Search
RSS
Subscribe

Enter your email address to receive new posts in your inbox:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Share

Like what you see? Share!

Twitter
Verrill Dana, LLP

Verrill Dana, LLP is one of New England's preeminent regional law firms. With offices in Portland and Augusta, ME; Boston, MA; Westport, CT; Providence, RI; and Washington D.C. Verrill Dana provides sophisticated legal representation to businesses and individuals in the traditional areas of litigation, real estate, business law, labor and employment law, employee benefits, environmental law, intellectual property and estate planning.  The Firm also has industry-focused specialties including higher education, health care and health technology, energy, and timberlands. 

Disclaimer:  The content presented in this blog is for general information only, is not intended to constitute legal advice and cannot be relied upon by any person as legal advice. While we welcome you to contact our blog authors at hrlawupdate@verrilldana.com, the submission of a comment or question does not create an attorney-client relationship between the Firm and you. 

Tuesday
Mar032015

Who Signed that Doctor's Note?

The 8th Circuit recently held that the FLSA’s “continuing treatment” requirement means more than just walking into a clinic and leaving with a prescription. In Johnson v. Wheeling Mach, Prods. (8th Cir. No. 13-3786 Feb. 20, 2015) the employer terminated the Plaintiff after violations of the company attendance policy. The Plaintiff claimed interference with his FMLA rights because he left work early with a headache, blurred vision, stiff neck, and back pain. Upon leaving work, the Plaintiff claims he visited a walk-in clinic where a physician’s assistant, whom he had never met, diagnosed him with high blood pressure and gave him a prescription. 

The court held that the FMLA regulations do not allow for protected leave after a single visit combined with a course of medications. Instead, under the FMLA, the treatment must be under the “supervision” of the plaintiff’s healthcare provider. The record showed that the physician’s assistant was not the Plaintiff’s regular health care provider and the P.A. never asked the Plaintiff to follow up on his condition. Therefore, the Plaintiff was not “under a regimen of continuing treatment under the supervisions of a health care provider.” 

Dealing with a  tricky FMLA issue? Join us on March 19, for a complimentary Seminar/Webinar!

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

« CELEBRATE GOOD TIMES….COME ON…IT’S A CELEBRATION: DOL Issues Final Rule on Definition of “Spouse” | Main | Department of Labor's Model Family Medical Leave Act Forms Set to Expire March 31, 2015 »