Advertising Disclosure Email Disclosure

Plaintiff’s failure to seek treatment for her alleged serious medical condition required dismissal of her FMLA claims.

October 18, 2013
Criscitello v. MHM Services, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112470 (M.D. Pa., 8/9/13)

The plaintiff alleged that her former employer interfered with her rights pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act when it denied her FMLA leave and retaliated against her when it terminated her employment. The plaintiff alleged that she suffered from a serious health condition for which she was receiving ongoing medical treatment. Specifically, she alleged that—although she was neither a doctor nor a nurse practitioner at the time—she diagnosed herself with anxiety and depression in October 2008 and requested FMLA leave on three occasions during this month. She alleged that her leave requests were denied and her employment was thereafter terminated. The plaintiff did not receive any medical treatment at the time she allegedly requested FMLA leave. Rather, she first sought treatment more than one month after her alleged leave, and her doctor never diagnosed her with the anxiety and depression that she premised her FMLA leave request upon. In rejecting her claim, the court noted that “a serious health condition must exist at the time leave is requested.” In so holding, the court rejected the plaintiff’s assertion that she intended to seek medical treatment, noting that the “[p]laintiff has pointed to no case law, and the court is unaware of any, that has found a serious medical condition to exist upon the bare assertion of [an] employee’s intent to seek medical treatment.” Notwithstanding the fundamental flaws of the plaintiff’s FMLA claim, the court further determined that the plaintiff’s failure to return to see her doctor “leads this court to the conclusion that no continuing treatment took place.” Accordingly, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s FMLA interference claim and held that the plaintiff’s failure to sustain an interference claim “compels the logical conclusion that she cannot make out a prima facie case for retaliation.”

Case Law Alert, 4th Quarter 2013

Affiliated Attorney

Lee C. Durivage
Shareholder
(215) 575-2584
lcdurivage@mdwcg.com

Practice Areas

Before you send this email please note:

You are attempting to send email, through a link on our website, to an attorney of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin or an employee in our firm. Please note that your email may not be treated as confidential and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should not rely upon the transmission of an email through this website if you are seeking to enter into such a relationship. Until such time as we have agreed to represent you, no information in your email will be treated as confidential. Please contact us directly by telephone at 1.800.220.3308 if it is your intent to seek legal counsel with our firm or convey confidential information.

If it is still your intent to send this email, knowing that it may not be treated as confidential, you may accept our terms of agreement by pressing "OK". If you choose not to accept these terms of agreement you may navigate away from this page by pressing "Cancel."