“Agreeing with other circuits, the panel held that the Family and Medical Leave Act does not require an employer to present contrary medical evidence before contesting a doctor’s certification of a serious health condition.”

💡 This ruling allows employers to dismiss medical certifications without obtaining their own medical opinions, undermining healthcare provider judgments.

“In any case in which the employer has reason to doubt the validity of the certification under § 2613(a), the employer may require that the employee, at the employer’s expense, obtain the opinion of a second or third health care provider or seek recertifications on a reasonable basis.”

💡 The statute gives employers the option to get second opinions but does not require it, allowing them to choose surveillance over medical validation.

“Over the course of three days, the investigator captured video evidence of Perez engaging in various activities without visible signs of difficulty or discomfort, including driving through town, gambling at a casino, performing repair work at his rental property, repeatedly lifting and holding both arms over his head, and carrying and using a power drill and other tools and equipment.”

💡 The company used surveillance footage of selective activities to challenge a physician’s medical certification without medical expert analysis.

“An employee later emailed management that one of Perez’s friends told the employee that Perez is faking a work related injury in order to take time off to work on personal business (fixing rental properties).”

💡 Barrick relied on third-hand gossip as justification for its aggressive investigation rather than medical evidence.

“Although Barrick policy requires employees to report all injuries and incidents immediately, Perez did not report the collision until the end of his shift, hours later.”

💡 The company used the reporting delay to cast doubt on whether the injury occurred at all, despite subsequent medical certification.

“Dr. Black, who treated Perez, found no outward signs of injury, no abnormalities in Perez’s X-rays, and that Perez’s heart and lungs were functioning normally. Nevertheless, based on Perez’s explanation of the accident and his resulting pain, Dr. Black diagnosed Perez with a chest wall contusion and muscle spasms, prescribed him a muscle relaxant, and certified that he was to remain off work for five days, pending a follow-up appointment.”

💡 A licensed physician made a clinical diagnosis based on patient history and examination, which the employer then chose to reject without contrary medical evidence.

“When Perez returned from leave, Barrick confronted Perez with the employee’s report and investigator’s findings. Perez responded that he had nothing to say. Barrick then fired Perez after concluding that he had faked his injury and violated company policy.”

💡 The worker’s silence when confronted was interpreted as grounds for termination rather than a reasonable response to an intimidating corporate investigation.

“The jury returned a verdict for Barrick, finding that Perez had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered a serious health condition preventing him from performing his job or that Barrick terminated his employment because he filed a worker’s compensation claim.”

💡 Despite a doctor’s certification, the jury sided with surveillance footage, placing the burden entirely on the injured worker to prove his condition.

“We do not read § 2613(c)(1) as requiring an employer to obtain a second opinion or else waive any future opportunity to contest the validity of the certification.”

💡 This precedent means employers can skip the medical review process and proceed directly to challenging certifications with non-medical evidence in court.

“The word ‘may’ is permissive. The plain language of the FMLA therefore merely provides an employer with the option to require a second or third opinion and seek recertification. It does not require an employer to provide contrary medical evidence if it doubts the validity of the original certification.”

💡 The court’s interpretation prioritizes employer discretion over medical professional judgment, weakening worker protections.

“The jury properly considered the non-medical evidence that Barrick offered at trial in support of its argument that Perez did not have a serious health condition within the meaning of the Act.”

💡 Laypeople on a jury were permitted to override a physician’s medical certification using surveillance footage and hearsay.

“The district court therefore did not err by failing to instruct the jury that only contrary medical evidence could defeat Perez’s doctor’s certification.”

💡 The appellate court validated the legal framework that allows employers to use any evidence type to challenge medical certifications.

“An employer may request recertification of a health care provider’s original certification for leave if the employer receives information that casts doubt upon the employee’s stated reason for the absence or the continuing validity of the certification.”

💡 This low bar for employer doubt, combined with permissive language about seeking medical opinions, creates wide latitude for challenging legitimate claims.

“All circuit courts to confront the issue have rejected Sims’s conclusion that an employer who requires a first certification from a physician is bound by those findings unless it seeks a second opinion.”

💡 Federal appellate courts nationwide have aligned to give employers maximum flexibility to challenge medical certifications without medical evidence.

“Because Perez claimed that he was still suffering severe pain from certain movements at the follow-up, Dr. Black certified Perez to remain off-work for another eleven days. Perez was approved to return to work eighteen days after the alleged accident, with no restrictions.”

💡 The physician’s clinical judgment about recovery timeline was disregarded in favor of surveillance footage showing brief activities during leave.