Comatose

paulb

I don't mean to sound cold but does anybody out there have a take on approving family leave to care for a family member in a coma. The key words are "care for", but if the family member is in a coma in a hospital being cared for, what more can the employee do? Know what I mean....

Whatever

The answer depends on the depth of the coma. If the coma is not extremely deep, it is believe that familiar stimuli can be helpful. This would include touching and talking. You have to get additional information.

marc

I agree with Whatever in that you need more information.

Know that "care" is loosely defined under the FMLA. It includes traditional meanings such as providing medical or hygenic care, or transporting the family member to and from the hospital, etc. But beyond that, the EE may qualify for leave if needed to provide psychological comfort and reassurance to the family member. Whatever mentioned the familiar external stimuli that is thought to help reach the coma victim. I would not be surprised if the doctor would certify the need for this EEs presence. In fact, it may even be necessary for the EEs good health, if not for the spouses good health.

I think you are stuck with this one. You could get a second opinion and a third to break the tie.

You know other EEs would get wind of this and the impact on morale and the appearance of the company as being cold and heartless would be supported by these actions.

Don D

Emotions aside, it is my opinion that if the person in the coma is in a hospital, being cared for by nursing staff, the employee's desire to 'keep a vigil' does not qualify. If the doctor states on the certification that the relative is needed to either care for or offer emotional support for a qualified dependant, it would.

HRGddss

I can't imagine that with whomever in the hospital in a coma your ee is going to be a whole lot of good to you regardless.

Don D

As I mentioned, emotions aside. It's one set of emotions to want to be there and want to allow the person to be there. The other set of emotions is that it will do no good anyway. The point though, is the law. If the doctor certifies the need for the person to be there, we don't have, nor should we have, the wiggle room to make medical assumptions. I agree that, as far as I know, the presence of the employee would probably not be beneficial to the patient. But what makes me think I have that correct? I may be totally wrong in that assumption. I'd go with the regulations and the medical certification.

deniseE

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 03-04-04 AT 10:21AM (CST)[/font][br][br]My Brother-in-Law was in a car accident at 15 that left him in a coma for quite some time (this was nearly 25 years ago)...the doctors advised that it would be helpful if the family could schedule as many close friends and family to visit regularly as possible because the doctors believed that Jack could hear and feel, even if he couldn't respond. So the family set up a schedule and they all took turns, reading him books,and papers, and just talking to him and holding his hand. In addition the family helped to excersize him (the muscles atrophy if not used) and while the nursing staff CAN do this...they have tons of other patients and only so many hours in the day...In the end, Jack woke up with a pretty good idea of who everyone was...and not needing as much physical therapy becuase the family took time to help him. There's no proof that NOT doing any of these things would have made a difference...but as others have said We're HR people, not doctors....

paulb

Thank you all for your responses... good insight... it's all good. In the end, there are the regs we must at least follow so yes the medical certification is the ultimate deciding factor, unless of course the employer has a more liberal policy. Well we don't... but, good news.. the spouse came out of it and our ee is already back on the job! Thanks again!!