(a) For purposes of FMLA, serious health condition entitling an employee to FMLA leave means an illness, injury, impairment or physical or mental condition that involves inpatient care as defined in § 825.114 or continuing treatment by a health care provider as defined in § 825.115.
(b) The term incapacity means inability to work, attend school or perform other regular daily activities due to the serious health condition, treatment therefore, or recovery therefrom.
(c) The term treatment includes (but is not limited to) examinations to determine if a serious health condition exists and evaluations of the condition. Treatment does not include routine physical examinations, eye examinations, or dental examinations. A regimen of continuing treatment includes, for example, a course of prescription medication (e.g., an antibiotic) or therapy requiring special equipment to resolve or alleviate the health condition (e.g., oxygen). A regimen of continuing treatment that includes the taking of over-the-counter medications such as aspirin, antihistamines, or salves; or bed-rest, drinking fluids, exercise, and other similar activities that can be initiated without a visit to a health care provider, is not, by itself, sufficient to constitute a regimen of continuing treatment for purposes of FMLA leave.
(d) Conditions for which cosmetic treatments are administered (such as most treatments for acne or plastic surgery) are not serious health conditions unless inpatient hospital care is required or unless complications develop. Ordinarily, unless complications arise, the common cold, the flu, ear aches, upset stomach, minor ulcers, headaches other than migraine, routine dental or orthodontia problems, periodontal disease, etc., are examples of conditions that do not meet the definition of a serious health condition and do not qualify for FMLA leave. Restorative dental or plastic surgery after an injury or removal of cancerous growths are serious health conditions provided all the other conditions of this regulation are met. Mental illness or allergies may be serious health conditions, but only if all the conditions of this section are met.
Notes of Decisions
Navarro Pomares v. Pfizer Corp., 261 F.3d 90 (1st Cir. 2001).
· cites it 9× “See 29 C.F.R. § 825.113 (c)(2). Some perplexing difficulties lurk in the shadows cast by this cross-reference, including questions about the extent to which the EEOC’s informal interpretations of the borrowed definitions are binding in the FMLA context.”
Jeffrey Bonkowski v. Oberg Indus. Inc, 787 F.3d 190 (3rd Cir. 2015).
· cites it 8× “114 , which defines the terms “inpatient care” as “an overnight stay in a hospital, hospice, or residential medical facility, including any period of incapacity as defined in 29 C.F.R. § 825.113 (b), or any subsequent treatment in connection with such inpatient care.”
Dighello v. Thurston Foods, Inc., 307 F. Supp. 3d 5 (D. Conn. 2018).
· cites it 5× “See also 29 C.F.R. § 825.113 (a). 9 Notice must, therefore, *16 reference or describe such a serious health condition to place an employer on notice of FMLA leave.”
Pollard v. New York Methodist Hosp., 861 F.3d 374 (2d Cir. 2017).
· cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 825.113 (c). “Incapacity” is defined as “inability to work, attend school or perform other regular daily activities due to serious health condition, treatment therefore, or recovery therefrom.”
Kendrick Johnson v. Wheeling Mach. Prods., 779 F.3d 514 (8th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 3× “” 29 C.F.R. § 825.113 (a) (2010). Johnson claims that he has a serious health condition under the “continuing treatment” prong of the regulations.”
Martin v. Brevard Cnty. Pub. Schs., 543 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 2× “" 29 C.F.R. § 825.113 (c)(3). We cannot agree with the district court that no reasonable jury could find that Martin stood in loco parentis to Hannah while he was on FMLA leave.”
Patrick Hurley v. Kent of Naples, Inc., 746 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2014).
· cites it 4× “” 29 C.F.R. § 825.113 . 5 Case: 13-10298 Date Filed: 03/20/2014 Page: 6 of 20 Hurley did not have any period of incapacity.”
Novak v. MetroHealth Med. Ctr., 503 F.3d 572 (6th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 825.113 (c)(2). In other words, an employee may take FMLA leave to care for an adult child only if that child is "disabled" for purposes of the ADA.”
Spurling v. C & M Fine Pack, Inc., 739 F.3d 1055 (7th Cir. 2014).
“]” 29 C.F.R. § 825.113 (a). The latter phrase would likely qualify Spurling under the FMLA, so long as she alerted her employer to the seriousness of her health condi *1063 tion.”
Hodges v. Dist. of Columbia, 959 F. Supp. 2d 148 (D.D.C. 2013).
· cites it 2× “§ 2611 (11); 29 C.F.R. § 825.113 (a). The requirement that a condition involve “continuing treatment” can be met by a showing of, among other things, “[incapacity and treatment,” “[c]hronic conditions,” or “[e]onditions re *156 quiring multiple treatments.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.113(a) — 1 case
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.113(b) — 5 cases
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.113(c) — 3 cases
— 29 C.F.R. § 825.113(d) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.