Seidle v. Provident Mutual Life Insurance
1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18281, 2 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 913, 871 F. Supp. 238 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An illness qualifies as a 'serious health condition' under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) only if it involves a period of incapacity requiring absence from regular daily activities for more than three calendar days and requires continuing treatment by or under the supervision of a health care provider, considering the present state of the illness rather than its potential dangers.
Facts:
- Audrey Seidle was employed as a Claims Examiner at Provident Mutual Life Insurance Company's subsidiary in Newark, Delaware.
- Audrey did not report to work for four consecutive days, from Tuesday, October 12, 1993, through Friday, October 15, 1993, to care for her four-year-old son, Terrance Johnson.
- On the night of October 11, Terrance awoke vomiting with a 100-degree fever and runny nose; by 2:00 a.m. on October 12, his temperature was 102 degrees.
- Audrey phoned Terrance’s pediatrician’s office early on October 12, and a staff member advised her to monitor his temperature and administer Tylenol, suggesting a visit if his condition did not improve.
- Later on October 12, Terrance was examined by Dr. Patricia Camody-Johnston for approximately 20 minutes, diagnosed with right otitis media (an ear infection), and prescribed a 10-day course of Amoxicillin.
- Dr. Johnston advised Audrey to keep Terrance home for two days and to monitor his temperature, also requesting a follow-up examination in two weeks.
- By late evening on October 12, Terrance's fever had disappeared and did not return for the rest of the week; he also stopped vomiting.
- Terrance remained home from daycare on October 13 and 14 as per the doctor's suggestion, and on October 15 because his daycare center's policy prohibited children with a runny nose, which he still had, though he had no fever or other severe symptoms.
- Audrey never scheduled or attended the recommended two-week follow-up examination with Dr. Johnston, nor did she have any further communications with a healthcare provider regarding Terrance's ear infection after the initial October 12 visit.
- When Audrey returned to work on Monday, October 18, 1993, she was informed of her termination due to excessive absenteeism.
Procedural Posture:
- Audrey Seidle (plaintiff) initiated an action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that her termination by Provident Mutual Life Insurance Company (defendant) violated the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
- The plaintiff sought back pay, reinstatement or front pay, and other remedies available under the FMLA.
- Both the plaintiff and the defendant filed cross-motions for summary judgment, limited to the issue of whether Terrance's illness constituted a 'serious health condition' within the meaning of the FMLA.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a child's ear infection (otitis media), which resulted in three days of incapacity due to illness and one day of absence due to daycare policy for a runny nose, and involved one doctor's visit and a prescribed antibiotic regimen without further medical follow-up, constitute a 'serious health condition' under the FMLA?
Opinions:
Majority - Weiner, District Judge
No, Terrance's ear infection did not constitute a 'serious health condition' within the meaning of the FMLA. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish either prong of the Department of Labor's regulatory definition for a serious health condition involving continuing treatment. First, Terrance's incapacity requiring absence from day care due to the illness itself did not last 'more than three calendar days.' He was absent on October 12, 13, and 14 due to the infection. His absence on October 15 was due to a runny nose and daycare policy, which the court determined was not an 'incapacity' under the FMLA, especially since his fever had been gone for 48 hours by then. Second, the court ruled that Terrance did not receive 'continuing treatment by (or under the supervision of) a health care provider.' Although he had one examination and a prescription for a 10-day antibiotic course, he was treated only once by Dr. Johnston, and the medication was administered by his mother without active, continuous supervision from the doctor. The court rejected expert affidavits that generally described otitis media as a 'serious medical condition' due to its potential dangers, emphasizing that the FMLA's definition focuses on the legal definition and present state of the illness, not its potential to become serious or the medical community's general understanding. Congress intended to exclude minor illnesses from FMLA coverage, reserving protection for more severe conditions.
Analysis:
This case provides a narrow interpretation of what constitutes a 'serious health condition' under the FMLA, particularly for common childhood illnesses. It strictly applies the Department of Labor's regulations, requiring both an incapacity exceeding three days and continuing, supervised medical treatment. The ruling establishes that the FMLA is not concerned with the potential severity or complications of an illness, but rather its present condition and the level of medical intervention actually received. This precedent limits employees' ability to claim FMLA leave for illnesses that, while requiring a parent's care for a few days, do not meet these stringent criteria for duration of incapacity and ongoing professional medical supervision, potentially placing a greater burden on employees to utilize standard sick leave policies for such situations.
