False FMLA certification

kpiccoli · June 2003

My staff and I are outraged by an employee's and doctor's lies. Over a year ago
an employee told us her husband was diagnosed with cancer and didn't have long to live. She requested intermittent FMLA to care for him and provided a doctor's medical certification. The husband is still alive one year later and when we requested medical recertification we found out that the husband of the employee does not have cancer but has aids. The doctor refused to lie again on the recertification and wrote that husband has fatal illness. Employee told us that he has aids. Employee told us that husband did not want us to know he had aids and she did not want to be embarrassed by this. What steps should we take? Should we terminate the employee for falsifying FMLA documents? What recoruse do we have with doctor?

CAL · June 2003

In my state (CA), we are not allowed to inquire of the actual diagnosis when determining leave status, so making a decision based on that information would be company suicide.

So, let me ask you this - does it make a difference to you which fatal illness the gentleman has? Would you not have granted the FMLA if you knew it was AIDS rather than cancer? Maybe you have an issue of false documentation with the doctor, but I'm not so sure that "outrage" against the employee is appropriate - the name of her husband's illness is none of your beeswax, only the fact that he requires her care and comfort. Be very, very careful and consult with an attorney before taking ANY action against the employee.

lnelson · June 2003

I agree with CAL. I am also in CA. and the only issue you have is with the doctor stating cancer on the initial report again he did not have to state what the disease was only that it was a serious health condition. How far do you want to take this? It should still be FMLA A.I.D.S or CANCER.

LindaS · June 2003

I agree with both of the above posts. The DOL FMLA form (and all other FMLA forms I have seen) do NOT ask for a specific diagnosis but rather the medical facts surrounding the condition and both conditions in question are FMLA qualifying. Did you, as the employer, request the diagnostic information on your form because if you did, you should have that changed immediately. As far as terming the employee due to this "falsification", I would NOT recommend this because you would be basing your decision on information you should not have in the first place. As far as the physician, although I do not advocate falsification of information (if that is what you want to call it), I can understand the reasons behind his following the patient's request and as long as the basic medical facts are the same, he provided the information he requested.

sonny · June 2003

I agree with the others. Pick your battles. I would not pick this one.

Don D · June 2003

On the other hand, if you really would like to make their life comfortable (if that is possible given his condition), fire her for providing a falsely worded document and watch them go to the bank to deposit roughly a third of your company's assets.

PAhr · June 2003

I agree with the above posts but I will put a different spin on it. Most victims of AIDS eventually end up with Carposis Sarcoma (?) which is a rare form of cancer that usually only happens to people with AIDS. Technically the certification wasn't incorrect as eventually this person will, in all likelyhood, develope the cancer and will most likely lead to his death. AIDS victims never actually die of AIDS, they die due to complications from AIDS. Cancer, pnemonia or even the common cold or flu due to the weakened immune system are the most common reasons for death. A death certificate of an AIDS victim usually states a primary reason for death (cancer, etc...) and secondary complications from AIDS. Be gentle with this employee. She is losing her husband and most likely dealing with the stigma associated with this disease. Face it, you yourself are probably thinking there is a good chance she has it as well. Allow her to have some dignity and just leave this one alone. Do you want to be the big, bad employer that fired a woman who just wanted to keep her private life private?

Rockie · June 2003

>On the other hand, if you really would like to make their life
>comfortable (if that is possible given his condition), fire her for
>providing a falsely worded document and watch them go to the bank to
>deposit roughly a third of your company's assets.

...As well as some of your own.

Don D · June 2003

I agree with PAhr and thank him/her for the thoughtful response. Upon going back now to re-read the original post, I have an extremely uncomfortable feeling about the motive/mindset of the HR staff at the company. I have a problem with your being 'outraged'. I have a problem with 'your staff' being outraged. I have a problem with 'your staff' even being in the know about this. I have a problem with the statement, "The husband is still alive one year later...", and my inference is that he should be dead by now in the opinion of 'the staff'; afterall 'she told us he did not have long to live'. I have a problem with the accusation that the doctor 'lied' and the additional statement that, 'The doctor refused to lie again....and wrote that husband has fatal illness.' I have a problem with your not understanding in the first place the emotional plane this employee exists on and your dismissing the notion that she and he wanted to keep this thing private and 'didn't want to be embarassed by this'. I have a problem with your desire to terminate the employee and to take 'recourse with the doctor'. Now, I am prepared for you to respond that those are not the things you meant to say at all and that's not at all what you meant and I totally misunderstood.....But, that's what you said. In the scheme of things, everything taken in context, with consideration for the employee and her life and that of the husband, the word the doctor entered on your FMLA form is of absolutely no importance whatsoever. Just my thoughts.

Hunter1 · June 2003

Whoa! Let's slow down here just a little bit. The original poster has received some good advice, and certainly can show some compassion for the employee, spouse, and the situation in general. BUT, there was no need for the doctor or the employee to lie. All that either one of them had to claim/certify was a serious health condition. I doubt that the poster's certification form requests a diagnosis, however, doctors have routinely included that information because it is the easiest way to convince us that it is, in fact, a serious health condition, but if they're going to lie about it, then we can't trust any of the certifications. I share some of the poster's concern about that.

Whatever · June 2003

Yes, they lied. However, even in this day and age, there are people who are "uncomfortable" being around those with Aids and/or their caregivers. I would try to be as understanding and supportive as possible.

ritaanz · June 2003

OMG. What sort of organization are you? A mortuary? You are lucky Don got in his comments before I did. I would not have been as gentle. Plueeese, give that poor woman some emotional support AND make very certain that the information you and your staff have is kept confidential. Put yourself in her shoes for just a day.

Don D · June 2003

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 06-11-03 AT 08:17AM (CST)[/font][p]Hunter: I make no assumptions about what the employer's form does or does not ask for. It is apparent in the post that the staff EXPECTED a diagnoses (edit sp) and was miffed when they learned it was a bit off center as they viewed it. Staff in an HR department have no business dissecting a medical doctor's use of diagnostic literature. Several have pointed out to us very gently that AIDS does in fact become or lead to cancer, from what I understand. I'm sure the doctor knew what he was doing. My point is that it matters not one twit whether he used Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome or Cancer in his remark on the form. What's important is that he provided information adequate to get the leave request approved, which is the purpose of the whole exercise. The purpose of the exercise is not to gain information sufficient to allow an HR department to gossip or bandy information about loosely. Nor is it's purpose to 'satisfy' an HR Manager by using certain terms. Medical doctors have review boards and codes of ethics and oversight bodies, and those don't include HR Departments. If the man had falsely misled us by entering totally bogus information indicating someone was sick who was not, now that would have been a lie. My other post still stands. If the poster worked in my Department, she would be on probation.

HRPeg · June 2003

It's a sad day when it is the HR dept that is in need of sensitivity training, esp. when all this case needs is just your run of the mill, everyday compassion...

PAhr · June 2003

This may be a little off base but why is the original poster assuming that the doctor and employee lied. It is possible that this employee's husband initially showed signs of cancer, later confirmed, filled out the FMLA paperwork only to run more tests and find out that the patient had AIDS as well. The poster never indicated that they requested re-certification at any time during the last year and I can't imagine that she would want to run right in and offer up this news. How many times do we hear stories about people being miss diagnosed or other illness that are detected throughout the course of treatment? I think you are way out on a limb to jump to the conclusion that there was any deception going on here. My bottom line would be that both conditions qualify and leave it at that.

pmrPA · June 2003

The employee had no obligation to inform you of the nature of the illness, nor did the physician. If a proper FMLA request form was filled out by both the employee and the physician there was no need to put a diagnosis on the form, only a certification that the employee was needed to provide intermittent care for her spouse. I sense an underlying antipathy towards this employee. Was she a problem employee who had a past history of absenteeism?

Don D · June 2003

I'M CERTAIN THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE CASES, but there are some folks, employers, religions, groups, families, etc who still think AIDS is God's revenge for certain chosen lifestyles, and I can't honestly say I didn't toy with that conclusion myself ten or fifteen years ago. But, if I did, I matured beyond it and view it now as I do any other life threatening illness. Again, I'm certain this is not the case, but there are some who also extend their logic and judgement to anyone living with the individual, whom they assume also has the illness and participated in a 'wrong lifestyle' and therefore is somehow problematic and to be avoided and ostracized, which by the way grants them immediate ADA coverage, even if not affected. I'm not pretending to be any kind of AIDS spokesperson and actually know very little about it. I'm talking about human behaviors here that are a result of pityful minds at work, those of the people who would mistreat or misjudge people affected by the illness. I must say, once more, if this were my department and I heard the mere mention of AIDS once more in the department, somebody or some group of somebodys would be on immediate probation if not suspension. But, for the third time, I'm sure this is not the case here.

Just as my HR Assistant needed a kind word and a large hug a couple of weeks ago, this employee needs compassion and a caserole or two.

System · June 2003

Man, my ears are still burning from this one. I can see everyone's point of view here and some excellent advise has been given. However, in defense of the original poster, maybe she/he is new at her/his position and was simply not sure of the legal implications of FMLA and was taking the information which was submitted at face value and was simply asking for input from those who might be more knowledgeable of FMLA. I'm sure the original poster has learned, like we all do, to do a little more research before assuming the worst about information that is provided. Allowing dignity to anyone with such hardship goes beyond the normal "gut reaction."

PAhr · June 2003

Yes, we may have been a little hard on him/her. At least he/she had enough sense to ask first rather than ask later. I guess I just took it a little to far because I could just see this poor woman going through all this heartache and stigma just to see an employer who is only concerened is about how they MAY have been lied to. No wonder HR has a bad reputation sometimes.

System · June 2003

Have to agree with you on this one. HR is a tough area and sometimes such attitudes as those expressed do give HR a bad name. I have to say that I am thankful for the forum and for those who share info - good and bad. That's how we all learn. I do admire a good many who respond - you, Don, Pork and numerous others. Glad ya'll do respond and share. Thanks to all of you.

System · June 2003

I think one of the hardest things to deal with is being lied to. The original poster was probably reacting to that. Unfortunatly lying is one of the things HR people come across more than most.
I remember when I first started this job ( a mere 3.5 years ago) I was soooo idealistic. I was here to help people , give them jobs and benefits, take care of their boo-boos when they got injured on the job, listen to their grievances etc., etc..I never suspected that I would be taken advantage of. I still do all those things but with a grain, or two, of salt
People are going to protect themselves, especially in the circumstance of a stigmatised illness. In this case HR folks need to step back and look at the whole picture before reacting to a percieved injustice.
To the original poster- I've noticed that you have stayed away from this post. I wouldn't back away from this forum because of the reaction you got from your posting. There is a lot to be learned here and some incredible advice.

False FMLA certification

Comments