FMLA Qualified?

Hunter1

First, let me say that in WI, we have this provision in our state FMLA called 'substitution' which allows an employee to substitute ANY accrued paid leave for family leave, so practically any FMLA leave turns out to be paid. (Especially since we have a generous sick leave plan.)

We have an employee whose spouse has a documented serious health condition (foot surgery requiring hospitalization) within the last year. This individual has underlying diabetes. Now, he needs to have a vision exam where his eyes will have to be dialated and our employee is asking to take FMLA, and substitute her sick leave so she gets paid, for the vision exam. Would you say the vision appointment qualifies for FMLA? Here's what is confusing me: both the foot problem and the vision problem MAY (ee hasn't said so) very well be related to the underlying diabetes.

What say you?

POPEYE

If you receive documentation that it was necessary for your EE to provide care/transportation ect. for the spouse's serious health condition, then yes I would say that this would qualify for FML.

Don D

I agree with spinach-man. It is terribly difficult, almost impossible to drive oneself home after the procedure. I did it recently and it seemed like an eternity with sand in my eyes. I would rather have taken a beating. What's the temp Hunter?

Hunter1

It's a balmy 24 degrees here. Fortunately, we're not experiencing the bone chilling weather the Northeast is.
The reason I posed this question is that we have consistently denied FML for medical tests; colonoscopy, for example, and lacking the background in this case, we'd deny this one, too. We do not question the necessity of having someone take the patient to the exam, but most of the time the test is negative, so no serious health condition exists. In this case, our employee has vacation, compensatory time, and two floating holidays to use, but why should she use that time when she can use sick time which has a cap?

jessicah

You do not know for sure without medical certification that the eye condition is related to the same health condition (diabetes) causing the other problems. Therefore, the absence wouldn't be FMLA related. If the ee can prove through medical certfication that the eye problem is a result of diabetes, then the visit to the dr. would be covered.

Of course no one can drive after havig their eyes dialated, but simply having an eye exam does not constitute a serious health condition. The time would simply be regular sick leave or vaction or personal time, but not FMLA.

mushroomHR

I know this might not be a nice thing to say, but my experience has been that a doctor will certify almost anything as FML qualified and I have no recourse. This has happened to me many times but short of getting a second opinion there isn't much that can be done. Anyone else have this problem?

Don D

I guess I'm still analyzing this whole scenario differently from others. If the employee takes some sort of leave she is going to be paid anyway, so what difference does it make if the leave substituted is sick leave? And what's with this hesitancy to certify it as FMLA. The employee is going to be gone from work and it is to the employer's advantage to burn employee FMLA days so that they disappear. It doesn't seem to reward the employee as much as it seems to benefit the employer to charge it to FMLA. She'll have one less FMLA day to take later. I believe in applying the 'concurrency principal' wherever and wnenever possible.

And remember, doctors do not determine or certify FMLA. Doctors certify medical necessities; the employer determines whether or not it is FML.

Hunter1

If every employee gets to take their sick leave every time a member of their family has a medical appointment, we'll never have a work force present. Most employees don't use their FML each year, so I generally don't see the advantage of trying to burn every employee's entitlement. I'd rather give them FML only for a serious health condition, and have the remainder of the work force understand that those are the rules.