In Woodman v. Miesel Sysco Food Serv. Co., a case of first impression, the Michigan Court of Appeals concluded that an employee’s notice, via telephone, was sufficient as a matter of law to put his employer on notice that he might qualify for Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave. Moreover, although subsequent tests revealed that the employee did not have a serious heart condition, the Court concluded that the employee’s absence qualified under the FMLA because a health care provider prescribed an extended absence from work after the employee’s emergency room visit.

During a delivery, James Woodman, a unionized truck driver for Miesel Sysco Food Service Company, began experiencing chest pains. Woodman advised Miesel’s dispatcher of his symptoms, finished unloading his truck, returned to the plant and drove himself to the emergency room. He was released later that day after a physical exam and an EKG revealed no apparent heart damage. He was instructed, however, not to return to work until after he had a stress test, which was scheduled approximately ten days later.

Later that evening, Woodman informed Miesel’s dispatcher that he was going to be off work on a medical leave until the stress test was administered and called again as a reminder the next day. Shortly thereafter, he discussed insurance issues and his absence from work with human resources employees. Woodman did not, however, provide his written medical discharge to Miesel until approximately 10 days after his hospital examination.

Ultimately, Woodman’s test revealed no heart conditions. Miesel, however, had already terminated Woodman’s employment for violating two collective bargaining agreement rules: (1) unauthorized unexcused absenteeism; and (2) an absence of 3 successive days without written medical notification.

Woodman sued Miesel for violating the FMLA, among other claims. The trial court found that Miesel violated the FMLA as a matter of law and awarded Woodman $59,331.94 in damages, attorney fees and ordered reinstatement to his "original position."

On appeal, Miesel argued that Woodman failed to give adequate notice of his need for an unpaid leave of absence as required by the FMLA. Miesel also argued that Woodman did not have a serious heart condition. Rejecting Miesel’s argument and affirming the trial court, the Court reasoned: "Given [Miesel’s] awareness of the events leading to [Woodman’s] emergency room visit, [Woodman’s] telephone calls to Miesel’s dispatch and its insurance and human resources departments constituted adequate notice as a matter of law and indicated to [Miesel] that the medical condition might be serious or that the FMLA otherwise could be applicable."

One Judge dissented holding that because the FMLA is silent regarding notice for unforeseen leave, employers and employees are free to bargain for a time limit, which was done on Woodman’s behalf by his union. Accordingly, the dissenting Judge would have reversed the trial court and affirmed Miesel’s right to terminate Woodman under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement.

Although the Woodman was a 2 to 1 decision, employers should note the facts and outcome in Woodman as they assess whether an employee’s communication about a potential serious medical condition has triggered the FMLA. Once circumstances suggest that an employee may qualify for FMLA leave, employers would be wise to inquire further into the matter. Employers who fail to provide specific written requests for medical certification may not take action against the employee for failure to provide medical certification. Moreover, when the leave is unforeseeable, the employer must allow at least 15 days after its request for the employee to provide certification.

To discuss any questions or related issues, please feel free to contact Megan P. Norris in Detroit, at (313)496-7594, email: norris@millercanfield.com; or Adam S. Forman in Detroit, at (313)496-7654, email: forman@millercanfield.com. This message is for general information only and should not be used as a basis for specific action without obtaining further legal advice.