloszek, it should have sought a second opinion before denying her leave, and having failed to do so, was precluded from thereafter challenging her certification. The FMLA states that an “employer [who] has reason to doubt the validity of the [employee’s] certification . . . may require, at the expense of the employer, that the eligible employee obtain the opinion of a second health care provider[.]” 29 U.S.C. § 2613(c)(1) (emphasis added). We have previously recognized that the language in 29 U.S.C. § 2613(c)(1) is “merely permissive” and does not “impose[] an affirmative duty on an employer.” See Sorrell, 395 F.3d at 337. Other circuits addressing this issue have similarly found that an employer that foregoes its right to a second opinion is not thereafter precluded from contesting the validity of an employee’s serious health condition. See Rhoads v. FDIC, 257 F.3d 373, 386 (4th Cir. 2001) (noting that “the plain language of the [FMLA] does not suggest that an employer must pursue [a second opinion] or be forever foreclosed from challenging whether an employee suffered from a serious health condition”); Stekloff v. St. John’s Mercy Health Sys., 218 F.3d 858, 860 (8th Cir. 2000) (refusing to “read § 2613(c)(1) as requiring an employer to obtain a second opinion or else waive any future opportunity to contest the validity of the certification”). But see Sims v. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit Dist., 2 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 1255 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (holding that “where the employer did not seek a subsequent medical opinion within a reasonable time period after the employee submitted his initial certification of a serious health condition, the employer may not now challenge . . . the validity of the initial medical certification submitted by the employee”). We continue to view the language of 29 U.S.C. § 2613(c)(1) as merely permissive; therefore an employer’s failure to require a second certification does not preclude the employer from contesting the employee’s certification. We find Novak’s argument to the contrary meritless. Finally, Novak contends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to MetroHealth because there is a factual dispute as to whether MetroHealth’s Manager Whitney told Novak that she must submit a certification form from Dr. Wloszek, rather than her new doctor, Dr. Patil. She further argues that it is fundamentally unfair for MetroHealth to insist that she obtain certification from Dr. Wlosezek, who was no longer her treating physician, and then reject that certification because Dr. Wloszek lacked personal knowledge of her recent back problems. We conclude that Novak has not created a genuine issue of material fact. In Novak’s deposition, MetroHealth’s counsel repeatedly asked her about Whitney’s statement that the certification form must come from Dr. Wloszek. Novak’s responses to these inquiries were wholly inadequate to create a genuine issue of fact. She evaded nearly every question, and in those few instances where she was responsive, her answers were virtually unintelligble and utterly contradictory. She first stated that Whitney told her of the certification requirement on April 9, but this date was after Dr. Wloszek had already submitted two certification forms on her behalf. Realizing the problematic timing of this date, Novak attempted to retreat but ultimately failed to give an alternative explanation. We therefore conclude that her deposition testimony failed to raise a genuine issue as to this fact. In any event, this fact is not material to our resolution of this case. Novak never attempted to submit a certification form completed by Dr. Patil, nor does she indicate that Dr. Patil was willing to provide such certification. More troubling is the fact that Novak had never visited Dr. Patil before March 30, but she sought certification for FMLA leave beginning on March 22. Because March 30 is the first time Dr. Patil examined Novak, it is doubtful that he could have attested to her back condition on March 22. Furthermore, Novak did not complain to MetroHealth of back problems on March 30 or March 31; instead her stated reason for not reporting to work on those days was that she needed to care for her daughter and grandson. Therefore, even assuming that MetroHealth refused to accept certification from Dr. Patil, that fact is immaterial because Novak neither provided No. 06-3036 Novak v. MetroHealth Medical Center Page 7 certification from Dr. Patil nor indicated that he was willing to provide certification, and given the timing of Dr. Patil’s treatment of her and her contradictory reasons for missing work, it is doubtful that he would have been able to provide adequate certification. We find no error in the district court’s conclusion that Novak was not entitled to FMLA leave because of a serious health condition. 2. Care for an Adult Child as an FMLA-qualifying Reason to Miss Work Novak alternatively sought FMLA leave to care for her 18-year-old daughter, Victoria, who was suffering from a short-term struggle with postpartum depression.3 The FMLA permits an employee to take leave from work to care for a parent, spouse, or child suffering from a serious health condition. 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(C). The FMLA authorizes leave to care for a child 18 years of age or older only if the child is suffering from a serious health condition and “incapable of self-care because of a mental or physical disability.” 29 U.S.C. § 2611(12)(B). Notably, Novak did not provide any evidence or medical certification that Victoria was in fact unable to care for herself; rather, the certification and Victoria’s testimony all related to Victoria’s difficulty in caring for her newborn child (i.e., Novak’s grandchild). But the FMLA does not entitle an employee to leave in order to care for a grandchild. Novak nevertheless contends that her daughter’s temporary bout with postpartum depression amounted to a “mental or physical disability,” and thus she was entitled to FMLA leave to care for her. We conclude that Victoria’s postpartum depression did not constitute a “disability,” as that term is defined under the FMLA, and therefore the FMLA did not authorize Novak’s leave to care for her. According to the FMLA regulations set forth by the Secretary of Labor, “physical or mental disability,” as used in 29 U.S.C. § 2611(12)(B), means a “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of an individual,” as these terms are defined by the regulations for the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). 29 C.F.R. § 825.113(c)(2). In other words, an employee may take FMLA leave to care for an adult child only if that child is “disabled” for purposes of the ADA. We must therefore evaluate the adult child’s condition under the ADA statute, regulations, and case law. The issue of whether Victoria is disabled turns on whether her impairment — i.e., postpartum depression — substantially limited her in a major life activity.4 The ADA regulations provide that an individual is “substantially limit[ed]” in a major life activity if she is unable to perform or significantly restricted as to the condition, manner, or duration in which she performs a major life activity. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1). The term “substantial” suggests a “considerable” or “large” limitation. Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 196 (2002). When determining whether an individual is substantially limited in performing a major life activity, courts should consider three factors: (1) the nature and severity of the impairment; (2) the duration or expected duration of the impairment, and (3) the permanent or long-term impact of the impairment. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2); see also MX Group, Inc. v. City of Covington, 293 F.3d 326, 338 (6th Cir. 2002) (noting that an evaluation of “substantial 3 In Victoria’s affidavit, she states that her postpartum depression was preceded and partially caused by the posttraumatic stress syndrome she experienced after being held-up at gunpoint during the eighth month of her pregnancy. Because Dr. Schubeck’s certification form attests only to postpartum depression, and not post-traumatic stress syndrome, we will confine our inquiry accordingly. Even if we were to consider Victoria’s post-traumatic stress syndrome, it would not affect the outcome of this case because Victoria acknowledged that her post-traumatic stress syndrome, like her postpartum depression, was short lived, expressly stating that she was “better” within “a couple of weeks.” 4 Novak does not allege which “major life activity” was substantially limited by Victoria’s postpartum depression. We will assume for purposes of our analysis that Novak intends to argue that Victoria was substantially limited in the major life activity of caring for herself. See Moorer v. Baptist Mem’l Health Care Sys., 398 F.3d 469, 479 (6th Cir. 2005) (noting that major life activities include “functions such as caring for oneself”) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)). No. 06-3036 Novak v. MetroHealth Medical Center Page 8 impairment” requires “an assessment of the severity and long-term impact of the impairment”). The EEOC’s interpretive guidance for the ADA provides that “temporary, non-chronic impairments of short duration, with little or no long term or permanent impact, are usually not disabilities.” 29 C.F.R. Pt. 1630, App § 1630.2(j). Similarly, the Supreme Court and this circuit have recognized that an impairment generally must be “permanent or long-term” to qualify as substantially limiting under the ADA. See, e.g., Toyota Motor, 534 U.S. at 198 (holding that an impairment in performing manual tasks must be “permanent or long term” in order to qualify as a substantial limitation); Hein v. All Am. Plywood Co., 232 F.3d 482, 487 (6th Cir. 2000) (noting that “short-term temporary restrictions on major life activities are generally not disabilities under the ADA”). We conclude, based on our evaluation of all the relevant factors, that Novak’s daughter, Victoria, was not substantially limited in any major life activities — such as the activity of caring for oneself — and therefore was not disabled for purposes of the FMLA. First, Novak has not presented sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that Victoria’s impairment was severe. Other than Dr. Schubeck’s certification form, the sum total of the evidence regarding Victoria’s claimed disability is her testimony that she could not “follow the doctor’s orders without some help” and that she was afraid she might “freak out and not know how to deal with a newborn.” This nonspecific, nonexpert testimony is insufficient grounds upon which to find that Victoria’s impairment was severe. Second, the undisputed facts clearly show that Victoria’s condition lasted only a week or two. Dr. Schubeck’s certification form recognized that Victoria’s postpartum depression would last only for a one-week period, and Victoria’s own affidavit acknowledged that she was “better” within “a couple weeks.” Such a short-term restriction on a major life activity generally does not constitute a disability. See Hein, 232 F.3d at 487. Third, Novak has not produced any evidence indicating that Victoria’s postpartum depression inflicted any permanent or long-term impact on her health. In fact, the record evidence is to the contrary, demonstrating that Victoria recovered in a short period of time, and giving no indication that she endured any long-term adverse effects. Because Novak has not established that her adult daughter suffered from a disability, the FMLA does not authorize Novak’s leave to care for her. Novak argues that we should follow the First Circuit’s decision in Navarro v. Pfizer Corp., 261 F.3d 90, 101 (1st Cir. 2001). Without expressing an opinion on the First Circuit’s decision in that case, we note that even if we were to adopt the First Circuit’s position in that case, it would not alter our conclusions here. The court in Navarro declared that the EEOC’s interpretive guidance for the ADA — stating that temporary, non-chronic impairments of short duration are usually not disabilities, see 29 C.F.R. Pt. 1630, App § 1630.2(j) — “cannot be applied to the FMLA because it clashes with the underlying purposes of [that] statute.” Navarro, 261 F.3d at 101. But the Navarro decision also recognized that “the duration of an impairment is one of several factors that should be considered in determining the existence of a disability under the FMLA.” Id. at 103 (emphasis added). Our analysis considered all of the prescribed factors (i.e., severity, duration, and long-term impact) — not just the temporary, non-chronic nature of Victoria’s impairment — and concluded, in light of all those factors, that Novak had not produced enough evidence for a jury to find that Victoria was disabled. Thus, even if we were to adopt Navarro’s invalidation of the EEOC’s interpretive guidance — an issue that we need not and do not address — it would not compel a ruling in Novak’s favor. In short, we note that Congress, when enacting the FMLA, differentiated between children under the age of 18 and children 18 years of age or older in defining those persons for whose care an employee is entitled to take leave from work. That difference is defined in terms of “disability.” See 29 U.S.C. § 2611(12) (defining “child” for purposes of FMLA leave as (1) a child “under 18 years of age” or (2) a child “18 years of age or older and incapable of self-care because of a mental or physical disability”); S. Rep. No. 103-3, at 22 (1993), reprinted in 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3, 24 (recognizing that “in special circumstances, where a child has a mental or physical disability, a child’s need for parental care may not end when he or she reaches 18 years of age”). Whatever No. 06-3036 Novak v. MetroHealth Medical Center Page 9 Congress’s reasons for limiting FMLA leave for purposes of caring for one’s child to minor children or adult children who are disabled, the limitation itself is clear. Here, Novak sought leave to care for Victoria — her non-disabled adult child — but it is clear, under the statutory system constructed by Congress, that Novak is not entitled to FMLA leave for such purposes. Accordingly, we find no error in the district court’s conclusion that Novak was not entitled to FMLA leave. B. District Court’s Dismissal of Novak’s State Law Claims After dismissing Novak’s federal FMLA claims, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims. We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Landefeld v. Marion Gen. Hosp., Inc., 994 F.2d 1178, 1182 (6th Cir. 1993). A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). “When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the balance of considerations usually will point to dismissing the state law claims, or remanding them to state court if the action was removed.” Musson Theatrical v. Federal Express Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1254-55 (6th Cir. 1996). Because the district court dismissed Novak’s federal claims, the court could properly refuse to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendant state law claims. In cases that have been removed to federal court, however, we have recognized that “when all federal claims have been dismissed before trial, the best course is to remand the state law claims to the state court from which the case was removed.” Thurman v. Daimler Chrysler, Inc., 397 F.3d 352, 359 (6th Cir. 2004). Because the district court should have remanded Novak’s state law claims, rather than dismissing them, we vacate the dismissal of her state law claims so that those claims may be remanded to the state court from whence they came (i.e., the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas).