Medical Leave – Is One Certification Enough?

The Supreme Court of California Provides Guidance On Medical Leave Certification And Working A Similar Job For Another Employer During A Medical Leave Of Absence

On April 7, 2008 the California Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Lonicki v. Sutter Health Central. In a fractured 3-3-1 decision, the Court held that an employer is not precluded from challenging an employee’s serious health condition simply because the employer did not obtain a third opinion regarding the employee’s condition. The Court also held that an employee’s ability to continue to perform a similar job on a part-time basis for another employer following a request for leave is not conclusive evidence that the employee is able to perform the same work for the original employer.

The Claims

Antonina Lonicki was employed as a certified technician in a hospital’s sterile processing department. Following a variety of departmental changes, and a change in her shift hours, Lonicki became too upset to work and went home. The director of Lonicki’s department requested that she obtain medical authorization for her absence. When she contacted her primary care physician, Lonicki was told to meet with a family nurse practitioner, who concluded that she should be off of work for one month, and should begin seeing a therapist. Lonicki submitted a request for medical leave of absence.

In response to the request, the employer directed Lonicki to see an occupational health physician of its choosing. That doctor concluded Lonicki could return to work without restrictions. On the basis of this evaluation, the employer directed Lonicki to return to work or face dismissal.

Following a subsequent consultation with her primary care physician, and a referral to a psychologist, Lonicki advised the employer that she would remain out of work for another two weeks. The employer told Lonicki that she would be allowed to take a more limited period of paid time off, but she would not be provided with medical leave.

Lonicki then consulted a psychiatrist who concluded that she was “disabled by major depression” and that she needed to be off of work for one month from the date of examination. When Lonicki presented the employer with the psychiatrist’s note, she was informed that she had been terminated for failure to appear at work. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the employer failed to comply with the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) (Cal. Gov’t Code §12945.2) when questioning the validity of Lonicki’s absence.

During the above period of time, Lonicki continued to work a similar, part-time job at another hospital.