Hey, there! Log in / Register
Court: Hospital has right to fire worker who accompanies husband on seven-week spritual pilgrimage
By adamg on Thu, 01/27/2011 - 4:40pm
A federal appeals court ruled today Lahey Clinic had the right to dismiss a worker who accompanied her husband on a seven-week trip to the Philippines for a series of "healing pilgrimages" for a serious heart ailment and other medical problems.
After her firing, Maria Tayag had sued the Burlington hospital under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, which lets workers take time off to help sick family members. The act normally requires a doctor's certification, but Tayag argued that her husband's visits with Catholic priests in the Philippines was no different than leave granted under the law to Christian Scientists, who do not have to show a doctor's note because they don't believe in medicine.
But in its decision, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston said Tayag's husband was Catholic, not a Christian Scientist, and therefore needed to show a doctor recommended the trip:
Even if a court felt free to impose such an extension without legislation, it would do Tayag no good: she does not claim that [her husband]'s religion forbids ordinary medical care, and she has already taken FMLA leave a number of times to assist him in connection with receiving such care.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Hmm...
Sounds like there was some abuse in terms of the treatment probably not being deemed necessary by any sort of professional; you can't use FMLA for going to a warmer climate or going to a retreat or something, even if recommended by a professional, since it has to be active treatment rather than just wellness stuff.
Still, I get concerned when courts are ruling on what types of treatment are considered valid medical treatments. I don't think someone should have to be completely opposed to traditional western medicine in order to attend appointments with an alternative practitioner (once-in-a-while hour-long appointments being completely different from taking several days of FLMA, of course.) Where does the court draw the line as to what kinds of treatments are valid? As long as they're not hurting anyone and the individual is informed, people should be able to go to providers who aren't yet able to get a license and bill insurance. Every type of treatment started out as experimental and non-mainstream once.
There was a bit more to the ruling
The ruling actually has two parts; I focused on what I thought was the more interesting one. In addition to the faith-healing issue, the court also addressed the need for the woman to care for her husband for seven weeks.
As allowed under FMLA (at least, according to what the ruling says; I wouldn't know an FMLA if it bit me), Lahey had a provision allowing it to get a second medical opinion when it wasn't satisfied that the guy's doctor had given a good enough reason to warrant a seven-week leave. So they talked to the guy's cardiologist:
Line-drawing
Re: "Where does the court draw the line as to what kinds of treatments are valid?"
The statute's reasonably clear about that - services need to be provided by "a doctor of medicine or osteopathy who is authorized to practice medicine or surgery (as appropriate) by the State in which the doctor practices." A priest in the Philippines doesn't count.
Would have been interesting if plaintiff had brought the case under religious discrimination grounds - that she needed a religious accommodation under Title VII, not a medical accommodation.