The case of Deborah HANSLER v. LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL NETWORK shows how employers can get in trouble with FMLA regulations even where an employee provides an insufficient medical notice.
Deborah Hansler was hired by Lehigh Valley Health Network in 2011 as a technical partner. In early March 2013 she experienced shortness of breath, nausea, and vomiting from an unknown cause.
On March 13 Hansler's physician completed a medical certification form requesting intermittent leave at a frequency of two times weekly starting March 1 and lasting for a probable duration of one month. Because of her condition, Hansler could not work on March 13, 14, 23, 24, and 25.
Without seeking further information about the medical certification from either Hansler or her physician, Lehigh Valley terminated Hansler at the end of her shift on March 28. The basis for termination was absenteeism, including the five March days she missed.
Hansler reminded the employer she had requested leave under the FMLA, but Lehigh Valley informed her for the first time that her request had been denied. After her dismissal, Hansler was diagnosed with diabetes and high blood pressure, and she alleges those previously undiagnosed conditions caused her March absences.
The district court dismissed Hansler's FMLA claims, concluding the certification was defective because it showed the condition would last only one month, while the court believed a chronic serious health condition must persist for an extended period. The court held that because the certification showed Hansler was not entitled to leave, the employer need not afford a cure period before terminating her.
On appeal the court summarized the law around FMLA notices and emphasized that a “serious health condition” typically involves inpatient care or continuing treatment by a health-care provider.
The Department of Labor regulations govern how employers must respond to perceived deficiencies in medical certifications. An employer must advise an employee whenever it finds a certification incomplete or insufficient and must state in writing what additional information is necessary to make the certification complete and sufficient.
If the employer determines a certification is incomplete or insufficient, it may deny leave on that basis only after providing the employee seven calendar days (unless impracticable under the circumstances) to cure the deficiency.
The appellate court also stated that a later diagnosis does not make a difference to whether a medical certification was insufficient at the time it was submitted. The cure period exists because an employee's physician may need additional time to provide the specific elements of a sufficient certification, including medical facts, probable duration, planned treatment, and details about intermittent leave.
The dissent:
In dissent, one judge argued the majority had fashioned a new rule to help an unfortunate employee and that, when leave is requested, the crucial moment for determining FMLA entitlement is the time the leave is requested or taken. The dissent saw Hansler's certificate as complete and accurate for the facts known then and not as deficient information that required cure.
The dissent also warned that the majority's approach could expose employers to interference claims whenever an employee's diagnosis changes after a leave request, placing a novel burden on employers who reasonably rely on completed medical certifications.
Response to the dissent:
The majority clarified that treating a certification as “insufficient” under the regulation does not mean every later-diagnosed condition creates an automatic claim. It means that when a certification is vague, ambiguous, or nonresponsive, the employer must give the employee the required opportunity to cure the deficiency within seven days.
The practical takeaway for employers is simple: when denying an FMLA request based on an incomplete or insufficient certification, explain what is missing in writing and allow the employee a reasonable cure period before taking adverse action.
The discussion in this case also points out an unaddressed issue in the record: no ADA accommodation claim was raised, even though the later diagnosis might have implicated disability protections under that statute.
For related industry insurance information, see Health Care/Staffing Lines Insurance.
For additional context on employer compliance efforts and risk management, consider industry products such as Medical Waste/Refuse Haulers Insurance Program and Curing (Meat, Fish & Seafood) Insurance.
Practice pointer: no matter the quality of the FMLA Notice Requesting Leave, if the employer intends to deny leave it should explain why and provide a reasonable period to address any insufficiency. If you need help interpreting employer obligations or next steps, you can talk to an agent.
Frequently Asked Questions
What must an employer do if a medical certification seems incomplete?
If a certification is incomplete or insufficient, the employer must notify the employee in writing, state what information is missing, and give the employee seven calendar days to cure the deficiency unless circumstances make that impracticable.
Can an employer deny leave if the certification shows the condition is short-term?
An employer may deny leave if the certification, as submitted, shows the employee does not meet the statutory criteria, but if the certification is vague or insufficient the employer must first offer the opportunity to cure under the regulations.
Does a later medical diagnosis always change an earlier certification outcome?
A later diagnosis can be relevant, but employers are judged on the information available when the leave request was considered; insufficient or ambiguous certifications should be clarified before adverse action.
Should employers consider other laws like the ADA when handling leave requests?
Yes. Leave, discipline, and accommodation issues can overlap, and employers should consider whether accommodation obligations under other laws might apply alongside FMLA obligations.